-------
                           TABLE  OF  CONTENTS



 I.     INTRODUCTION

 II.    RATIONALE  FOR REGULATION

 III.   SUMMARY  OF PROPOSED  REGULATION

 IV-    SUMMARY, ANALYSIS, AND  RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

       Issue  #1 - Mandated  Inspection Points                        5
       Issue  #2 - Daily  Inspection Frequency                        9
       Issue  #3 - Who May Conduct Inspections                       15
       Issue  #4 - Correction of Identified Problems                 15
       Issue  #5 - Recording Inspection Results                      16
       Issue  #6 - Duplication  of Other Regulations                 18

 V.     REVISED  REGULATION LANGUAGE                                  19

       §264.15  Full Status                                        19
       §265.15  Interim  Status                                     20

'References                                                         22
                                  ill

-------
I.  INTRODUCTION




     This is one of a series of background documents accompanying




promulgation of the first set of regulations issued under Subtitle C




of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Acu (RCRA).  These regula-




tions represent EPA's initial efforts to control hazardous wastes




from the point of generation through transportation, treatment, and




storage, to the point of ultimate disposal.




     This document, and the others in this series, attempt to explain




why the regulations were developed and why they have come to be




written the way they are.  In so doing, EPA addresses the (a) Con-




gressional mandate for regulation, (b) the need for the regulation




based on threats and impacts to human health and the environment,




(c) precedents set by state and other federal regulations, and,




perhaps most importantly, (d) analysis of and response to the many




comments received on the proposed version of these regulations which




was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978.




     This background document is limited to the requirements for the




conduct of inspections at treatment, storage, and disposal facili-




ties.  The general approach to the inspection regulations has changed




from designation of explicit requirements in the proposed regulations




to a general requirement that owners or operators develop an inspec-




tion schedule tailored to the ir-"ividual facility.  The reasons for




this change are explained later in the comment analysis section.




The general requirement that an inspection schedule be developed is

-------
complemented by specific minimum inspection requirements which are

contained in the regulations for each facility type (i.e., landfills,

incinerators, etc.).  These minimum requirements must be made part of

the inspection schedule for the appropriate kinds of facilities.  The

specific minimum requirements are discussed in the background docu-

ments dealing with the relevant facility type rather than here.

     The proposed inspection regulations (December 18, 1978) were

to be required during both the interim status period and during full

status  (after permitting).  Interim status regulations are in force

between the  effective date of the regulations (normally, six months

after promulgation)  and the receipt or denial of a permit as required

by Section 3005 of RCBA.  As a general guideline the Agency used the

following criteria  to decide which requirements should be in force

during  the interim status period:

     (a)  implemetable by the regulated community within the
          six-month  period between the time regulations are
          promulgated and their effective date

     (b)  requires no large capital expenditures for items
          which require approval as part of the permitting
          process

     (c)  implementable directly by the regulated community
          without  the need for consultation with or  interpre-
          tation by  the Agency

There were exceptions made to these criteria with good reason in

other sections of these regulations,  but all of the inspection

requirements meet  these general criteria.  Thus, these regulations

are incumbent upon  facilities during  the interim status period as

well as during the  permitting phase.
                                   2

-------
II.  RATIONALE FOR REGULATION

     Section 3004 of RCRA states:

          "... standards shall include . . . requirements
     respecting . . . (2) satisfactory reporting, monitoring,
     and inspection . . . ." (emphasis added).

     Inspections are intended to serve as a preventive measure, to

help avert the release of contaminants that could adversely affect

public health and the environment.  When such incidents occur, they

are often the result of the deterioration and subsequent failure of

equipment or structures.  Such problems include dike failures result-

ing from erosion, and leaking tanks and drums caused by corrosion.

