BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
        RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT




       SUBTITLE C -  HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
        SECTION 3004  -  STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO




       OWNERS AND OPERATORS  OF  HAZARDOUS WASTE




     TREATMENT, STORAGE,  AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                  PARTS  264  AND 265




        SUBPART B - GENERAL  FACILITY STANDARDS
       SECTION 264.14    STANDARDS FOR SECURITY




SECTION 265.14   INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR SECURITY
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY




                OFFICE OF  SOLID WASTE




                           29,  1980

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                Paqe
FOREWORD	    iv

INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION  	     1

    I.  RCRA Authority for the Regulation	     1

   II.  Damage Cases   	     2

  III.  State Regulations 	     3

ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR SECURITY,
  ORGANIZED BY SUBJECT	,	     7

  I.  Subject:  CONTROLLED ACCESS 	     8

    A.  Summary of Proposed Standards  .....  	     8

    B.  Rationale for the Proposed Standards   	     8

    C.  Summary of and Response to Comments	11

        Issue #1:  Design vs. general performance
                   standards	   11

        Issue #2:  Exemptxohs to the requirements for
                   controlled access   	   13

        Issue #3:  The requirement for a six foot
                   fence	   17

        Issue #4:  The security requirements at the
                   entrance  to the active portion of
                   a facility	   20

        Issue #5:  New vs.  existing facilities	   22

        Issue f6:  Special  requirements for urban areas ...   24

    D.   Final Regulation Language 	   25

   II.   Subject:   SIGNS	   27

        A.   Summary of Proposed Standard  	   27

        B.   Rationale for the Proposed Standard	   27

        C.   Summary and Response  to  Comments	29

-------
        Issue #1:  The requirement for
                   bxlinguai signs  	   29

        Issue #2:  The content of the signs	   30

        Issue #3:  The placement of the signs ........   32

        D.   Final Regulation Language 	   34

   III. Subject:  GENERAL COMMENTS  	   35

        Issue #1:  Special Waste Facilities 	   35

        Issue #2:  Interaction with the Regional
                   Administrator  	   39

        Issue #3:  Integration with the U.S. Coast
                   Guard's waterfront facility
                   regulations	   39

        Issue #4:  Integration with EPA's SPCC Plan	   40

References   	   42

Appendix I  State Regulations  	   43

Appendix II  Final Regulation Language  	   44

-------
                            FOREWORD




      This is one of a series of documents providing support




 and background information for regulations issued under




 Section 3004 of the Resource. Conservation and Recovery Act




 (RCRA).  This Background Document is divided into two parts.




 The first part contains introductory material which addresses




 the Congressional authority for the regulation,  key definitions




 used in the regulation,  examples of damage incidents which




 illustrate the need for the regulation, and a description of




 precedents set for the regulation by state and/or other Federal




 statutes.   The second part of this document describes the




 regulation as originally proposed, summarizes and responds




 to comments received that relate to the proposed regulation,




 and indicates the Agency's rationale for the final regulation.




      On December 18, 1978, in §250.43-2 of the RCRA Section




 3004 regulations,  the Agency proposed standards  for security




 at hazardous waste facilities.   As specified in  §250.40(c)(2)(i)




 of the  proposed rules,  the. proposed §250.43-2 standards also




 applied to facilities with interim status.   This document




•addresses  these proposed security standards.




      The text of the final standards for security is contained




 in Appendix II of this document.
                               IV

-------
                            - 1 -

INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION

I.   RCRA Authority for the Regulation

     In Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal

Act, as substantially amended by the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C.  §§6901

et seq., the Congress of the United States mandates the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to

establish such standards for hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities as may be necessary to pro-

tect human health and the environment.  Performance standards

which include the control of access to hazardous waste

facilities certainly are authorized by Section 3004 of RCRA.

     The discussion of "open dumps" in the House Report on

RCRA,1 describes the potential hazards of "open dumping".*

These hazards include harm to the environment (e.g., from

fire and injury to people who enter these disposal sites

without authorization)-^  The Legislative History describes

an incident in which several Indian children were injured

while playing at a dump.3  Clearly, if such incidents are

to be prevented, access to solid waste facilities must be

controlled.

     To fully comply with the Section 3004 mandate to promul-

gate standards which will protect human health and the envi-

ronment, EPA believes that regulations are necessary which
* Although the House Report's discussion on "open dumps" deals
  with solid waste, because hazardous waste is a subset of
  solid waste, the discussion applies here.

-------
                             - 2 -

will ensure that access to hazardous waste management  faci-

lities is controlled.  EPA is promulgating these regulations

jointly under the authority  of Section  3004 and under  Section

2002(a)(l) of RCRA, which authorizes the Administrator to

"prescribe...such regulations as are necessary to carry out

his functions under this Act (RCRA)".

II.  Damage Cases

     The Agency believes that the  following damage incidents

are good examples of the types of  damage that can result when

access to.hazardous waste is not controlled.   They provide

part of the rationale  for controlling access onto hazardous

waste management facilities:

     (l)   In 1972, an  unsuspecting farmer found mercury-
           treated grain at the Wilson Creek dump in Grant
           County, Washington.  He  hauled it to his farm for
           livestock feed.  The episode  was discovered  just
           before the farmer  planned to  use the grain.4

     (2)   In 1969, about 100 bags  of grain treated with
           methyl mercury type seed dressing were discovered
           at a community dump in New Mexico.  Public health
           authorities  established  that  some of this dumped
           grain had been scavenged and  used as animal  feed in
           the area.  As a result,  a large number of hogs,
           chickens, and other animals had to be quarantined.5

     Damage incidents  (l) and (2)  illustrate the need to

control access to hazardous  waste  facilities in order to

prevent unauthorized scavenging and resulting public health

problems.

     (3)   Several sheep and  cattle and  a foxhound died, and
          many cattle  became seriously  affected, on two farms
           close to a factory producing  rodenticides and
          pesticides in Great Britian.  The drainage from the
           factory led  into a succession of ponds to which the
           animals had  unrestricted access, and from which
          they apparently drank.6

-------
                            - 3 -

     This damage incident illustrates the need to control

access of livestock, as well as people, onto hazardous waste

facilities.  This control is needed, not only to protect the

health of the livestock, but also to protect the health of

the people who may consume the livestock.

