[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52192-52268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24204]



[[Page 52191]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 124, 260, 267, and 270



Hazardous Waste Management System; Standardized Permit; Corrective 
Action; and Financial Responsibility for RCRA Hazardous Waste 
Management Facilities; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 52192]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 124, 260, 267, and 270

[FRL-7066-6]
RIN 2050-8E44


Hazardous Waste Management System; Standardized Permit; 
Corrective Action; and Financial Responsibility for RCRA Hazardous 
Waste Management Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste permitting program to allow a 
``standardized permit.'' The standardized permit would be available to 
facilities that generate hazardous waste and then manage the waste in 
units such as tanks, containers, and containment buildings. This 
proposed revision to the RCRA permitting program reflects one of the 
recommendations of EPA's special task force, known as the Permits 
Improvement Team (PIT), which was convened to evaluate permitting 
activities and to make specific recommendations to improve these 
activities. The standardized permit should streamline the permit 
process by allowing facilities to obtain and modify permits more easily 
while maintaining the protectiveness currently existing in the 
individual RCRA permit process. In addition to the requirements 
proposed in this Federal Register document, we also are soliciting 
comment on two issues related to RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities. We are requesting comment on how all facilities receiving 
permits (standardized, individual, and permits by rule) can satisfy 
RCRA corrective action requirements by conducting cleanup under the 
direction of appropriate alternative state cleanup programs. We also 
are requesting comment on the conclusions about captive insurance in a 
March, 2001 report by EPA's Inspector General, and on a requirement 
that insurers that provide financial assurance for hazardous waste and 
PCB facilities have a minimum rating from commercial rating services.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be submitted by December 11, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on this proposal, you must send an 
original and two copies of your comments, referencing docket number F-
2001-SPRP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid 
Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, 
HQ), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Hand 
deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address 
below. You may also submit comments electronically through the Internet 
to: [email protected]. Comments in electronic format must 
also reference the docket number F-2001-SPRP-FFFFF. If you choose to 
submit your comments electronically, you must submit them as an ASCII 
file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    You should not submit electronically any confidential business 
information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted 
under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of 
Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, 
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is 
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal 
holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an 
appointment by calling 703-603-9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 
pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost 
$0.15/page. The index and some supporting materials are available 
electronically. See the Supplementary Information section of this 
Federal Register document for information on accessing the index and 
these supporting materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800-424-9346 
or TDD 800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, 
metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
    For more detailed information on specific aspects of this 
rulemaking, contact Vernon Myers, Office of Solid Waste, 5303W, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, (703-308-8660), ([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The index and some supporting materials are available on the 
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/index.htm
    The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into 
paper form and place them in the official record, which will also 
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record 
is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information Center.
    Our responses to comments, whether the comments are written or 
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a 
response to comments document we will place in the official record for 
this rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters 
electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments 
that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, 
as discussed above.
    Acronyms used in today's preamble are listed below:

APA: Administrative Procedures Act
EAB: Environmental Appeals Board
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
CAMU: Corrective Action Management Unit
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
EO: Executive Order
FR: Federal Regulations
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PIT: Permit Improvement Team
PPE: Personal Protection Equipment
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA: RCRA Facility Assessment
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SWMU: Solid Waste Management Unit
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following 
outline:

I. Overview and Background

A. Why do this Proposed Rule and Preamble Read so Differently From 
other Regulations?
B. Who is Potentially Affected by this Proposed Rule?
C. What is the Agency's Proposal?
    1. What is a RCRA Standardized Permit?
    2. Why are we Proposing a RCRA Standardized Permit?
    3. What would be the Advantages of a Standardized Permit?
    4. Who would be Eligible for a Standardized Permit?
D. What are the Differences between the Existing Individual 
Permitting System and the Proposed Standardized Permitting Process?
    1. What are the Steps for Obtaining an Individual Permit?
    2. What are the Proposed Steps for Obtaining a Standardized 
Permit?
    3. How does the Proposed Process for Standardized Permits 
Compare to the Process for Individual Permits?
    Process for Individual Permits?
E. Public Comments on this Rulemaking

[[Page 52193]]

    1. How can I Influence EPA's Thinking on this Rule?
    2. What Topics are not Appropriate for Public Comment?
    3. What Topics are we Specifically Requesting Public Comment on?
F. What Law Authorizes this Proposed Rule?

II. Conforming Amendments to General Permit Process

A. What Changes would we Make to 40 CFR Part 124 Subpart A--General 
Program Requirements?
B. How would the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Requirements 
Change?
C. Where would I find the Procedures Governing RCRA Standardized 
Permits?

III. Applying for a Standardized Permit

A. How would I Apply for a Standardized Permit?
    1. Conduct a pre-application meeting with the community.
    2. Submit a Notice of Intent to operate under the standardized 
permit along with appropriate supporting documents.
B. How would I Switch from an Individual Permit to a Standardized 
Permit?

IV. Issuing a Standardized Permit

A. How would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Draft Standardized 
Permit?
    1. Drafting terms and conditions for the supplemental portion.
    2. Denying coverage under the standardized permit.
    3. Preparing your draft permit decision in 120 days.
B. How would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Final Standardized 
Permit?
C. In what Situations could Facility Owners or Operators be Required 
to Apply for an Individual Permit?

V. Proposed Opportunities for Public Involvement in the Standardized 
Permit Process

A. What are the Proposed Requirements for Public Notices?
B. What are the Proposed Opportunities for Public Comments and 
Hearings?
C. What are the Proposed Requirements for Responding to Comments?
D. How could People Appeal a Final Standardized Permit Decision 
under the Proposal?

VI. Maintaining a Standardized Permit

A. What Types of Changes could Owners or Operators Make?
B. What are the Proposed Definitions of Routine And Significant 
Changes?
C. What are the Proposed Standardized Permit Procedures for Making 
Routine Changes?
D. What are the Proposed Standardized Permit Procedures for Making 
Significant Changes?
E. What would be the Proposed Process for Renewing Standardized 
Permits?