Equipment malfunctions can also create pollution incidents.  For

example, level controls or sump pumps may break down, causing an

overflow.  Failure of monitoring equipment makes it possible that

a pollution incident will occur which would go undetected.  Natural

deterioration or vandalism may impair the security system so that

unauthorized people could enter the facility.  Malfunction of safety

and emergency equipment such as fire extinguishers can render opera-

tors helpless in an emergency.  Many of these conditions can be de-

tected before deterioration or before a malfunction results in an

actual pollution incident—but only if someone notices that something

has gone wrong.  Even operator errors, another major cause of pollu-

tion incidents, could often be detected in time to prevent real dam-

age, if someone were looking for such problems.  Examples of operator

errors that could easily be corrected if detected include flushout

-------
and drain valves left open on tanks after cleanup, improperly set




valves on emergency bypass systems, and alarm systems which have not




been reset.  Many of these mistakes occur in the course of routine




maintenance (for example, cleaned out parts may not be tightly




sealed, inactivated alarms may not be reactivated, etc.).  Periodic,




routine inspection of critical equipment would ensure that someone is




looking for faulty or deteriorating equipment, dangerous conditions




caused by operator mistakes, and spills.




     Routine  inspections  are not a new concept.  They have become




commonplace in  industry and are widely used to promote safe worksite




conditions, identify areas  for preventive maintenance of machinery,




and  to assure that inventory supplies are adequate.  The visual in-




spection  regulations proposed on December 18,  1978 (43 FR 243-59004),




were intended to  cause  the  owners and operators of hazardous waste




management  facilities  to  extend preventive  techniques to cover  facil-




ities, structures, and  practices which, if  they fail, could damage or




harm human  health or  the  environment.




      The  State  of Minnesota in its hazardous waste regulations has




recognized  the  value of preventive  inspections  and has adopted  re-




quirements  for  inspecting storage areas,  tanks, etc.'l'  Other



states require  facilities to  submit  an operating plan which includes




procedures  that will ensure that the  facility  complies with permit




conditions.   Periodic  inspections are often a  component of  these




operating plans but are not usually  specifically required by state




regulations.

-------
III.  SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATION

     The proposed regulation called for hazardous waste facilities to

conduct daily visual inspections of seven specific areas of the fa-

cility and its operations and to record the results of these inspec-

tions in the facility's daily operating log.  The daily inspection

requirement could be relaxed for certain aspects of the facility's

operation, if the owner or operator could demonstrate that less

stringent procedures would still adequately protect human health

and the environment.  The seven mandated inspection points were:

(1) storage areas, (2) dikes, (3) operating and monitoring equipment,

(4) emergency response equipment, (5)  fences and barriers, (6) vege-

tation, and (7)  active areas for fugitive air emissions.

IV.  SUMMARY, ANALYSIS, AND RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE
     PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Issue #1:  The Agency should not prescribe which items must be
           inspected

a.   Summary of Comments

     1.   It is best to let the management of a facility decide which
          of its facility's components to inspect.

     2.   Inspection of some of the listed items in the standard is
          inappropriate for certain facilities (e.g., inspection of
          a pile of goethite).

     3.   For some of the listed items, inspection is of questionable
          value for any facility.  For example:

               visually inspecting fugitive air emissions is too
               imprecise to be meaningful

          -    inspecting vegetation for damage from facility
               waste requires training in botany, a qualification

-------
               which the personnel of waste management facilities
               do not usually have

          -    rust and corrosion are normal; they do not warrant
               noting each rust spot, since only severe rust and
               corrosion present a problem

     4.   On the other hand, the list omits items which should
          be inspected in many facilities.  It may be difficult
          to enforce inspection of those items as long as the
          requirements remain in the form of a list.  Therefore,
          the inspection requirements should be rewritten simply
          as a performance standard.

k*  Response to Comments

     The Agency agrees that some of  the listed items are inappro-

priate for certain types of facilities, and that—in many cases—the

list may not include all the items that should be inspected in order

to adequately protect human health and the environment.  There is a

wide variety of conditions which might harm human health and the en-

vironment, which could be detected during routine inspections.  They

are not the same for each facility and will seldom be exactly the

same for any two facilities although the Agency expects that similar

facilities can reap benefits from similar inspection activities.