     (4)  A large number of barrels containing flammable
          chemical residues are stored in an unfenced area
          adjacent to a low-income housing project in
          Washington, D.C.  An alley separates the site
          from an elementary school and adjoining play-
          ground.  Chemical-laden surface water run-off
          travels from the storage site .to the school
          property.  In the mid-1970's, school children
          set fire to the drums, sending flames high into
          the sky.  School employees told EPA officials
          that children often play in/on the drums after
          school, and that children scatter the drums onto
          the school property almost every weekend.^  in
          October, 1979, the Department of Environmental
          Services for the District of Columbia advised
          the owner of the site that (among other things)
          the inadequate security system at the site should
          be corrected.^

     This damage incident illustrates the potential dangers

that exist when hazardous waste facilities are not segregated

from the public.  Although no one was hurt as a result of the

fire which the children set, if a similar incident occurs

again, the outcome may not be as fortunate.

III. State Regulations

     EPA reviewed the solid waste management regulations of

15 States, listed in Table 1,  to assess the  State governments'

perceived need to control access to solid and/or hazardous

waste management facilities.  The fifteen States chosen for

this review are geographically representative of those States

which either generate the largest amount of  hazardous waste

-------
                             -  4  -

or have well-established regulations  for managing solid and/or

hazardous waste.9  Many of the fifteen States meet both of

these criteria.

                           TABLE 1

            STATES CHOSEN FOR  REGULATION* ANALYSIS

                       (By EPA Region)
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
State
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York
Maryland
Tennessee
Illinois
Minnesota
Region
VI •
VII
VIII
IX
X
State
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Iowa
Montana
California
Hawaii
Oregon
                                                 Washington

     * Citations  for these regulations are contained in
       Appendix I.


     All of the 15  States' regulations that were reviewed

dealt with security at solid and/or hazardous waste facilities

Seven of the States' regulations take the form of general

performance standards, and all seven require that access

to facilities be controlled.  Many of the seven suggest ways

to do this, but none require any one particular method to

control access.

FENCING;  On the other hand, nine States require that faci-

lities be surrounded by fences, although none of these states

specify the height, or the construction materials.

-------
                            - 5 -




GUARDED ENTRANCES;  Three of the nine States also require that




entrances to facilities be locked or guarded when facilities




are not in operation.  One of the nine requires that entrances




to facilities be locked or guarded 24 hours a day.




     In addition, tv/o of the States which don't specifically




require fencing, do require that access to the facility be




prevented during non-operating hours.  However, they do




not specify how this is to be done.




SIGNS;  Seven States require that signs be posted at facil-



ities.  Six of these States require that the signs be posted




at the entrance(s) to facilities.   One State also requires




that signs be posted around the periphery of disposal areas,




while another State doesn't specify any location for the




signs.



     Three of the seven States require that these signs




provide a warning of the presence of hazardous waste.  However,




none of the States specify the size of the sign or the letters




on the sign, although one State does require that the sign




be legible from a distance of at least 25 feet.




LIVESTOCK;  Two States specify that the entry of livestock




should be controlled at facilities.








     From this review, the Agency concluded that,  although




there is widespread agreement that access to facilities needs




to be controlled, these States have chosen various ways of




proceeding.  There seems to be an even split between those

-------
                            - 6 -



States whose regulations for security are performance-oriented




vs. those whose regulations are design-oriented.



     What is clear, however, is that controlling access to



hazardous waste facilities is viewed as an important part of



each of the fifteen States' regulatory program for solid




and/or hazardous waste.

-------
                             -  7  -




ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR  SECURITY,  ORGANIZED  BY  SUBJECT




     Standards for security  applicable to owners  or operators




of hazardous waste facilities  were specified in §250.43-2 of




the RCRA Subtitle C regulations  proposed on December  18, 1978.




As specified in §250.40(c)(2)(i) of  the proposed  rules, these




standards also applied to  owners or  operators  of  facilities




with interim status.




     Some of the proposed  security standards contained  "Notes"




which provided conditions  for  variances to the standards.




Obtaining a variance to these  standards, required the owner or




operator to demonstrate to the Agency that his facility met




the conditions for a variance  to the standard.  To avoid the




necessity of interacting with  the Agency during the interim



status period, the final security standards applicable to




facilities with interim status are slightly different than




those standards applicable to permitted facilities.  The



final interim status standards are written so that an owner or




operator is allowed to use his judgment as to whether or not




a variance to a standard is applicable to his facility.  The



standards applicable to permitted facilities,  on the other




hand, require that the owner or operator demonstrate to the




Agency why a variance to a standard should be granted to his




facility.  These differences are highlighted in the discussion




of the final standards for security,  as applicable.

-------
                       - 8 -




Subject:  CONTROLLED ACCESS




A.   Summary of Proposed Standards




     The proposed standards required that:




     1.   The active portion of a facility be surrounded




     by a six foot fence, unless the active portion was




     segregated by a natural or artificial barrier that




     was capable of preventing the unauthorized or




     unknowing entry of persons and livestock onto the




     active portion of the facility; and



     2.   The entrance to the active portion of a facility




     be:



          guarded  (either mechanically or by an attendant)



          when the facility is in operation, and




     -    locked when the facility is not in




          operation.



 B.   Rationale for the Proposed Standards




     The purpose of the proposed standards was to prevent




 the  unknowing or unauthorized entry of people or livestock




 onto the active portions of facilities.   The Agency  is




 concerned about this  type of entry because it could




 result  in:



     -    injury to people or livestock which come into




          physical contact with the wastes or equipment




          within the  active portion, or



          damage to human health and the environment  if




          people or livestock disturb the waste or equip-

-------
                            - 9 -

               ment within the active portion.  This distur-

               bance could be malicious (e.g., overturning

               containers, with the resulting leakage of

               waste), or unintentional (e.g., removal of

               waste from a facility and use of the waste

               for purposes for which it is unsuitable, as in

               damage incident (2)).

          The proposed standards focused on protecting the

     active portion* of the facility.  It is this part of the

     facility that is vulnerable to disturbance, since it is

     here that wastes are treated, stored, or disposed of.

          The proposed security standards did not apply to

     closed portions** of facilities because the requirements

     for closure (e.g., final cover for landfills) eliminate

     the need to control access to these portions of facilities

     However, in some cases,  compliance with the closure stan-

     dards (e.g., the requirement to ensure that the final

     cover is not disturbed)  indirectly required facilities

     to control access to the closed portions of facilities.
     * "Active portion" is defined in Part 260 as "that por-
tion of a facility where treatment, storage, or disposal
operations are being or have been conducted after the effec-
tive date of Part 261 of this Chapter and which is not a
closed portion.