VII. Proposed Part 267 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous 
Waste Facilities Operating Under A Standardized Permit

A. Overview
B. Subpart A--General
    1. What are the purpose, scope and applicability of this 
proposed part?
    2. What is the proposed relationship to interim status 
standards?
    3. How would this subpart affect an imminent hazard action?
C. Subpart B--General Facility Standards
    1. Would this subpart apply to me?
    2. How would I comply with this subpart?
    3. How would I obtain an identification number?
    4. What are the proposed waste analysis requirements?
    5. What are the proposed security requirements?
    6. What are the proposed general inspection schedule 
requirements?
    7. What training would my employees be required to have?
    8. What are the proposed requirements for managing ignitable, 
reactive, or incompatible waste?
    9. What are the proposed standards for selecting the location of 
my facility?
    10. Would I be required to have a construction quality assurance 
program?
D. Subpart C--Preparedness and Prevention
    1. What are the proposed general design and operation standards?
    2. What equipment would I be required to have?
    3. What are the proposed testing and maintenance requirements 
for the equipment?
    4. When would personnel be required to have access to 
communication equipment or an alarm system?
    5. How would I ensure access for personnel and equipment during 
emergencies?
    6. What arrangements would I be required to make with local 
authorities for emergencies?
E. Subpart D--Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
    1. What is the purpose of the proposed contingency plan and how 
would I use it?
    2. What would be required to be in my contingency plan?
    3. Who would be required to have copies of the contingency plan?
    4. When would I have to revise the contingency plan?
    5. What is the proposed role of the emergency coordinator?
    6. What are the proposed emergency procedures for the emergency 
coordinator?
F. Subpart E--Record Keeping, Reporting, and Notifying
    1. When would I need to manifest my waste?
    2. What information would I need to keep?
    3. What records would I provide to the permitting agency?
    4. What reports would I need to prepare and who would I send 
them to?
    5. What notifications would be required?
G. Subpart F--Releases from Solid Waste Management Units
    1. Would this proposed rule require me to address releases of 
hazardous waste or constituents from solid waste management units?
    2. Are the proposed corrective action requirements for 
standardized permits different from the corrective action 
requirements for individual permits?
    3. Why are we proposing these requirements?
    4. Why would the proposed corrective action requirements be 
included in the supplemental portion of the standardized permit?
    5. Would I be able to utilize the flexibility provided by CAMUs, 
temporary units, and staging piles when I conduct corrective action 
under a standardized permit?
H. Subpart G--Closure
    1. What general standards would I need to meet when I stop 
operating the unit?
    2. What procedures would I need to follow?
    3. After I stop operating, how long would I have until I close 
the unit?
    4. What would I have to do with contaminated equipment, 
structures, and soils?
    5. How would I certify closure?
I. Subpart H--Financial Requirements
    1. Who would have to comply with this subpart and briefly what 
would they have to do?
    2. Definitions.
    3. Closure cost estimates.
    4. Methods for estimating costs for units eligible for 
standardized permits.
    5. We considered six options for developing cost estimates, but 
preferred three of them for this proposal.
    6. Option 4, Standard forms for estimating closure costs.
    7. Option 5, Default estimates for estimating closure costs.
    8. Option 6, Waiving the cost estimate for facilities using the 
financial test or corporate guarantee.
    9. Availability of information on EPA's proposed approaches.
    10. Financial assurance for closure.
    11. Post closure financial responsibility.
    12. Liability requirements.
    13. Other provisions of the financial requirements.
J. Subpart I--Use and management of containers
    1. Would this subpart apply to me?
    2. What standards would apply to the containers?
    3. What are the proposed inspection requirements?
    4. What proposed standards apply to the container storage area?
    5. What special requirements would I need to meet for ignitable 
or reactive waste?
    6. What special requirements would I need to meet for 
incompatible wastes?
    7. What would I need to do when I want to stop using the 
containers?
    8. What air emission standards are proposed apply?
K. Subpart J--Tank Systems
    1. Would this subpart apply to me?
    2. What are the proposed required design and construction 
standards for new tank systems or components?
    3. What are the proposed handling and inspection requirements 
for new tank systems?
    4. What testing would be required?
    5. What installation requirements would be required?
    6. What are the proposed preventative requirements for 
containing a release?

[[Page 52194]]

    7. What are the proposed devices for secondary containment and 
what are their design, operating and installation requirements?
    8. What are the proposed requirements for ancillary equipment?
    9. What are the proposed general operating requirements for tank 
systems?
    10. What are the proposed inspection requirements?
    11. What would I do in case of a leak or a spill?
    12. What would I do when I stop operating the tank system?
    13. What are the proposed special requirements for ignitable or 
reactive wastes?
    14. What are the proposed special requirements for incompatible 
wastes?
    15. What air emission standards are proposed?
L. Subpart DD--Containment Buildings
    1. Would this subpart apply to me?
    2. What are the proposed design and operating standards for 
containment buildings?
    3. What additional design and operating standards would apply if 
liquids will be in my containment building?
    4. What are the proposed other requirements to prevent releases?
    5. What would I do if I detect a release?
    6. What would I do if my containment building contains areas 
both with and without secondary containment?
    7. Could a containment building be considered secondary 
containment for other units?
    8. How would I obtain a waiver from secondary containment 
requirements?
    9. What would I do when I stop operating the containment 
building?

VIII. Conforming Permit Changes to Part 270

A. Overview of Part 270 Changes.
B. Specific Changes to Part 270.
    1. Overview of the RCRA Program
    2. Definitions.
    3. Permit applications.
    4. Permit reapplication.
    5. Transfer of permits.
    6. Modification or revocation and reissuance of permits.
    7. Continuation of expiring permits.
    8. Standardized permit.

IX. RCRA Standardized Permits

A. General Information about Standardized Permits.
B. What Information would I Need to Submit to the Permitting Agency 
to Support my Standardized Permit Application?
    1. RCRA Part A application information.
    2. Preapplication meeting summary.
    3. Compliance with location standards.
    4. Compliance with other Federal laws.
    5. Solid waste management units.
    6. Certification of compliance with proposed part 267 
requirements.
C. What are the Proposed Certification Requirements?
    1. Certification of compliance.
    2. Certification of availability of information.
    3. What happens if my facility is not in compliance with 
proposed part 267 requirements at the time I submit my Notice of 
Intent?
D. What Information would be Required to be Kept at my Facility?
    1. General facility information.
    2. Container information.
    3. Tank information.
    4. Equipment information.
    5. Air emission control information.
E. How would I Modify my RCRA Standardized Permit?

X. Public Comment on Corrective Action and Financial Assurance Issues

A. Corrective Action.
    1. Could I satisfy the RCRA corrective action requirements for 
my site by conducting cleanup under an alternate State program?
    2. How would EPA and the authorized States address the alternate 
authority cleanup provisions in the RCRA permit?
    3. How would EPA or the authorized State determine that cleanups 
conducted under an alternate cleanup program would satisfy the 
requirements of section 264.101?
B. Financial Assurance.

XI. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States.
B. Effect on State Authorization.

XII. Regulatory Assessments

A. Executive Order 12866.
    1. Assessment of Potential Costs and Benefits.
    a. Description of entities to which this rule applies.
    b. Description of potential benefits of this rule.
    c. Description of potential costs of this rule.
    d. Description of potential net benefits of the rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act.
E. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments.
I. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.
J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects.