Within each facility, the specific areas that appropriately should

be inspected depend upon the processes, equipment, structures, and

instrumentation used, and to a lesser degree on operating procedures,

location of the  facility, and types  and volumes of waste.  Because

of his intimate  familiarity with these facets of his operation, the

facility owner or  operator is in the best position to initially

decide which areas of his operation could benefit from scheduled

-------
inspections.  The Agency will review.the operator's proposed schedule




of inspections to ensure that it is adequately protective.  The




Agency believes that its function should be not so much to dictate




in the regulations exactly what things must be done, but rather to




ensure in the permitting process that what the facility proposes to




do, adequately protects human health and the environment.




     To decide what facilities must do, on a case-by-case basis, the




Agency, as a result of these comments, has changed its regulatory




strategy for inspections.  Instead of the Agency listing all of the




items which must be inspected, the owner or operator will be required




to draw up an inspection schedule tailored to the facility.  The




schedule will contain those items which the owner or operator deter-




mines could benefit from inspections.  The schedule will provide a




structure to ensure effective and efficient inspections, and will




help to ensure that important items are not overlooked or put off.




The Agency will review this schedule as part of its permit review




process and will judge whether it provides adequate protection to




human health and the environment.  As a result of its experience




reviewing other schedules, the Agency should be in a position to




help management to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of their




schedule.  The Agency will not be able to provide this assistance to




facilities in interim status because there will be too many demands




on Agency personnel to evaluate permits for other facilities and




to "start up" the other facets of this complex regulatory program.

-------
Thus, during interim status, owners and  operators will be  required to




develop the plan, but they will not be required to submit  it  to the




Agency for review until Part B of  the permit application is called




for by the Agency.




     While inspection plans must be developed on a facility specific,




case-by-case basis, the Agency is  aware  that not all owners and oper-




ators and personnel are equally knowledgeable about potential prob-




lems at their  facilities.  To ensure that no obvious problem  areas




are  overlooked,  and to ensure that plans are implemented consis-




tently, the Agency is specifying certain inspection points for spe-




cific types of facilities  (landfills, incinerators, etc.).  Although




these inspection points will have  to be  included in all inspection




schedules  for  applicable  facilities, they will seldom, if  ever,




constitute a wholly adequate inspection  plan in and of themselves.




The  Agency believes that  virtually every facility will have its own




specific  inspection points which must be identified and included  in




the  schedule.   The  inclusion of minimum  requirements, however, will




help assure the neighboring public that  the  facility is conducting




inspections adequate  to protect  their health and property.  Because




the  requirements are  specific to  types of facilities, they are in-




cluded with specific  facility standards, and the rationale for them




is covered in  the background documents that  relate to those opera-




tions .

-------
     A final point.  The Agency agrees that inspecting for fugitive

air emissions, vegetation kills, and minor rust spots may often be

unproductive.  Some facilities simply have no potential for fugitive

emissions or vegetation kills because of design, wastes handled,

and/or location.  However, unusual odors, the unexpected presence

of smoke, and recently killed plants and trees can all be signs of

trouble.  Moreover, these are signs that can be detected by most

employees—they do not require special training in botany or other

fields.  Further, rust is a problem only in specific locations and

then, normally, only if severe.  Therefore, the Agency insists that

facility management inspect for the three items above wherever they

are relevant.

Issue #2:  The requirement for daily inspections is unnecessary and
           burdensome

a.  Sirmniary of Comments

     1.  Frequency of inspection should be based on:

          (i)  The probability and potential seriousness of
               the failure of the components of the facility
               to be inspected.  For example,

               -  storage areas, dikes, fences and vegetation
                  should only have to be inspected weekly be-
                  cause they are not subject to sudden change

               -  "low" hazard operations should only have to
                  be inspected monthly

          (ii) The number of truckloads of waste that are received
               at a facility (i.e., the more truckloads,  the more
               frequent should be inspections).