    ** "Closed portion" is defined in Part 260 as "that por-
tion of a facility which an owner or operator has closed in
accordance with the facility closure plan and all applicable
closure requirements.

-------
                       - 10 -




     The damage cases described in Section II of this




document illustrate that, in the past, unknowing or




unauthorized entry onto facilities has led to the poisoning




of people and livestock.  In order to guard against




similar occurrences, the proposed rules required that




the active portions of facilities be surrounded by a six




foot fence.  The selection of six feet as the required




height of the fence was based on the Agency's belief




that most people or livestock would not attempt to scale




a six foot fence.  However, the Agency also recognized



that such a fence may be unnecessary at facilities which




are segregated by other types of barriers (e.g., a cliff)




which could achieve the same effect as a six foot fence.




Therefore, the proposed rules contained a "note" which




allowed a variance from the six foot fencing requirement




for facilities which were surrounded by equivalent




barriers.




     Of course, a fence will not prevent people or live-




stock from entering the active portion of a facility if




the gate to the facility is open or unlocked.  Therefore,




the proposed rules also specified requirements for the




entrance to the active portion of a facility.  The intent




of the proposed standards was to monitor and control the




entry of non-facility personnel onto the active portion




of a facility during the facility's operating hours,




and to prevent them from entering during the facility's




non-operating hours.

-------
                       - 11 -



C.   Summary and Response to Comments Received on this



     Subject



     Issue #1:  Design vs. general performance standards



     a.   Summary of Comments;



          1.   The standards should be written in terms



          of performance standards because the proposed



          standards:



          -    are too restrictive



          -    may result in ineffective control to



               facilities in some circumstances (e.g.,



               where facilities are located next to



               playgrounds).



          2.    The implicit  performance standard in the



          proposed rules,  which required that unauthorized



          people be prevented from entering a facility,



          should be changed  to  require that unauthorized



          people be deterred from entering a facility,



          because anyone who is determined to enter a



          facility can climb a  fence or sneak by a guard.



     b.    Analysis of and Response to Comments:



          As  was pointed out by the commenters, the



     proposed rules contained the implicit performance



     standard that the facility's security system must



     prevent  unauthorized and/or unknowing entry of



     people or livestock onto the active portions of the



     facility.   However,  the  Agency agrees that the

-------
                  -  12 -



level of performance that is expected from a



facility's security  system should be made explicit



in the final rules.  Therefore, the security stan-



dards have been rewritten to include an explicit



general performance  standard.



     In response to  comments received, the level



of performance expected of a facility's security



system has been modified from that specified in



the proposed rules.  The Agency agrees with the



commenters that it is impossible to design a security



system which ensures that absolutely no unauthorized



people will enter a  facility.  Accordingly, the



general performance  standard in the final rules



requires that a facility's security system be



designed to prevent  the unknowing entry, and to



minimize the possibility for unauthorized entry of



people or livestock  onto the active portions of



facilities.



     While responding to the commenters' criticism



that the standards are too restrictive, the addition



of the general performance standard to the final



rules should also answer the concerns of those



commenters who believe that the proposed standards



will not always guarantee their intended result.



For example, in the proposed rules, if a facility



were surrounded by a six foot fence, the permit

-------
                   -  13  -



writer would have  had a difficult time requiring a



higher fence if he thought that the circumstances



required it.   However,  in the revised rules, the



height of the  fence  is  not specified (as is explained



later under Issue  #3).  Thus, if the circumstances



do warrant special precautions to deter unauthorized



entry (e.g., where the  facility is located next to



a playground), the permit writer will be expressly



authorized to  require a more imposing barrier than



a six foot fence around the active portion of a



facility -



Issue #2;  Exemptions to the requirements for con-



trolled access.



a.   Summary of Comments';



     Facilities should not have to comply with the



standards if:



-    physical contact with the wastes that are



     present in the active portion of the facility



     will not-injure humans or livestock



-    the facility or plant which contains the active



     portion itself,  meets the standards for con-



     trolled access



-    the facility is located in a remote area,  so



     that it is unlikely that people or livestock



     will enter the facility.

-------
                  - 14 -



k*   Analysis of and Response j.o Comments;



     The Agency believes that an exemption to the



requirement for controlled access is justified only



if the waste is sufficiently benign so that people



do not need to be kept away from the site because



(l) unauthorized and unknowing entry will not injure



people (or animals) who might enter the facility,



and (2) such unauthorized entry will not injure



people, livestock, or the environment.  Since these



two conditions are rarely concurrently satisfied,



the Agency does not expect that many sites will be



exempt from the security requirements.  For example,



at a shallow landfill where the emplaced waste is



covered each day, the chances are minimal that



anyone will injure themselves from contact with



the waste if they unknowingly walk over the active



portion.  However, damage to the environment could



result if heavy foot traffic, or the use of dirt



bikes on the active portion, decreased the integrity



of the daily cover, thereby exposing the emplaced



wastes.  Thus, while controlled access to the active



portion would not always be needed to protect persons



or livestock from injury, it would be necessary to



protect the environment.  Therefore, the revised



rules contain two conditions for an exemption from



the requirement to control access onto the active



portion of a facility:

-------
                  - 15 -




(l)  physical contact with the waste, structures, or




     equipment within the active portion of the facility




     will not injure unknowing or unauthorized persons




     or livestock which may enter the active portion




     of a facility, and




(2)  disturbance of the waste or the equipment, by




     the unauthorized or unknowing entry of persons




     or livestock onto the active portion of the




     facility, will not cause a violation of the




     Section 3004 requirements.




     EPA agrees that the active portion of a facility




need not be protected by an additional fence,  or other




means specified in the proposed rules, if it is




located within a facility or plant which already




meets the security requirements.  The Agency believes




that to erect a fence or other barrier around the




active portion, when the facility is already pro-




tected, would be unnecessarily expensive, and




would not provide additional protection to human




health and the environment.  Accordingly, EPA has




modified the regulations so that an owner or operator




can demonstrate that the active portion of his




facility complies with the security regulations,




based upon the security system of the facility (or




manufacturing operation)  within which the active




portion is located.