XIII. List of References

I. Overview and Background

A. Why Do This Proposed Rule and Preamble Read so Differently From 
Other Regulations?

    We wrote today's proposed regulations and preamble in ``readable 
regulations'' format. We tried to use the active rather than the 
passive voice, plain language, a question-answer format, and other 
techniques to make it easier for the readers to find and understand 
information in today's rule and preamble. The pronoun ``we'' refers to 
EPA and the pronoun ``you'' refers to the person who would be subject 
to these proposed requirements (which could be either a facility owner/
operator or a Director of a regulatory agency). Once promulgated in a 
final rule, all requirements, including those set forth in table 
format, will constitute binding, enforceable requirements.

B. Who Is Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule?

    Today's action, if finalized, could potentially affect an estimated 
866 RCRA-permitted private sector facilities which store and/or non-
thermally treat RCRA hazardous wastes on-site, using tanks, containers 
and/or containment buildings. Table 1 below displays the SIC/NAICS code 
economic sectors associated with these facilities.

        Table 1.--Economic Sectors Which Own and Operate Facilities Potentially Affected by this Proposal
                       [Facilities with eligible RCRA hazardous waste management units](a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Count of Potentially Affected Facilities
                       Economic Sector                           -----------------------------------------------
     SIC  (b)            Description        NAICS (b) equivalent                   Tank     Containment
                                                                   Containers    systems       Bldgs.     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................  Agriculture, Forestry   11...................           21           12            0  .......
                    & Fisheries.
1................  Mining, Oil/Gas &       21, 23...............           26           16            0  .......
                    Construction.
2................  Manufacturing(c)......  31-33, 511...........          427          313            5  .......
3................  Manufacturing           31-33................          285          136           17  .......
                    (continued)(d).
4................  Transport,              22, 48, 49, 513, 562.          272          201           10  .......
                    Communication,
                    Utilities.
5................  Wholesale & Retail      42, 44, 45...........          175          132            3  .......
                    Trade.
6................  Finance, Insurance &    52, 53...............            5            2            0  .......
                    Real Estate.
7................  Services(e)...........  71, 72, 512, 514,              221          183            2  .......
                                            811, 812.

[[Page 52195]]

 
8................  Services                54, 55, 561, 61, 62,            90           38            0  .......
                    (continued)(f).         813, 814.
9................  Public Admin,           92...................          200           85            4  .......
                    Environment & NEC.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Non-duplicative column totals(g) =
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                          800          623           22     866
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory Notes:
(a) Source: EPA Office of Solid Waste customized query of RCRIS and BRS databases (data as of March 2000).
(b) SIC = ``Standard Industrial Classification'' system.
NAICS = ``North American Industry Classification System'', adopted by the US Federal Government in 1997,
  replacing the SIC code system (for SIC/NAICS conversion tables see http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html).
 
(c) SIC 2 Manufacturing = Food, Textile/Apparel, Lumber/Wood, Furniture/Fixtures, Paper, Printing/Publishing,
  Chemicals/Allied Products, & Petroleum/Coal.
(d) SIC 3 Manufacturing = Rubber/Plastic, Leather, Stone/Clay/Glass, Primary Metals, Fabricated Metals,
  Industrial Machinery, Electronics, Transportation Equipment, Instruments, & Misc. Mfrg.
(e) SIC 7 Services = Hotels, Personal, Automotive, Repair, Motion Pictures, & Recreation.
(f) SIC 8 Services = Health, Legal, Social, Museums/Gardens, Membership Orgs & Engineering/Mngmnt.
(g) Some facilities report multiple SIC codes for their operations to the EPA; consequently both the facility
  and unit total counts in this table exceed the non-duplicative total numbers of facilities shown in the bottom
  row above.

C. What Is the Agency's Proposal?

    We are proposing revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste permitting 
program to allow a type of general permit, called a ``standardized 
permit.'' The standardized permit would be available to facilities that 
generate hazardous waste and then manage the waste in units such as 
tanks, containers, and containment buildings. In addition to the 
requirements proposed today, we also are soliciting comment on two 
issues related to RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. We 
are requesting comment on how all facilities receiving permits 
(standardized, individual, and permits by rule) can satisfy RCRA 
corrective action requirements by conducting cleanup under the 
direction of appropriate alternative state cleanup programs. We also 
are requesting comment on a requirement that insurers that provide 
financial assurance for hazardous waste and PCB facilities have a 
minimum rating from commercial rating services.
1. What Is a RCRA Standardized Permit?
    We are proposing to define a ``standardized permit'' as a general 
permit for facilities that generate waste and routinely manage the 
waste on-site in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. The RCRA 
standardized permit would be a document that EPA or the authorized 
state issues. It would consists of two components: A uniform portion 
that is included in all cases, and a supplemental portion that would be 
included at EPA's or the Director's discretion. The terms and 
requirements that we are proposing as part of today's rulemaking would 
constitute the uniform portion of the standardized permit (see Section 
VII: Proposed Part 267 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous 
Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit). All facilities 
that are authorized to operate under the standardized permit would need 
to comply with these applicable terms and conditions.
    In developing a permit process for the RCRA standardized permit, we 
need to satisfy both the statutory requirements in RCRA and Agency 
policy to provide for local public participation and to ensure that 
permits include all terms and conditions necessary to protect human 
health and the environment. Under the proposed permitting scheme for 
standardized permits, the uniform terms of the standardized permit 
would be the same nationwide, but there would be an opportunity to add 
conditions tailored to each particular site. This would ensure that we 
meet the statutory standard of protectiveness (see Section IV A 1: How 
would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Draft Standardized Permit?). In 
order to satisfy the statutory standard and agency policy for local 
public participation, RCRA pre-application meeting requirements are 
included in the proposed standardized permit process as well as other 
opportunities for public involvement that are traditionally part of the 
permit issuance process (see Section V: Proposed Opportunities for 
Public Involvement in the Standardized Permit Process).
    We are proposing that the documents and certification the permittee 
submits with the notice of intent to be covered by the standardized 
permit would become attachments to the RCRA standardized permit (see 
Section IX B: What Information would I need to Submit to the Permitting 
Agency to Support my Standardized Permit Application). These documents 
and certification include the general RCRA Part A information, the pre-
application meeting summary, the location standard information, the 
permittee's self audit, and the owner's certification of compliance and 
information availability. This is similar to the way individual RCRA 
permits are issued with sections of the permit application placed in 
appendices.
2. Why Are We Proposing a RCRA Standardized Permit?
    In 1984, the Agency proposed a standard permit application form and 
requirements (49 FR 29524, July 20, 1984) for facilities that generated 
hazardous waste on-site and then stored it in above-ground tanks or 
containers. The 1984 proposal considered similar issues that are 
discussed in today's proposal. However, the 1984 proposal was never 
finalized at that time because of the new requirements imposed by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
    The Agency convened a special task force in 1994 to look at 
permitting activities throughout its different programs and to make 
specific recommendations to improve these permitting programs. This 
task force,