-------
         (iii)  The  type  of  facility.   For example,  one commenter
               argued that  treatment  and storage  facilities  should
               be  exempted  from the visual inspection requirements,
               since  they are "active businesses,"  where  any signs
               of  possible  damage will be seen by the personnel
               operating them.

          (iv)  The  type  of  waste (and its degree  of hazard)  handled
               at  the facility.  For  example,  mining waste opera-
               tions  should not be subject to  the daily inspection
               requirement.

          (v)   The remoteness of the  facility.  For example, a
               few commenters argued  that it would  be extremely
               burdensome and costly  to require daily inspections
               of  oil production facilities, since  they are  often
               remote, and  may use their disposal sites only in-
               frequently.

     2.   The requirement for daily inspections could lead to
          superficial inspections.

     3.   The Regional Administrator should have  the authority
          to waive or modify the daily frequency requirement as
          he considers appropriate.

     4.   Several  comments  called for alternative inspection
          frequencies—for  example, daily inspection of monitoring
          equipment,  weekly inspection of dikes,  and monthly inspec-
          tion of  fences and equipment corrosion.  Another comment
          urged that facilities not be required to inspect when  they
          are not  in operation (i.e., when closed for a holiday  or
          for the  weekend).

b.  Response to Comments

     The Agency agrees that an absolute requirement for daily

inspection in all  cases will result in unnecessary inspections and

could lead to their becoming superficial.  Corrosion and erosion

normally occur so  slowly that deterioration can be detected long

before failure occurs.  Therefore, such structures as dikes, fences,

and tank walls need not be  inspected daily.  In other situations,  if
                                  10

-------
the facility has containment structures (such as may surround  tanks




to catch overflow), redundant equipment (such as spare pumps for




critical applications), or automatic fail-safe devices (such as auto-




matic feed cutoff systems triggered by incinerator flameouts or com-




bustion chamber temperatures), inspection may not be necessary as




frequently to prevent damage that would result from a failure.  In




these cases, however, inspections may be necessary to be sure  that




redundant and automatic equipment and alarms are in working order.




The Agency agrees, therefore, that inspection frequencies should be




based on the potential for damage to occur from a failure, and on




rate of deterioration.




     The Agency also agrees that, in most cases, the probability that




problems will occur at a facility which is closed for the weekend or




a holiday is small.  Most of the problems such as equipment malfunc-




tions, operator errors, and spills do not normally occur if the




equipment is not running.  This is a facility-specific situation,




however, and in the case of prolonged shutdowns, deterioration such




as corrosion and erosion will continue.  Equipment and structures




susceptible to corrosion and erosion should, therefore, be inspected




even during shutdowns.  Similarly, nonattended (automatic) facilities




should be inspected periodically, if a failure of any equipment com-




ponents could lead to environmental contamination or a human health




hazard.
                                  11

-------
     The Agency does not agree that the relative seriousness of




potential incidents should be a consideration in determining the




frequency of inspections.  The Agency cannot agree that any damage




to human health or the environment should be allowed to occur as a




result of equipment malfunction or deterioration, or as a result of



operator error, when it can be prevented by inspections.  The only




benefit to reducing the frequency of inspections is a reduction in




the cost of performing the inspections.  The Agency's mandate in the




RCRA (Section 3004) is to "promulgate regulations ... as may be




necessary to protect human health and the environment."  It says




nothing of basing decisions on costs or economics.  Therefore, while




the Agency agrees that its regulations must be practical, protecting




the human health cannot be traded off against cost, so long as the




requirements meet a test of practicality.  In any event the Agency




believes that routine inspections do not represent a major expense,




and in most cases will reduce costs.  Early detection will normally



preclude the need for more costly repairs, replacement, or cleanup at




a later date when the situation has become more serious.  For these




reasons, the volume of waste managed (number of truckloads), the




hazardousness of the waste, the type of facility, and the remoteness




of the facility should not be factors in determining the frequency of




inspections, except insofar as these items may increase or decease




the probability that damage (serious or not serious) will occur.
                                  12