-------
                  - 16 -



     The Agency does not agree that facilities



located in remote areas should be exempt from the



requirement to control access onto the active



portions of their facilities because, whether a



facility is accessible to ten people or to one



thousand people, the potential still exists for a^



person or animal to physically harm himself, or to



endanger human health and the environment, by wan-



dering onto the active portion of a facility.  The



automobile makes virtually all areas of the country



accessible to travellers, so that the remoteness



of a facility cannot guarantee that a non-resident



will not enter an unprotected facility.



     Furthermore, the remoteness of the area in



which the facility is located may increase the



likelihood of people unknowingly entering an



unprotected facility because most people would not



expect to encounter hazardous waste in remote areas.



Although the requirement for signs (as described



later in this document) will decrease the potential



for people to unknowingly enter a facility, the



Agency believes that additional precautions are



warranted because signs can be stolen or defaced.



Therefore, the revised rules require that access



to facilities be controlled in both remote and



populated areas.

-------
                   - 17 -



 Issue  #3:   The  requirement for  a  six  foot  fence.



 a.   Summary  of Comments:



     The  standards  should  allow methods other than



 a six  foot  fence  to prevent  the unauthorized or



 unknowing entry of  people  and livestock onto the



 active portions of  facilities.  The alternate



 methods suggested by the commenters included:



 -    for a  continuously  operating facility, keeping



     the active portion  in view of the facility



     personnel  at all  times;



 -    an around-the-clock security system;



 -    the use  of fences of some height other than 6



     feet;



     locating the facility in unpopulated areas,  in



     order to reduce the accessibility of the site;



 -    locating the facility along natural barriers,



     in order to  reduce  the accessibility of the



     site;



 -    keeping the waste inaccessible,  by covering



     it daily.



b.   Analysis and Response to Comments;



     The Agency agrees with the general thrust of



the commenters'  argument that the standard should



allow means  other than a six foot fence (or the



alternatives specified in the "note"  to the stan-



dards)  to prevent entry onto a facility.

-------
                  - 18 -



     Specifically, the Agency agrees that if the



active portion of a facility is monitored by an



around-the-clock security system, or if the facility



is operated continuously, so that the active portion



is always within view and control of the facility's



personnel, these means would adequately control



entry onto the active portion.  In either case,



entry onto the active portion of the facility can



be regulated, so that when an unauthorized person



approaches the active portion, the facility guards



or other facility personnel can ensure that the



person does not enter the active portion.  The



Agency believes that this approach is particularly



appropriate for small facilities, because the area



that would need to be subject to surveillance would



probably be relatively small.  However, the revised



rules also allow this approach for large facilities,



as long as there are enough people monitoring the



active portion to ensure that the entire active



portion of the facility is always within the view



and control of the facility guards or other facility



personnel.



     The Agency also agrees that fences of height



other than six feet, may be used to deter the unau-



thorized entry of persons or livestock onto the



active portion of a facility.  For example, a four

-------
                  - 19 -



foot barbed-wire fence may be enough to deter



unauthorized entry onto a facility, and thus may



provide the level of protection required in the



proposed standard.  Therefore, the standard has



been revised so that an owner or operator who chooses



to surround or partially surround his facility with



a barrier in order to deter unauthorized entry onto



his facility (as opposed to using a 24-hour sur-



veillance system) may use an artificial barrier



(e.g., a fence) or a natural one (e.g., a cliff).



The revised standard does not specify the height or



construction materials of the barrier.   However,



the final rules do require that, whatever the type



of barrier used, it must be aŁ>le to prevent the



unknowing entry, and minimize the potential for the



unauthorized entry,  of people or livestock onto the



active portion of the facility.



     As explained on page 16, the Agency does not



agree that simply locating a facility in a sparsely



populated area provides adequate protection from



the potential hazards of unknowing and unauthorized



entry onto a facility.



     The Agency also disagrees with the suggestion



that covering the waste daily will adequately assure



that unauthorized people (or animals) will not hurt



themselves if they enter the active portion of a

-------
                  - 20 -



facxlity-  Since most facilities only use about six



inches of soil to cover waste emplaced in a landfill,



the emplaced waste can become uncovered if people



(or animals) are allowed to walk freely on this



cover material, especially if this traffic is



uncontrolled.  Furthermore, landfills usually are



quite deep and have heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers)



either in them or beside them.  Although a person



(or animal) entering a landfill may not come into



contact with waste which has been covered, such



individuals may hurt themselves by falling into a



landfill cell, or by starting a piece of machinery



which they don't know how to operate.  Therefore,



the Agency rejects the suggestion that access to



facilities need not be controlled if the waste is



covered daily-



Issue #4:  The security requirements at the entrance



to the active portion of a facility.



a.   Summary of Comments;



     1.   The standards should allow alternatives



     to the use of attendants or electromechanical



     devices for controlling the entry of unauthorized



     or unknowing people or livestock through the



     entrance(s) to the active portion of a facility



     during operating hours.  The alternate methods



     suggested by the commenters included:

-------
                  - 21 -




     -    closing or locking the gate




          allowing access only by controlled roadways




     2.   The standard should require that mechanical




     or electromechanical devices be connected to




     the security fence, and that these devices be




     in operation at all times.




b.   Analysis of and Response to Comments:




     The Agency does not believe that simply closing



the gate to the active portion of a facility is




enough to deter unauthorized entry, since unau-




thorized people can easily open an unlocked gate.




However, the Agency does agree that owners or operators




should have the option of locking the entrance to




the active portion of a facility in order to control




access to the active portion during the facility's




operating hours.  Therefore, the revised standards




allow owners or operators to lock the gates to the




active portions of facilities, rather than use the




methods specified in the proposed standard.




     The Agency also agrees that, if the active




portion of a facility can only be approached by




roadways which are controlled, it is unnecessary to




monitor the entrance to the active portion.




Therefore, the revised standards also allow the use




of controlled roadway access to control access




through the entrances to the active portions of




facilities.

-------
                  - 22 -



     The standards do not require that all active



portions of facilities be surrounded by fences; nor



do they require that all entrances to facilities be



monitored with mechanical or electromechanical



devices.  For this reason, the Agency believes that



it would be inappropriate to require that these



devices be connected to the security fence.



Furthermore, even where fences and electromechanical



devices are used to control access to the active



portions of facilities, the Agency does not agree



that these devices need to be active at all times,



since a locked gate can provide comparable protection



from unauthorized and unknowing entry when the



electromechanical device is turned off.  Therefore,



the revised rules do not contain a requirement to



connect the mechanical or electromechanical device



to the security fence.