[[Page 52196]]

known as the Permits Improvement Team (PIT), spent two years working 
with stakeholders from the Agency, State permitting agencies, industry, 
and the environmental community. The PIT stakeholders suggested, among 
other things, that permitting activities should be commensurate with 
the complexity of the activity. The stakeholders felt that current 
Agency permitting programs were not flexible enough to allow 
streamlined procedures for routine permitting activities.
    Under the RCRA program, facilities that store, treat, or dispose of 
hazardous waste currently must obtain site-specific ``individual'' 
permits prescribing conditions for each ``unit'' (e.g., tank, container 
area, etc.) in which hazardous waste is managed. Experience gained by 
the Agency and states over the past 15 years has shown that the 
complexity of waste management varies by type of activity. Some 
activities, such as thermal treatment or land disposal of hazardous 
waste, are more complex than storage of hazardous waste. We believe 
that thermal treatment and land disposal activities continue to warrant 
``individual'' permits, prescribing unit-specific conditions. 
Similarly, we also believe that the storage of hazardous waste military 
munitions should continue under the individual permitting program. The 
site-specific nature of the management of hazardous waste military 
munitions generally are not routine activities the lend themselves to 
standardized conditions. However, we also believe that some 
accommodation can be made for hazardous waste management practices in 
standardized units such as tanks, container storage areas, and 
containment buildings. The PIT recommended, among other things, that 
regulations be developed to allow ``standardized permits'' for on-site 
storage and non-thermal treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, 
containers, and containment buildings.
    Today, we are proposing to revise the RCRA regulations to allow 
this type of standardized permit for several reasons. First, this new 
permitting system is intended to streamline the administrative 
permitting process and shorten the time required to obtain a RCRA 
permit, without lessening the environmental protection provided by the 
permit. The new permit system would also reduce the amount of time and 
administrative resources required to maintain a RCRA permit throughout 
the operating life of the facility by providing streamlined permit 
modification and renewal processes for the standardized permit.
    Second, such a standardized permit process takes into account the 
relative risks posed by the on-site storage and non-thermal treatment 
of hazardous waste in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. 
These units are relatively simple to design and properly construct. The 
engineering and construction knowledge and skills necessary to design 
and construct these units are relatively basic. These units are in 
common usage in many applications and are frequently bought ``off-the-
shelf'' or built from ``off-the-shelf'' designs. Industry associations 
and standards organizations have developed standards for these units 
that are in widespread use. Past experience with these units indicates 
that they are simpler to design, construct, and manage than units such 
as combustion units or land disposal units. Storage and non-thermal 
treatment of waste in these types of units is generally less 
complicated than thermal treatment of waste (e.g. combustion of 
hazardous waste in incinerators, boilers, or industrial furnaces) or 
disposal of waste (e.g. landfilling). It is easier to control risks at 
these simpler storage and treatment units. We believe that the 
streamlined standardized permit, as proposed, would allow adequate 
interaction and oversight by the regulating agency and would provide 
sufficient technical controls to protect human health and the 
environment.
    Third, although the proposed standardized permit would streamline 
some of the administrative permitting process, we are not proposing to 
streamline the public participation requirements and technical 
standards. The proposed standards and requirements are for the most 
part the same requirements that apply under the current hazardous waste 
permitting system. We are only proposing minimal changes to the general 
facility standards and several minor changes to the technical 
requirements for tanks, containers, and containment buildings. Because 
the technical standards remain substantially unchanged, the level of 
environmental protection that the standardized permit offers would 
remain high.
3. What Would Be the Advantages of a Standardized Permit?
    The proposed standardized permit application procedures are less 
cumbersome than the procedures for an individual permit. You would not 
have to submit the amount of information needed to support an 
individual permit application; although you would need to keep the 
required information at your facility. Maintaining your standardized 
permit should be easier because the permit modification procedures 
would be less cumbersome for a standardized permit than for an 
individual permit.
    Although the standardized permit process would be more streamlined 
than the process for individual permits, we are proposing that you must 
continue to comply with waste management practices, day-to-day 
housekeeping, and judicious maintenance programs found in the 
``individual'' RCRA permit program. As mentioned, one of the benefits 
of the proposed standardized permit would be the reduced paperwork 
burden and effort associated with the permit application submittal and 
review process. Since, under the proposal, the permitting agency would 
no longer be involved with detailed review of permit application 
material associated with waste management unit design and operation, it 
would be incumbent on you to properly design, operate, and maintain the 
waste management units and facility operations subject to the 
standardized permit.
    You should not construe the more efficient standardized permitting 
process as a reduced compliance burden. Under today's proposal, 
compliance with proper waste management practices would be ensured by 
your operation, maintenance and inspection programs and routine 
inspection by the permitting agency. Similar to the individual 
permitting system, failure to maintain waste management practices that 
protect human health and the environment could result in revocation of 
the standardized permit by the permitting agency, as well as in civil 
and/or criminal penalties.
    In addition the burden reductions for facilities, permitting 
agencies should be able to more efficiently administer the proposed 
standardized permit program. Since the application for a standardized 
permit is intended to be less burdensome than the current RCRA permit 
requirements, the administrative record should be easier to maintain. 
Also, the proposed permit modification procedures for a standardized 
permit should reduce the administrative burden on the permitting 
agency. EPA welcomes comments on the anticipated advantages--as well as 
any disadvantages--of a standardized permit.
4. Who Would Be Eligible for a Standardized Permit?
    We are proposing to allow generators to apply for standardized 
permits for hazardous wastes that they non-thermally treat or store on-
site in tanks, containers, or containment buildings.

[[Page 52197]]

Once a standardized permit rule is promulgated, we would inform you of 
your eligibility when we make a decision on your permit application. 
Although you may be eligible for a standardized permit, you would not 
have to apply for one if you choose not to. Instead you would have the 
option of applying for an individual RCRA hazardous waste permit. In 
Section I E 3: What Topics are we Specifically Requesting Public 
Comment on?, we are taking comment on whether treatment/storage of off-
site waste should be eligible for a standardized permit.

D. What Are the Differences Between the Existing Individual Permitting 
System and the Proposed Standardized Permitting Process?