-------
     Frequency of inspections should be based primarily on the




probability that an environmental or human health hazard will occur




if a problem (malfunction or deterioration) goes undetected.  The




time delay between a malfunction and a health or environmental impact




may also be a factor, as might the rate of deterioration (corrosion,




etc.) where applicable.  Unfortunately, determining probability of




hazard occurrence, time delay, and rate of deterioration requires




personal judgment.  Also, these factors vary from facility to facil-




ity depending on design, operation, and wastes managed, thus the need




for flexibility in the development of a facility specific inspection




schedule.




     The Agency disagrees that personnel at facilities that actively




and routinely receive and process wastes would "notice" any problems




and that, therefore, these facilities should be exempt from the in-




spection requirements.  Operators would not note the malfunction of




many of the items to be inspected (fire extinguishers, for example),




unless they were specifically looking for the problem.  Looking for




other potential problems such as tank corrosion or dike erosion,




is usually outside the normal job functions of operating employees.




Unless someone is specifically required to inspect the facility for




these problems, they are likely to go undetected for months, unless




a failure occurs.




     The Agency agrees that absolute adherence to daily inspections




could lead to superficial inspections.  Because many conditions would
                                  13

-------
not change except over long periods, there would be  a natural ten-




dency on the part of inspectors to pass over these items.




     The interim status  standards have been designed to  stand alone,




with no interaction between the regulated community and  the Agency.




As previously discussed, this  is because of the personnel  demands




that the permit process  and other aspects of the regulatory program




place on the Agency.  As a result, EPA cannot  accommodate  the sug-




gestion that the Regional Administrator have authority to  waive or




modify these requirements during interim status.  However, during




the permitting process,  the Agency will review facilities' inspection




schedules.  Because  the  schedules are  to be facility-specific except




for a few  fundamental requirements,  these regulations provide a great




deal of  flexibility  which was  not present in the proposed  regula-




tions.  This added  flexibility, coupled with the elimination of man-




datory daily inspections, eliminates the need  for waiver provisions.




     To sum up, as a result of comments, the Agency has  modified the




inspection standard  for  interim status to allow owners and operators




to schedule inspections  according to their perception of the rate of




deterioration  and on their perception  of whether an  environmental or




human health incident is likely to occur if a  malfunction  goes un-




detected.  Thus, different  frequencies of inspection can be adopted




for different  inspection points.  In some cases, EPA has specified




minimum acceptable  frequencies for certain  facilities.   These have




been included  in the sections  of the subpart which spell out the
                                  14

-------
requirements for specific kinds of facilities, and are discussed in

the corresponding background documents.  Inspection frequencies must

be spelled out by the owner or operator in the inspection schedule.

Issue #3:  Change "owner/operator" to "owner/operator or responsible
           designee(s)."

a.   Summary of Comments

     The owner or operator may not physically be onsite at all times.

Therefore, the language "owner/operator" should be changed to "owner/

operator or responsible designee(s)."

b.   Response to Comments

     The background document to the proposed visual inspection  sec-

tion states that "the term 'owners and operators'  refers  to  owners

of hazardous waste management facilities as well as operators, super-

visory personnel or other qualified personnel designated  by the owner

to perform certain inspection duties."  Since there is no language  in

the regulations precluding it,  owners or operators have the option  of

using agents or designees to carry out their responsibilities.  How-

ever, the owner or operator is  responsible to see  that requirements

for which he is designated are in fact carried out in accordance with

the regulations.

Issue #4;  Remedying any deficiencies noted during visual inspection

a.   Summary of Comments

     The visual inspection section of the regulation should specify

that if any deficiencies are noted during the inspection,  repairs

must be made promptly.