Issue #5;  New vs. existing facilities.



a.   Summary of Comments;



     1.   The proposed standards should not apply



     to, or should be phased in for, existing



     facilities because complying with these



     standards will require owners or operators of



     existing facilities to replace or retrofit



     existing, expensive security measures.

-------
                  - 23 -




     2.   The standards should only apply to new




     facilities unless EPA demonstrates that an




     existing facility's security system is




     inadequate.




b.   Analysis of and Response to Comments;



     Compliance with the proposed standards may have




required owners or operators to replace or retrofit




security measures at some existing facilities (e.g.,




to install a guard or an electromechanical device at




the entrance to the facility).  However, the Agency




believes that the revised standards provide suffi-




cient flexibility, so that most existing facilities




should not have to expend vast sums to ensure that




their security measures are in compliance.



     Section 3010 of RCRA provides that the hazardous




waste regulations become effective six months after




the date on which they are promulgated.  Because the




Agency does not believe that implementation of the




security standards requires complex technical




analysis, no special provisions have been added to



the final rules concerning a phased-in compliance




schedule for these standards at existing facilities.




     The Agency disagrees with the comment suggesting



that the security standards should only apply to new




facilities unless EPA demonstrates that an existing




facility's security system is inadequate.   These




regulations are designed to ensure that hazardous

-------
                  - 24 -




waste facilities do not pose a threat to human




health and the environment.  Potential hazards are




certainly not posed uniquely by new facilities.




Because existing facilities may also pose a threat




to human health and the environment, they too must




bear the burden of demonstrating to the Agency that




they meet the requirements of the security standards.




Thus, the burden of proof is on the facility, be




it new or existing, to demonstrate compliance with




these regulations; the burden of proof is not on




the Agency.




Issue #6;  Special requirements for urban areas.




a.   Summary of Comments;




     The standards should require that facilities




located within one mile of incorporated urban areas




provide minimum security of a six foot chain link




fence.




b.   Analysis of and Response to Comments;




     Although the Agency recognizes that unautho-




rized or unknowing entry onto a facility is more




likely to occur in a populated area than in an




unpopulated one, the Agency believes that the




general performance standard which requires preven-




ting unknowing entry and minimizing the potential




for unauthorized entry onto the active portions of




facilities, provides for adequate control of access




onto facilities in urban as well as in rural areas.

-------
                  - 25 -

     Thus, for example, if a facility is located

next to a schoolyard, the owner or operator is required

to desxgn a security system which will deter school-

children from entering the facility-  This may

include, for example, a presentation to incoming

students at the beginning of each academic year,

which warns the students of the presence of hazar-

dous waste at the neighboring facility.  Therefore,

because the owner or operator is required to design

a system capable of dealing  with the particular

threats to his facility,  no additional security

requirements need be specified for facilities

located in urban areas.

Final Regulation Language

     (a)  The owner or operator must prevent the
unknowing entry, and minimize the possibility for
the unauthorized entry, of persons or livestock
onto the active portion of his facility, unless
he can demonstrate to the Regional Administrator
that:

     (1)  Physical contact with the waste, struc-
     tures, or equipment within the active portion
     of the facility will not injure unknowing or
     unauthorized persons or livestock which may
     enter the active portion of a facility; and

     (2)  Disturbance of the waste or equipment, by
     the unknowing or unauthorized entry of persons
     or livestock onto the active portion of a
     facility, will not cause a violation of the
     requirements of this Part.

CComment: Part 122, Subpart B, of this Chapter
requires that an owner or operator who wishes to
make the demonstration referred to above must do
so with Part B of the permit application.]

-------
                       - 26 -

          (b)  Unless the owner or operator has made a
     successful demonstration under paragraphs (a)(l)
     and (a)(2) of this Section, a facility must have:

          (1)  A 24-hour surveillance system (e.g., tele-
          vision monitoring or surveillance by guards
          or facility personnel) which continuously
          monitors and controls entry onto the active
          portion of the facility; or

          (2)(i) An artificial or natural barrier (e.g.,
          a fence in good repair or a fence combined with
          a cliff), which completely surrounds the active
          portion of the facility; and

            (ii) A means to control entry, at all times,
          through the gates or other entrances to the
          active portion of the facility (e.g., an
          attendant, television monitors, locked entrance,
          or controlled roadway access to the facility).

HComment;  The requirements of paragraph (b) of this
Section are satisfied if the facility or plant within
which the active portion is located itself has a sur-
veillance system, or a barrier and a means to control
entry, which complies with the requirements of paragraph
(b)(l) or (b)(2) of this Section.]
     During the interim status period, the variance

demonstration to the Regional Administrator in paragraph

(a) does not apply.  Consequently, it has not been

included in the final interim status standards, which

are otherwise identical to the above standards.  However,

during the interim status period, owners and operators

who determine that their facilities meet the conditions

of the variance to the security standards, must be able

to provide the facts and rationale supporting this deter-

mination when requested to do so by the Regional

Administrator.

-------
                            - 27 -




II.   Subject:  SIGNS




     A.    Summary of Proposed Standard




          The proposed standard required that,  at each entrance




     to  the active portion of a facility, a sign must be




     posted which




          1.   says:  "WARNING - Unauthorized Personnel Keep




          Out"



          2.   is printed in letters which are  at least four




          inches high




          3.   is written in English and in any other pre-




          dominant language of the area surrounding the




          facility -




          A "note" to the standard allowed an owner or operator




     to  use alternate wording,  or different size lettering




     than that specified in the standard, if the resulting




     sign adequately warns unauthorized people  to stay away-




     In  addition, the "note" provided that the  requirement




     for a sign could be relaxed where no danger would result




     from the unauthorized entry of people onto the active




     portion of a facility.




     B.    Rationale for the Proposed Standard




          The purpose of the proposed standard  was to prevent




     people from unknowingly entering a facility,  by alerting




     them,  with a sign,  that the area which they are approaching




     is  dangerous.  The purpose of the requirement for bilingual




     signs (in areas where a language other than English is

-------
                       - 28 -




spoken by a high percentage of the population), was to




minimize the chance that people who do not understand




English will unknowingly enter a facility, and possibly




hurt themselves or cause an incident adversely affecting




human health and the environment outside the facility,




because they cannot read the warning on the sign to




keep out.




     The Agency specified the wording to be used on the




sign, in order to give owners or operators an idea of the




type of message that the Agency believes adequately




informs the public that entry onto a facility is dangerous.