1. What Are the Steps for Obtaining an Individual Permit?
    Permits for the management of hazardous waste are issued according 
to the procedures established in 40 CFR parts 124 and 270. The permit 
process generally follows the steps laid out briefly below:
     You, as the owner or operator of a hazardous waste 
management facility, develop an individual site-specific permit 
application.
     Early in the permitting process (i.e., before submitting 
an application for a permit), you hold an informal public meeting to 
discuss proposed hazardous waste management activities with community 
members.
     You then send the permit application to the permitting 
agency and the permitting agency announces the submission of a permit 
application by sending a notice to community members.
     The permitting agency then reviews the application for 
completeness.
     Following this review, the permitting agency either begins 
to develop a draft permit applying the section 3004 standards that are 
codified in 40 CFR part 264 or determines that it intends to deny the 
permit.
     The permitting agency then gives public notice of the 
draft permit or intent to deny, allows a 45-day comment period, and 
holds a public hearing, if requested, before it issues or denies the 
permit.
     The permit for your facility typically becomes effective 
30 days after the issuing agency serves notice of the final permit 
decision. Within 30 days after the final permit decision, an appeal of 
the decision to the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) may be initiated. 
Decisions of the EAB are subject to judicial review.
2. What Are the Proposed Steps for Obtaining a Standardized Permit?
    We propose that the RCRA standardized permit process follow the 
steps laid out briefly below. We discuss each of these steps in more 
detail in later sections of this preamble.
     First, you, as a facility owner or operator, would 
advertise and conduct a meeting with your neighboring community to 
discuss potential operations. (see Section III A 1: Conduct a pre-
application meeting with the community.)
     Then you would submit to the regulatory agency a Notice of 
Intent to operate under the standardized permit. We are proposing that 
you must include with the notice a summary of the meeting with the 
community, certain certifications required under proposed Sec. 270.280, 
and the Part A information required under Sec. 270.13. (see Section III 
A 2: Submit a Notice of Intent to operate under the standardized permit 
with appropriate supporting documents.)
     Within 120 days of receiving the notice of intent and 
accompanying information, the Director of the regulatory agency would 
need to make a preliminary decision to either grant or deny you 
coverage under the standardized permit. (see Section IV A: How would 
the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Draft Standardized Permit?)
     If the Director anticipates granting coverage, he or she 
would prepare a draft standardized permit. We are proposing that the 
draft standardized permit would consist of a uniform portion that 
applies to all facilities, and any additional terms or conditions that 
the Director tentatively decides to apply to your specific facility. 
These site-specific terms or conditions would constitute a supplemental 
portion of your standardized permit. (see Section IV A: How would the 
Regulatory Agency Prepare a Draft Standardized Permit?)
     The Director would provide public notice of the draft 
permit. Under the proposal, the public notice would initiates a 45-day 
public comment period; any requests for a public hearing would need to 
be made during the public comment period. We are proposing that the 
public could comment on your facility's eligibility as well as on the 
supplemental conditions that the Director tentatively identified. The 
public could also offer comments on the need for additional 
supplemental conditions. (see Section V: Proposed Opportunities for 
Public Involvement in the Standardized Permit Process.)
     Following the public comment period (and public hearing, 
if any), the Director would make a final permit decision. These 
requirements would include responding to public comments. (see Section 
IV B: How would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Final Standardized 
Permit? and Section V: Proposed Opportunities for Public Involvement in 
the Standardized Permit Process.)
     The standardized permit for your facility typically would 
become effective 30 days after the final permit decision. Also, we are 
proposing that within 30 days after the Director makes a final decision 
on an EPA permit, an appeal of the decision to the Environmental 
Appeals Board (EAB) could be initiated. [Note: Although the final EPA 
permit decision is subject to appeal to the EAB, we are proposing that 
the terms and conditions of the uniform portion of the standardized 
permit would not be subject to EAB review.] Decisions of the EAB are 
subject to judicial review. (see Section V D: How could People Appeal a 
Final Standardized Permit Decision Under the Proposal?)
3. How Does the Proposed Process for Standardized Permits Compare to 
the Process for Individual Permits?
    We (or states authorized by us) currently issue site-specific RCRA 
permits to operate hazardous waste management facilities on an 
individual basis. Each facility applies for a permit, and we (or the 
authorized state) write the site-specific permit. The requirements 
governing how we process a RCRA individual permit application are laid 
out in 40 CFR parts 124 and 270. In general, the individual process 
requires you to prepare a much more detailed permit application and the 
regulatory agency to conduct a more extensive review. The ``back and 
forth'' between permit applicants and regulators that normally takes 
place as both parties come to agreement on the completeness and 
accuracy of the application can impose a significant workload and 
delay. Under our proposed standardized permit procedures, we streamline 
this activity. Table 2 offers a step-by-step comparison of the 
individual permitting process as administered by EPA and the proposed 
standardized permitting process.

[[Page 52198]]



                 Table 2.--Permitting Process Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Proposed
  Steps in the EPA permitting process      Individual      standardized
                                             permit           permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertise and conduct pre-application                    
 meeting (facility)...................
Submit permit application/Notice of                      
 Intent (facility)....................
Provide public notice at application           
 submittal (agency)...................
Review application for completeness            
 (agency).............................
Issue Notices of Deficiency (NODs) as          
 necessary (agency)...................
Respond to NODs (facility)............         
Determine application is complete              
 (agency).............................
Make draft permit decision (agency)...                   
                                       ---------------------------------
                                         (no deadline) (within 120 days)
                                       ---------------------------------
Prepare draft permit and statement of                    
 basis or fact sheet (agency).........
Establish administrative record                          
 (agency).............................
Provide public notice of draft permit                    
 decision (agency)....................
45 day public comment period;                            
 opportunity for public hearing.......
Make final permit determination;                         
 respond to comments (agency).........
Final permit becomes effective;                         
 deadline for appeals to EAB..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The blanks represent permitting process steps that are not
  explicit regulatory requirements under the proposed standardized
  permits. However, we are proposing that during the 120-day review and
  processing period of the application by the permitting Agency, the
  Director would determine the adequacy of the permit application
  including completeness.

    We are also proposing new procedures for modifying standardized 
permits. In brief, these new procedures would allow you to make certain 
types of routine changes without prior approval, provided you inform 
both the regulatory agency and the public of the changes. For more 
significant changes, you would have to request approval from the 
regulatory agency before making the changes. The proposed modification 
process is discussed in detail in Section VI: Maintaining a 
Standardized Permit.