                                  15

-------
b.   Response to Comments

     The background document to the proposed visual  inspection sec-

tion states  that "these  types  of  incidents  should  be immediately rem-

edied before their effects  are compounded and result in a condition

which adversely affects  human  health  and the environment."  However,

this requirement was  not stated in the  regulations  themselves.  The

Agency  agrees  that  it makes little sense to identify problems unless

they are  speedily corrected.   After all, the entire  purpose of the

inspection regulations  is to prevent  or minimize  problems by early

detection.  Therefore,  the  revised inspection standards require that

any damage or  unsafe  condition detected be  corrected before it can

result  in a pollution incident.   Where  a pollution incident is immi-

nent  or has already occurred,  repair  must be accomplished immediately

and noted in the  inspection record.

Issue #5:   Recording  the results  of  the visual  inspection

a.  S'""mary of Comments

      1.   Requiring a log notation of the results  of the inspection
           is needless paperwork.

      2.   The  operating log should  include  the  identity of  the person
           making  the  inspection;  this will  make it possible to deter-
           mine at some  future  time who was  responsible for  the inspec-
           pection.

b.  Response to Comments

      The Agency believes that  recordkeeping is  a  sound management

practice.   The inspection record  will enable  the  Agency management

or  other regulatory agencies to pinpoint when a difficulty  arose,
                                  16

-------
and perhaps assist in estimating the danger to public health and the




environment from a given incident.  The requirement that a record be




kept will help ensure that inspections are carried out carefully and




are not conveniently forgotten or reduced to a superficial exercise.




The Agency believes that it will not be necessary to refer to these




records after three years,  because any malfunctions and deterioration




that are not corrected will probably result in obvious damage within




that period; thus the three-year requirement for retaining the




record.  As an incidental benefit, the record of inspection may help




management keep track of troublesome items, keep on top of needed




repairs, and perhaps assess the reliability of their equipment.




     The Agency agrees that it may be important to know who made an




inspection.  For example, during an emergency or an investigation it




may be necessary to discuss the extent or characteristics of a prob-




lem noted on the log with the inspector who observed it.  Similarily,




the date and time of the inspection may prove useful in any future




investigation, in that they may relate to the extent and nature of




the problem.




     We have added the date and nature of actions taken in response




to inspection observations  to the information required on the inspec-




tion log.  This record will document the facility's response.  In the




event of a human health or  environmental incident, this requirement




should assist the regulatory agencies in reconstructing a chain of




events.  It will also help  to ensure that repairs are made promptly,
                                 17

-------
and not postponed or forgotten.  As an incidental benefit, this rec-




ord should assist management in observing how effective and respon-




sive their maintenance program is to specific problems.




Issue #6:  Duplication of other regulations




a.   Summary of Comments




     The visual inspection of certain components of facilities is




already required under existing regulations (e.g. , the inspection




of certain monitoring equipment under OSHA's safety regulations).



Therefore, it  is unnecessary to regulate these  components under RCRA.




b.   Response  to Comments




     The Agency does  not  intend to  duplicate the  requirements of




other  acts.  In view  of the  flexibility that these regulations now




allow  for  the  owner and operator  to tailor his  or her  own inspection




schedule,  it should be possible to  develop one  inspection schedule to



serve  the  requirements of  all  regulatory programs.  The Agency is not




aware  of any other  programs  that  specifically cover any significant




requirements of  these regulations.   In  any case,  an owner or operator




would  be in compliance with  these requirements  if he met more strin-




gent  requirements of  another regulatory program.
                                   18

-------
V.  REVISED REGULATION LANGUAGE

§264.15  General inspection requirements (General Status)

     (a)  The owner or operator must inspect his facility for
          malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and
          discharges which may be causing—or may lead to—(1)
          release of hazardous waste constituents to the environment
          or (2) a threat to human health.   The owner or operator
          must conduct these inspections often enough to identify
          problems in time to correct them before they harm human
          health or the environment.