The Agency also specified the height of the letters that




should be used to print the sign, in order to give




owners or operators some idea of how large letters ought to




be for the words on the sign to be legible to people




approaching a facility.



     However, recognizing that many facilities already




have signs which provide adequate warning to people to




stay away, but which are not printed in four inch letters




or do not contain the exact wording that is specified




in the standard, the standard contained a "note" which




allowed the use of alternate wording or lettering.




     In addition, because unauthorized entry at some




facilities would not result in injury either to people




(or animals) who entered the facility, or to the environ-




ment, the "note" included a provision which relaxed the

-------
                       - 29 -



requirement for a sign at these facilities.  For example,



the Agency believed that a warning sign at piles of



certain slags covered by a tarpaulin would be not only



unnecessary, but might be undesirable, because such a



sign could foster unnecessary anxiety about the safety



of the waste management operations that are conducted



at the facility.



C.   Summary and Response to Comments Received on this



     Subject



     Issue #1;  The requirement for bilingual signs.



     a.   Summary of Comments:



          The requirement that the warning signs be



     written in both English and French in all States



     bordering Canada is unnecessarily stringent because



     French is the predominant language in only one



     Canadian province, Quebec.  Therefore, the word



     "Quebec" should be substituted for the word "Canada"



     in the standard.



          Furthermore, the word "States" should be



     replaced by the word "communities" or "counties"



     because, if interpreted literally and used for



     enforcement purposes, the parenthetical example



     used in the standard would require facilities in



     New York City (a city located in a state bordering



     Canada) to use both English and French on their



     warning signs.

-------
                    - 30 -



 b.    Analysis of and Response to Comments:



       The Agency agrees that the suggested word



 changes  tailor the requirement for bilingual signs



 to  those areas where they are truly needed.   There-



 fore, the Agency has incorporated these changes



 into the final rules.



 Issue #2:  The content of the signs.



 a.    Summary of Comments;



       A universal sign symbol should be developed



 which means "Warning - Unauthorized Personnel Keep



 Out", to be accompanied by the message printed in



 English.  Multi-lingual signs tend to get cluttered



 up, and hence lose effectiveness.



 b.    Analysis of and Response to Comments;



        The Agency has not developed such a symbol,



 and until one is developed, the intent of the



  standard sign will have to be accomplished  by using



 bilingual signs.  However, the Agency does  not believe



 that the sign which is required in these rules will



 be wordy, and therefore ineffective, if it  is



 written in two or more languages, because the message



 of the sign is short.  For example, in a community



 bordering Mexico, the proposed warning sign would



  read as follows:



       WARNING - Unauthorized Personnel Keep  Out



CUIDADO - Prohibida La Entrada A Personas No  Autorizadas

-------
                  - 31 -




     The Agency believes that because the "note" to




the proposed standard provided a variance to the re-




quirement for the statement:  "Warning - Unauthorized




Personnel Keep Out" on the sign, no comments were




received on this aspect of the standard.  The Agency




believes that a variance to the wording requirement




should be retained in the final rules for existing




signs because it would be unnecessarily expensive




to replace signs at facilities which do not contain




the exact wording specified in the proposed standard,




but nonetheless, provide adequate warning to



unknowing people to stay away.  However, to provide




uniformity to the signs posted at hazardous waste




facilities, the Agency believes that all new signs




should contain the wording specified in the proposed




standard.  Therefore,  in the final rules, the




variance to the message on the sign only applies to




existing signs.




     In addition, the  Agency has substituted the




word "danger" for "warning" in the legend required




on signs in the final  rules.  The reason for this




change is that the word "danger", more so than




"warning",  clearly indicates that the potential for




exposure to harm is associated with entering a




facility.

-------
                  - 32 -




Issue #3;   The placement of the signs.




a.    Summary of Comments;




     Because the standard only requires signs to be




posted at the gates to the active portion of the




facility, the proposed standard could result in




inadequate warning to unauthorized persons approaching




a facility where fences will not be required.  The




standard should be reworded to require signs to be




posted:




-    in sufficient numbers to be seen from any




     approach to active portions of the facility, or




-    at the corners of the facility and at intervals




     of 120 meters (400 feet) or less.




     The Agency agrees that every reasonable attempt




should be made to ensure that people are adequately




warned that the area which they are approaching is




dangerous.  Posting warning signs is a relatively




inexpensive and effective means to prevent people




from unknowing1y entering a potentially dangerous




area.  In light of the change to the proposed




security standards which allows the use of fences




less than six feet high, the Agency believes that




signs should be posted along the periphery of the




active portion to minimize the possibility that people




will think that the secured area is not dangerous.



Accordingly, the final rules require that a warning

-------
                  - 33 -




sign be posted at each entrance to the active




portion of the facility, and at other locations,




in sufficient numbers to be seen from any approach




to the active portion.  The Agency believes that




this requirement is preferable to the commenter's




suggestion that signs be placed "at the corners of




the facility and at intervals not to exceed 120




meters (400 feet)" because the requirement to post




the signs in sufficient numbers to be seen from any




approach to the active portion is more in keeping




with the Agency's decision to write performance-




oriented security standards.




     Because the purpose of the sign is to prevent




people from unknowingly entering the active portion




of a facility, the sign serves as an auxiliary



measure to the security systems previously described




(i.e., a barrier or a surveillance system) to ensure




compliance with the general performance standard.




Therefore, the revised requirement for a sign is




prefaced by the phrase "Unless the owner or operator




has made a successful demonstration under paragraphs




(a)(l) and (a)(2)".  By linking the requirement




for a sign to the general performance standard in




paragraph (a), the revised rules need not include a



separate exemption to the requirement for a sign




(which is comparable to that contained in the "note"

-------
                       - 34 -

     to the proposed standard), because this is covered

     by the blanket exemption to the general performance

     standard.

          Although the Agency received no criticism of

     the four-inch lettering requirement, the underlying

     theme of the majority of the comments was that the

     proposed security standards are too specific.  Because

     the Agency believes that the four-inch lettering

     requirement is more inflexible than necessary, this

     requirement has been substituted, in the final rules,

     by a more performance-oriented provision which

     requires that the warning on the sign be legible from

     a distance of at least twenty-five feet.  The selection

     of twenty-five feet as the distance from which the

     sign must be legible is based on the State of

     California's requirements for signs, as described

     in Section III of the Introduction to this document.