E. Public Comments on This Rulemaking

1. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on This Rule?
    In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of 
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We 
invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new 
approaches we haven't considered, new data, information on how this 
rule may effect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your 
views on all aspects of this proposed rule, but we request comments in 
particular on the items in Section I D 3 below. Your comments will be 
most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
     Explain your views as clearly as possible and why you feel 
that way.
     Provide solid technical and cost data to support your 
views.
     If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived 
at the estimate.
     Tell us which parts you support, as well as those you 
disagree with.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, 
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory 
sections.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this 
notice.
     Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with 
your comments.
2. What Topics Are Not Appropriate for Public Comment?
    The proposed provisions for standardized permits are modeled on the 
existing permit requirements for storing hazardous waste. While 
tailored specifically for standardized permits, many of the rules are 
restatements of the existing regulations in plain language format to 
make them easier to understand. We welcome comment on whether these 
rules are appropriate for standardized permits and whether, in 
restating and reorganizing the existing regulatory requirements, we 
inadvertently changed their meaning. Nevertheless, we are not reopening 
the existing regulations to public comment, except those provisions 
explicitly modified by this proposal.
3. What Topics Are we Specifically Requesting Public Comment on?
    In addition to general comments about the scope of the standardized 
permit and its impacts, EPA seeks public comment on the specific 
regulatory provisions addressed below. We are also requesting comment 
on corrective action and financial assurance in Section X: Public 
Comment on Corrective Action and Financial Assurance Issues.
    We are interested in the public's views on the following items:
    a. Should a facility which manages some of its hazardous waste in 
on-site storage and treatment units and some of its hazardous waste in 
other types of waste management units be eligible for a standardized 
permit for the on-site storage and treatment activities? There are 
currently facilities in the RCRA hazardous waste universe that have 
multiple waste management units. It is not uncommon for a hazardous 
waste facility to have storage and treatment units, and other units 
such as thermal treatment units or disposal units.
    Under the existing RCRA individual permitting system (see 
Secs. 270.1(c)(4) and 270.29), we can issue or deny a permit for one or 
more units at a facility without simultaneously issuing or denying a 
permit for all units at the facility. In other words, a facility's RCRA 
permit under the existing permitting system does not necessarily cover 
every unit at the facility. We drafted the proposed standardized permit 
regulations so that a facility could obtain both an individual permit 
for any disposal or thermal treatment activities and a standardized 
permit for any on-site storage and treatment activities. Although it 
may be resource-intensive for a facility with multiple types of units 
to choose to go through the RCRA permitting process several times, 
facilities may see an advantage in obtaining a standardized permit for 
a portion of their operations. This is

[[Page 52199]]

because continued maintenance of a standardized permit should be less 
burdensome than following the current individual permit modification 
procedures because of the simplified procedures. We encourage your 
comments and supporting data on this topic. As currently proposed, 
standardized permits would not relieve facilities of any substantive 
compliance requirements; rather, such permits would only streamline the 
permitting process.
    b. Should we expand the applicability of the RCRA standardized 
permit to include facilities that treat or store waste generated off-
site? Such situations could include facilities that take off-site waste 
from any source as well as a more limited operation where companies 
with more than one manufacturing location would like to centralize 
their management of any generated waste at one location. One of the 
concerns that we have heard about the management of waste generated 
off-site is that some facilities' owners or operators may not always 
have complete knowledge of the compatibility of the different waste 
streams that are brought onto their facilities. Therefore, management 
of such wastes may be more complicated and require greater attention. 
In some cases, uncertainty regarding the full chemical make-up of 
incoming wastes might pose additional risks not readily apparent to the 
receiving facility. This potential situation may be less likely to 
occur at a company managing only its own waste generated at several 
locations, since the company should know what specific wastes are 
generated by the company and be able to manage them properly at a 
centralized location. We are interested in your views and supporting 
data on this topic. As mentioned above, the proposed standardized 
permits would not relieve facilities of any substantive compliance 
requirements, including those that are intended to ensure protection of 
human health and the environment.
    c. We are also interested in feedback on a proposal to allow RCRA 
standardized permits at RCRA permitted off-site hazardous waste 
recycling facilities. A major goal of EPA is to eliminate regulatory 
disincentives to safe hazardous waste recycling. Providing regulatory 
relief for these types of facilities might encourage additional firms 
to enter the hazardous waste recycling business.
    Under current RCRA rules, recycling units are not regulated. As a 
result, existing requirements focus on the safe storage of hazardous 
recyclable materials in tanks, containers and containment buildings 
prior to entering the recycling process. Environmental health and 
safety for the storage of these materials is addressed comprehensively 
under part 264, subparts I, J and DD, respectively, as well as part 
270. Facilities must, at a minimum, manage these materials in units of 
good condition, respond to releases in a timely manner, inspect units 
at least weekly, and address concerns of ignitable, reactive and 
incompatible wastes.
    RCRA permitted hazardous waste recycling facilities frequently must 
make changes to their business operations that require a permit 
modification from the EPA or State authorizing agency. Such changes 
usually do not pose a risk to human health and the environment. 
However, such changes can take months to approve because of the backlog 
in permitting work. Therefore, in order to facilitate hazardous waste 
recycling activities, the Agency is interested in obtaining the views 
from the public on a proposal that would allow RCRA permitted hazardous 
waste recycling facilities to follow the modification process that is 
described in Section VI: Maintaining a standardized Permit.
    d. We are also asking for comment on additional opportunities 
within the framework of the standardized permit, to reduce the burden 
and cost of the permitting process for facilities, while still 
maintaining the protectiveness afforded by the RCRA standardized permit 
process. Specifically, we are interested in whether we should look into 
the feasibility of developing a ``fill-in-the-blank'' type standard 
format for each type of covered unit that facilities could then use to 
prepare required ``Part B'' information that would be required to be 
retained at the facility. This fill-in-the-blank type standard format 
could be offered to facilities as guidance to further reduce the 
permitting burden.
    e. Throughout the preamble we request comment on various topics. 
Some of the sections that we are seeking comments on are:
    1. Section I C 3: What are the anticipated advantages and 
disadvantages of a standardized permit?
    2. Section IV A 3: Is 120 days an appropriate time frame for making 
a draft permit decision? Should we allow a one time extension to the 
120 day requirement?
    3. Section IV B: Is it appropriate to apply the current provisions 
for final issuance of an individual permit to a process for issuing 
standardized permits?
    4. Section VI B: Are the categories for determining the 
significance of the permit change appropriate?
    5. Section VII C 5: Is an exemption from security provisions 
appropriate for facilities operating under standardized permit?
    6. Section VII C 9: Should we retain the floodplain waste removal 
waiver in the standardized permit?
    7. Section VII G 4: What standard conditions might be used for 
corrective action requirements under a standardized permit?
    8. Section VII H: What policy and procedure should be followed in 
the event that a facility cannot submit a closure plan 180 days prior 
to last receiving the last volume of waste? Should we drop the closure 
plan requirement?
    9. Section VII H 1: What other options should be available to 
facilities that cannot clean close?
    10. Section VII H 3: Is an 180 day closure time period appropriate 
and under what circumstances should it be extended?
    11. Section VII I 4: What information is available that compares 
the closure cost estimate with the actual cost incurred performing 
closure?
    12. Section VII I 6: What information is most crucial for 
estimating cost of closure of an eligible unit?
    13. Section VII I 13: Do States currently assume responsibility for 
facility compliance and would they obtain standardized permits?
    14. Section VII K: Should underground and in-ground tank systems be 
excluded from standardized permits?
    15. Section IX C 1: Are there significant benefits of a compliance 
audit and under what conditions would such audits need to be performed 
by an independent third party?
    16. Section IX C 2: Should a waste analysis plan be submitted? 
Under what circumstances?
    17. Section X A 1: For all types of permits, should facilities be 
able to satisfy RCRA correction action requirements by conducting 
cleanup under an alternative State program? Under what circumstances?
    18. Section X A 2: What methods should EPA and the authorized 
States use to address the alternate authority cleanup provisions in 
RCRA permits?
    19. Section X A 3: How would EPA or the authorized State determine 
that cleanups conducted under an alternate cleanup program would 
satisfy corrective action requirements?
    20. Section X B: Should pure captive insurance be treated 
differently than third party liability?
    21. Section XII A 1 b: What are the potential benefits of permit 
streamlining?