     (b)  (1)  The owner or operator must develop and follow a
               written schedule for inspecting monitoring equipment,
               safety and emergency equipment, security devices, and
               operating and structural equipment (such as dikes and
               sump pumps) that are important to preventing,
               detecting, or responding to  environmental or human
               health hazards.

          (2)  He must keep this schedule at the facility.

          (3)  The schedule must identify the types of problems
               (e.g., malfunctions or deterioration) which are to be
               looked for during the inspection (e.g., inoperative
               sump pump, leaking fitting,  eroding dike, etc.).

          (4)  The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on
               the schedule.  However, it should be based on the rate
               of possible deterioration of the equipment and the
               probability of an environmental or human health
               incident if the deterioration or malfunction or any
               operator error goes undetected between inspections.
               Areas subject to spills, such as loading and unloading
               areas, must be inspected daily when in use.

     [Comment:  Part 122, Subpart B, of this Chapter requires the
     inspection schedule to be submitted with Part B of the permit
     application.  EPA will evaluate the schedule along with the rest
     of the application to ensure that it adequately protects human
     health and- the environment.  As part of this review, EPA may
     modify or amend the schedule as may be necessary.]

     (c)  The owner or operator must remedy any deterioration or
          malfunction of equipment or structures which the inspection
          reveals on a schedule which ensures that the problem does
          not lead to an environmental or human health hazard.  Where


                                 19

-------
          a hazard is imminent or has already occurred, remedial
          action must be taken immediately.

     (d)   The owner or operator must record inspections in an
          inspection log or summary.  He must keep these records for
          at least three years from the date of inspection.  At a
          minimum, these records must include the date and time of
          the inspection, the name of the inspector, a notation of
          the observations made, and the date and nature of any
          repairs or other remedial actions.

§265.15  General inspection requirements (Interim Status)

     (a)   The owner or operator must inspect his facility for
          malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and
          discharges which may be causing—or may lead to—•(!)
          release of hazardous waste constituents to the environment
          or (2) a threat to human health.  The owner or operator
          must conduct these inspections often enough to identify
          problems in time to correct them before they harm human
          health or the environment.

     (b)   (1)  The owner or operator must develop and follow a
               written schedule for inspecting all monitoring
               equipment, safety and emergency equipment, security
               devices, and operating and structural equipment (such
               as dikes and sump pumps) that are important to
               preventing, detecting, or responding to environmental
               or human health hazards.

          (2)  He must keep this schedule at the facility.

          (3)  The schedule must identify the types of problems
               (e.g., malfunctions or deterioration) which are to be
               looked for during the inspection (e.g., inoperative
               sump pump, leaking fitting, eroding dike, etc.).

          (4)  The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on
               the schedule.  However, it should be based on  the rate
               of possible deterioration of the equipment and the
               probability of an environmental or human health
               incident if the deterioration or malfunction or any
               operator error goes  undetected between  inspections.
               Areas subject to spills, such as loading and unloading
               areas, must be inspected daily when in use.  At a
               minimum, the inspection schedule must include  the
               items and frequencies called for in §§265.174,
               265.194, 265.2*26, 265.347, 265.377, and 265.403.


                                  20

-------
(c)   The owner or operator must remedy any deterioration or
     malfunction of equipment or structures which the inspection
     reveals on a schedule which ensures that the problem does
     not lead to an environmental or human health hazard.  Where
     a hazard is imminent or has already occurred, remedial
     action must be taken immediately.

(d)   The owner or operator must record inspections in an
     inspection log or summary.  He must keep these records for
     at least three years from the date of inspection.  At a
     minimum, these records must include the date and time of
     the inspection, the name of the inspector,  a notation of
     the observations made, and the date and nature of any
     repairs or other remedial actions.
                             21

-------
                             REFERENCES
(1)  6MCAR §4.S004(G)(3b), Minnesota Code of Agency  Rules,  Pollution
     Control Agency, June 18,  1979.
             GPO 868-067

-------