D.   Final Regulation Language

     (c)  Unless the owner or operator has made a
successful demonstration under paragraphs (a)(l) and
(a)(2) of this Section, a sign with the legend, "Danger -
Unauthorized Personnel Keep Out", must be posted at each
entrance to the active portion of a facility, and at
other locations, in sufficient numbers to be seen from
any approach to this active portion.  The legend must
be written in English and in any other language predomi-
nant in the area surrounding the facility (e.g., facil-
ities in counties bordering the Canadian province of
Quebec must post signs in French; facilities in counties
bordering Mexico must post signs in Spanish), and must
be legible from a distance of at least 25 feet.  Existing
signs with a legend other than "Danger - Unauthorized
Personnel Keep Out" may be used if the legend on the

-------
                            - 35 -

     sign indicates that only authorized personnel are allowed
     to enter the active portion,  and that entry onto the
     active portion can be dangerous.


III.  Subject:  GENERAL COMMENTS

     Issue #1:   Special Waste Facilities

     a.   Summary of Comments;

          Facilities which manage  "special waste'1 (e.g.,

     mining waste,  fly ash, FGD sludge)  should be exempted

     from the security requirements,  or less stringent/specific

     standards  should be written for  these facilities because:

     -    physical  contact with the waste will not harm humans

          or livestock.   In many cases,  the waste is no more

          hazardous than the surrounding countryside.

     -    the waste is not a likely target for theft.

          most  facilities are located in remote,  sparsely

          populated areas.

     -    the cost  of the fencing  requirement would be

          exorbitant because it would require the fencing of

          thousands of acres of land.

          the fences would restrict wildlife migration.

          most  farmers provide  their  own fencing, so livestock

          are not apt to roam onto a  facility's active portion.

          controlling access with  security personnel, television

          monitors, key cards,  etc. is not practical at these

          locations.

-------
                       - 36 -



t>.   Analysis of and Response to Comments;



     As discussed on page 14 of this document, the



Agency agrees that if a waste is sufficiently benign so



that people do not need to be kept away from the site,



then access to the site need not be controlled.  For



this reason, the Agency included a variance procedure



to the final security standards which may apply to some



of the wastes identified as "special wastes" in the



proposed rules.  In addition, it should be noted that



the change in the Section 3001 rules — whereby wastes



will be considered toxic only when pollutant levels in



the extract from the waste (using the Extraction Procedure)



exceed the Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards by



a factor of 100, instead of the proposed  factor of 10



— may decrease the number of proposed "special wastes"



subject to the final Subtitle C rules.



     The Agency believes that the commenter who stated



that his waste should be exempt from the  security



standards because it is an unlikely target for theft,



misunderstood the purpose of the proposed security



requirements.  The intent of the proposed standards was



not only to prevent waste from being stolen but, also,



to prevent people (or animals) from hurting themselves,



or human health and the .environment by entering an area



containing hazardous waste.

-------
                       - 37 -




     The issue of the remoteness of a facility as a




factor to be considered in determining the need to




control access to facilities is discussed on page 16 of




this document.




     RCRA does not allow variances to the regulations




based on economic considerations.  Thus, the cost of the




security requirements cannot be included in the factors




to be considered in granting variances from the require-




ment to control access to facilities.




     The Agency believes that the final security standards




will apply to few facilities large enough to restrict




wildlife migration if the active portion is surrounded




by a fence.  However, if a very large facility does not




qualify for an exemption to the final security standards,




the revised rules allow means other than a fence to




control access to the site.  Thus, the Agency believes




that the final security standards provide sufficient



flexibility so that wildlife migration will not be signi-




ficantly restricted because facilities are required to




comply with the standards for security.



     The purpose of the proposed security standards was




to protect humans, as well as livestock, from the




potential dangers associated with uncontrolled access to




hazardous waste facilities.  Thus, although neighboring




farmers may segregate their farms with fences, the




potential still exists for people to hurt themselves, or

-------
                        -  38  -




human health and the environment,  if they enter a




hazardous waste facility-  Therefore, the Agency rejects




the suggestion that the security system provided by a




neighboring farmer provides  the level of protection




needed to comply with the RCRA mandate to protect human




health and the environment.




     As discussed on pages 21-22 of this document, the




final rules allow means other than those specified in




the proposed rules to control entry through the gates of




the facility.  The Agency believes that the revised rules




are sufficiently flexible so that  an owner or operator




of a facility, which does not qualify for an exemption




to the security standards, can devise a practical means




to control entry through the gates of his facility.




Issue #2:  Interaction with  the Regional Administrator




a.   Summary of Comments;




     Because of unique  situations  that will arise, the




Administrator of the Hazardous Waste Program should have




the authority to waive portions of the security require-




ments which are impractical  or whose cost is prohibitive.




The commenter offered no example of what he considered




to be a "unique situation".




b.   Analysis of and Response to Comments;




     The Agency believes that the  final security standards




are as flexible as they can  be made and still protect




human health and the environment.  The Agency can think

-------
                       - 39 -




of no "unique situation" (other than that provided  for




in the variance to paragraph (a)) which would warrant




the Regional Administrator to waive portions of the




security standards and, therefore, no such provision




has been added to the final rules.  As explained in the




response to the comments addressing "special waste",




RCRA does not allow the Agency to grant variances to




standards based on economic considerations^  Therefore,




the fact that compliance with the security standards




may be costly for some facilities does not justify




their exemption from the requirement to control access




to the facility.




Issue #3;  Integration with the U.S. Coast Guard's water-




front facility regulations.




a.   Summary of Comments:




     The regulations should state that the security




requirements of the forthcoming U.S. Coast Guard regu-




lations for waterfront facilities are sufficient for a




facility to which they apply,  if the facility generates




only minimal amounts of waste.




b.   Analysis of and Response to Comments;




     EPA's authority under Subtitle C of RCRA extends to




all facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous




waste.  Therefore, where the security requirements under



Subtitle C are more stringent than those contained in




the forthcoming U.S. Coast Guard's regulations, waterfront

-------
                       - 40 -




facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous




waste will have to comply with both the security require-




ments promulgated by EPA, and by the U.S. Coast Guard.




     However, because most of the specific requirements




that were contained in the proposed security require-




ments (e.g., the requirement for a six foot fence) have




been deleted from the revised rules, the Agency believes




that its revised security standards for hazardous waste




management facilities will be no more stringent than




those specified by the U.S. Coast Guard for waterfront




facilities.