[[Page 52200]]

F. What Law Authorizes This Proposed Rule?

    We are proposing these regulations under the authority of sections 
1003, 2002(a), 3004, 3005, 3006 and 3010 of the Solid Waste Disposal 
Action of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6902, 6912(a), 6924-6926, and 
6930.

II. Conforming Amendments to General Permit Process

A. What Changes Would we Make to 40 CFR Part 124 Subpart A--General 
Program Requirements?

    The General Program Requirements (subpart A) in part 124 apply to 
many of our permitting programs, not just to RCRA Permits. 
Consequently, we could not rewrite all of this subpart according to 
plain language guidelines. We are proposing, however, to amend certain 
sections to accommodate RCRA standardized permit procedures. We refer 
to these types of amendments as conforming changes. The proposed 
standardized permit procedures themselves would be in a separate 
subpart, which we discuss later.
    The conforming changes we propose to the General Program 
Requirements would ensure that we have fully incorporated the 
standardized permit into the existing regulations. For example, we are 
proposing changes to Sec. 124.1 Purpose and Scope and Sec. 124.2 
Definitions to include references to the RCRA standardized permit.
    We are also proposing to amend Sec. 124.5(c) to have the 
standardized permit procedures apply in circumstances where an 
individual permit is being ``revoked and reissued.'' This change would 
allow you to convert from an individual permit (if you already have 
one) to a standardized permit. We are also proposing amendments to 40 
CFR 270.41(b) to add conversion to a standardized permit as a cause for 
revocation and reissuance.

B. How Would the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Requirements 
Change?

    The current RCRA expanded public participation requirements are in 
40 CFR part 124 subpart B--Specific Procedures Applicable to RCRA 
Permits (these are the procedures specific to the RCRA program that 
apply in addition to the public participation elements of the General 
Program Requirements in subpart A). We propose conforming changes in 
both Secs. 124.31 and 124.32 governing pre-application meeting and 
notice requirements and public notice requirements at the application 
stage, respectively.\1\ The proposed amendments clarify the 
applicability of the requirements in those sections to the standardized 
permit (in brief, the pre-application requirements apply under the 
proposal, but the public notice at application does not since we are 
proposing to incorporate other notice requirements into proposed 
Sec. 124.207).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although we are proposing the conforming changes necessary 
to accommodate the standardized permit procedures, we are not 
rewriting all of the expanded public participation requirements into 
plain language during this rule development effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not proposing any changes to Sec. 124.33 Information 
repository (or to existing Sec. 270.30(m) Information repository). 
Under the proposal, the Director of a regulatory agency could require 
you to establish and maintain an information repository whether you are 
applying for an individual permit or a standardized permit. Since we 
are proposing that anyone seeking standardized permits must certify 
that the information being maintained onsite is readily available to 
both the regulatory agency and the public (see proposed Sec. 270.280), 
we anticipate the Director generally would not need to invoke the 
information repository requirement. We acknowledge, however, that there 
may be situations where a community has a special need for access to 
information, and so are not precluding the use of the information 
repository requirement in this proposed rule.
    Since the waste management activities at facilities eligible for 
the proposed standardized permit are relatively less controversial than 
other types of management activities, we anticipate that people in 
nearby communities would generally not object to going to a facility to 
review information. However, if it is impractical to go to the 
facility, people could ask the Director to require a separate 
information repository. The way the requirement is currently worded 
(see Sec. existing 124.33(d)), you would get a ``first choice'' at 
selecting a location, although the Director would have the authority to 
select an alternate location. According to Sec. 124.33(d), if the 
Director found the site unsuitable for the purposes and persons who 
need the repository, then the Director could specify a more appropriate 
site, such as the local library.

C. Where Would I Find the Procedures Governing RCRA Standardized 
Permits?

    We are proposing a new subpart G to 40 CFR part 124 that would 
contain the procedural requirements for the RCRA standardized permit. 
Although existing subpart B is reserved for specific procedures 
applicable to RCRA permits, there are an insufficient number of 
available sections in that subpart to accommodate all of the 
standardized permit requirements. We are proposing to leave the RCRA 
expanded public involvement requirements in subpart B, and establish 
the RCRA standardized permit procedures in subpart G, starting with 
Sec. 124.200. Proposed Subpart G is organized into several subdivisions 
shown in Table 3.

                    Table 3.--Subpart G Organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Centered headings                     Section numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Information about             Secs.  124.200-124.201
 Standardized Permits.
Applying for a Standardized Permit..  Secs.  124.202-124.203
Issuing a Standardized Permit.......  Secs.  124.204-124.206
Opportunities for Public Involvement  Secs.  124.207-124.210
 in the Standardized Permit Process.
Maintaining a Standardized Permit...  Secs.  124.211-124.213
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52201]]