Issue #4:  Integration with EPA's SPCC Plan




a.   Summary of Comments;




     The security requirements should be consistent with




the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)




Plan adopted under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.




b.   Analysis of and Response to Comments;




     The Agency believes that because the revised rules




for security are performance-oriented rather than design-




oriented, EPA's standards for security, promulgated under




Subtitle C of RCRA, are consistent with its revised




security requirements soon to be promulgated under




Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.  In stating that



the two sets of security standards are consistent, the




Agency does not mean that the standards are identical.




Rather, the Agency is simply saying that facilities in

-------
                       - 41 -




compliance with the revised security standards promulgated




under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act will require no




major alterations to their security systems to comply




with the final security standards promulgated under




Subtitle C of RCRA.

-------
                            - 42 -

                          References


1.   RCRA Legislative History in U.S. Code:  Congressional
     and Administrative News.  94th Congress,  2nd Session,
     Volume 5, 1976.  U.S. Congress.  House Report on the
     Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.  House
     Document 94-1941, p. 37.

2.   Ibid.

3.   Ibid.

4.   Report to Congress, Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, 1974,
     p. 44.

5.   House Report No. 94-1491, Part I, p.  23.

6.   Op. Cit. Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, p. 45.

7.   Memorandum from Steve Caldwell, Environmental Protection
     Specialist, EPA, to Russel H. Wyer, Deputy Director,
     Oil and Special Materials Control Division, EPA,
     October 5, 1979.

8.   Memorandum from Charles W. Howard, U.S  EPA, Region III,
     to the EPA file, November 2, 1979, Subject: Warring Drum
     Recovery Facility, Washington, D.C.

9.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Status of State
     Programs for Hazardous and Solid Waste Management;  1978.
     Office of Water and Waste Management, SW-796, September,
     1979.

-------
                             - 43 -

                           Appendix I


 State  Regulations  which were reviewed:

 Arkansas  Solid Waste Disposal Code (June 1973)

 California:   Title 22 (Register 77,  No.  42 - 10-15-77)
     Division 4, Chapter 2.   Minimum Standards  for Management
     of Hazardous  and Extremely Hazardous Wastes,  Section  60249.

 Connecticut  Department of Environmental  Protection Solid Waste
     Management Regulations;  Section 19-524-1 through  19-524-12;
     Adopted January 10,  1975;  Amended January  4,  1978.

 Hawaii Environmental Laws and Regulations,  Volume  II,  Chapter 46
     Solid Waste Management  Control; Effective  July 30,  1974.

 Illinois  Solid Waste Rules and  Regulations  (July 27, 1973),
     Rule 314.

 Iowa Departmental  Rules  1973, Environmental Quality -  Solid
     Waste,  Title  IV,  Chapter 27  Permits,  Section  28.2(2)(e).

 Maryland  Hazardous  Waste  Regulations (July  28,  1978).

 Minnesota Hazardous Waste Management Rules  (June 11, 1979),
     6 MCAR  §4.9004 HW 4,  Location,  operation,  and closure
     of a hazardous waste facility.

 Montana Solid  Waste Disposal  Laws  and Rules (1969).

 New York  State, Part 360,  Solid Waste Management Facilities
     (May 17,  1977),  Section  360.8  Security landburial  facility.

 Oklahoma  Solid  Waste Management Rules and  Regulations  (July  1,
     1973).   Section 5.4.3.   Disposal of  Hazardous Waste -
     Security.

 Oregon Solid Waste  Control (1977), Chapter  459.545.

 Rhode Island Hazardous Waste  Disposal Facility  Rules and
     Regulations (December 21,  1978)  Rule  11. ACCESS.

 Tennessee Regulations  Governing Solid Waste Processing and
     Disposal  (1971).

Washington Hazardous  Waste Regulations (July 12, 1978)
     WAC  173-302-290   Security Requirements.

-------
                            - 44 -

                          Appendix II

§264.14  Security

     (a)  The owner or operator must prevent the unknowing entry,
and minimize the possibility for the unauthorized entry, of
persons or livestock onto the active portion of his facility,
unless he can demonstrate to the Regional Administrator that:

         (l)  Physical contact with the waste, structures,
     or equipment within the active portion of the facility
     will not injure unknowing or unauthorized persons or live-
     stock which may enter the active portion of a facility;
     and

         (2)  Disturbance of the waste or equipment, by the
     unknowing or unauthorized entry of persons or live-
     stock onto the active portion of a facility, will not
     cause a violation of the requirements of this Part.

[Comment: Part 122, Subpart B, of this Chapter requires that an
owner or operator who wishes to make the demonstration referred
to above must do so with Part B of the permit application.]

     (b)  Unless the owner or operator has made a successful
demonstration under paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this
Section, a facility must have:

         (l)  A 24-hour surveillance system (e.g., television
     monitoring or surveillance by guards or facility personnel)
     which continuously monitors and controls entry onto the
     active portion of the facility; or

         (2)(i) An artificial or natural barrier (e.g., a
     fence in good repair or a fence combined with a cliff),
     which completely surrounds the active portion of the
     facility; and

           (li) A means to control entry, at all times, through
     the gates or other entrances to the active portion of
     the facility (e.g., an attendant, television monitors,
     locked entrance, or controlled roadway access to the
     facility).

CComment:  The requirements of paragraph (b) of this Section
are satisfied if the facility or plant within which the
active  portion is located itself has a surveillance system,
or a barrier and a means to control entry, which complies
with the requirements of paragraph (b)(l) or (b)(2) of this
Section.J

-------
                            - 45 -

     (c)  Unless the owner or operator has made a successful
demonstration under paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this
Section, a sign with the legend, "Danger - Unauthorized
Personnel Keep Out", must be posted at each entrance to the
active portion of a facility, and at other locations, in
sufficient numbers to be seen from any approach to this active
portion.  The legend must be written in English and in any
other language predominant in the area surrounding the facility
(e.g., facilities in counties bordering the Canadian province
of Quebec must post signs in French; facilities in counties
bordering Mexico must post signs in Spanish), and must be
legible from a distance of at least 25 feet.  Existing signs
with a legend other than "Danger - Unauthorized Personnel
Keep Out" may be used if the legend on the sign indicates
that only authorized personnel are allowed to enter the
active portion, and that entry onto the active portion can
be dangerous.
                                              GPO 868-064

-------