III. Applying for a Standardized Permit

A. How Would I Apply for a Standardized Permit?

    We are proposing that you must follow the applicable requirements 
in 40 CFR part 124 subparts A, B, and G, as well as the requirements in 
40 CFR part 270 subpart I. The first activity you would need to do is 
conduct a pre-application meeting with your neighboring community (see 
Sec. 124.31). After you hold the meeting, we are proposing that you 
would submit a notice of intent to operate under the standardized 
permit, along with a summary of the meeting and the certifications and 
supporting documents we require under Sec. 270.275, to the Director of 
the appropriate regulatory agency. In the remainder of this section we 
provide additional information on the proposal for a pre-application 
meeting and the Notice of Intent.
1. Conduct a Pre-Application Meeting With the Community
    We continue to be firmly committed to public involvement in the 
permitting process. As mentioned in Section II B: How would the RCRA 
Public Participation Requirements Change?, we are proposing to apply 
the pre-application meeting requirement to owners or operators of 
facilities seeking coverage under a RCRA standardized permit. If we 
apply the requirements of Sec. 124.31 to the standardized permit 
process, you as the facility owner or operator would be obligated to 
advertise and host a meeting with your neighboring community before 
submitting your Part B application. This meeting is intended as an 
important first step in establishing good relations between you and the 
community.
    As we said in the preamble for the RCRA Expanded Public 
Participation Final Rule (see 60 FR 63422-63423, December 11, 1995), we 
do not expect such a meeting to be a forum for examining technical 
aspects of your facility operations in extensive detail. Instead, the 
meeting should provide an open, flexible, and informal occasion for you 
and the public to share ideas, educate each other, and start building 
the framework for a solid working relationship. Although we did not 
prescribe required discussion topics for a pre-application meeting in 
the 1995 final rule, we encourage you to address, at the level of 
detail that is practical at the time of the meeting, such topics as: 
The type of facility, the location, the general processes involved, the 
types of wastes generated and managed, and implementation of waste 
minimization and pollution control measures. The discussions could also 
include such topics as planned procedures and equipment for preventing 
or responding to accidents or releases. Of course, the public retains 
the opportunity to submit comments during the proposed formal public 
comment period as well.
    We would like to reaffirm our commitment to the policies we 
expressed in the RCRA Public Participation Manual (EPA530-R-96-007, 
September 1996, available from the RCRA Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/pubpart/manual.htm) for promoting 
successful and equitable public involvement in RCRA permitting 
activities. We encourage facilities, communities, and permitting 
agencies to refer to that Manual when planning public involvement 
activities. The Manual emphasizes the need to tailor activities to the 
needs of the situation at hand. For example, if the community around a 
facility includes people who do not speak English as their primary 
language, we encourage both facilities and permitting agencies to 
provide multilingual notices.
2. Submit a Notice of Intent To Operate Under the Standardized Permit 
Along With Appropriate Supporting Documents
    If you want to operate under a standardized permit, we are 
proposing that you must let the regulatory agency know of your intent 
to do so. We are proposing in Sec. 124.202 to require owners or 
operators of facilities seeking coverage under a RCRA standardized 
permit to submit a ``notice of intent to operate under the standardized 
permit.'' This is consistent with the process and terminology currently 
used for NPDES general permits.
    We are also proposing you send in with your notice of intent 
several supporting documents: The certifications required under 
proposed Secs. 270.275 (which include the Part A information, and pre-
application meeting summary with ancillary materials) and 270.280 
(which include the required certifications and audit report). Section 
270.280 would require you to certify that your facility meets the 
performance standards and waste management unit design requirements of 
proposed Part 267. Section 124.31 would require you to submit a summary 
of the pre-application meeting where you discussed with the community 
your planned waste management activities. The RCRA Part A permit 
information includes the types and volumes of hazardous waste that you 
will manage and the types of units that you will use. As discussed 
later, we anticipate that these materials should provide sufficient 
information for the Director to make a draft permit decision.
    We are proposing that you submit with your Notice of Intent a 
compliance certification as described in Sec. 270.280. These proposed 
regulations governing the compliance certification would require you 
either to (1) certify compliance with part 267 or, (2) if you determine 
that your facility is not in compliance, provide a description of what 
aspects of your operations are not in compliance with the part 267 
regulations (specifying which regulations) and provide a schedule 
indicating when your facility will achieve compliance with RCRA 
regulations. As required by current regulations, the schedule would be 
subject to approval by the permitting authority and the permitting 
authority would not make a final permit determination until after you 
have achieved compliance.
    Under the proposal, you would have to conduct an internal audit to 
complete the compliance certification. We propose that this audit would 
be a systematic, documented, and objective review of your operations 
and practices related to meeting environmental requirements to assess 
the compliance status prior to submitting the Notice of Intent. You 
would need to include the audit results with the compliance 
certification when you submit the certification to the regulatory 
agency as a supporting document to your Notice of Intent.

B. How Would I Switch From an Individual Permit to a Standardized 
Permit?

    We are proposing that you could request the Director of the 
regulatory agency to revoke your individual permit and reissue you a 
standardized permit. We anticipate that some of you who currently 
operate under an individual permit may wish to convert to the 
standardized permit, once regulations to establish such permits are 
promulgated. We believe there would be advantages to switching to the 
standardized permit. For example, the proposed technical requirements 
for the standardized permit (see part 267) would impose significantly 
fewer reporting requirements than part 264 (e.g. no Part B application 
submittal required at initial permit stage or for permit renewal), 
which in turn would reduce your paperwork burden. Also, under today's 
proposal, you would be able to take advantage of the proposed 
streamlined modification procedures for any future changes to your 
facility.

[[Page 52202]]

    We are proposing that you could initiate the conversion at any 
point. If there is a substantial amount of time remaining in your 
permit term, you could initiate the conversion by requesting to have 
your individual permit revoked and reissued as a standardized permit. 
We propose this provision in Sec. 124.203, which refers to the 
procedures in Sec. 124.5 governing revocation and reissuance of 
permits. Under existing regulations (Sec. 124.5(a)), any interested 
person, including the permittee, can request the regulatory agency to 
revoke and reissue a permit, as long as the reasons are specified in 
Sec. 270.41. We are proposing to amend the causes for revocation and 
reissuance in Sec. 270.41(b) to add conversion from an individual 
permit to the standardized permit. Once a permittee submits this 
request, we propose applying the procedures for RCRA standardized 
permits in 40 CFR part 124 subpart G. If, on the other hand, you are 
nearing the end of your permit term, you could convert simply by 
deciding to pursue your permit renewal as a standardized permit rather 
than as an individual permit (see Section VIII B 4: Permit 
reapplication).

IV. Issuing a Standardized Permit

A. How Would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Draft Standardized Permit?

    We are proposing that you, as the Director of a regulatory agency, 
would have to follow three steps to prepare a draft standardized 
permit.\2\ First, you would review the incoming Notice of Intent and 
supporting information and determine whether the facility is eligible 
for the standardized permit. Second, you would tentatively decide 
whether to grant or deny coverage under the standardized permit. We are 
proposing that, if you decide to grant coverage, you would then propose 
appropriate terms and conditions, if any, to include in the 
supplemental portion of the permit. Finally, you would prepare your 
draft permit decision within 120 days after receiving the notice of 
intent and supporting information. We propose in Sec. 124.204(c) that 
your tentative determination either to grant coverage under the 
standardized permit, including any tentatively identified facility-
specific conditions in a supplemental portion, or to deny coverage 
under the standardized permit, would constitute a draft permit 
decision. Of course, you would not have to wait until the end of the 
120 days to make your draft permit decision, and could provide notice 
of your decision earlier. You would need to follow many of the proposed 
requirements in part 124 subpart A in processing the standardized 
permit application and preparing your draft permit decision. To help 
you determine which requirements apply, we propose in Sec. 124.204(d), 
the applicability of relevant subpart A sections in the context of the 
RCRA standardized permit, as it would be administered by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We are proposing that you would follow the standardized 
permit procedures if you are issuing an EPA standardized permit; you 
would follow equivalent state permitting procedures if you are 
issuing a state permit in a state authorized to issue standardized 
permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this section, we concentrate our discussion on three areas of 
the proposal: drafting terms and conditions for the supplemental 
portion, denying coverage under the standardized permit, and preparing 
your draft permit decision in 120 days.
1. Drafting Terms and Conditions for the Supplemental Portion
    If you, as the Director, decide to grant coverage under the 
standardized permit, we are proposing that you must tentatively 
identify appropriate facility-specific conditions, if any, to impose in 
the supplemental portion of the standardized permit, and include those 
conditions as part of the draft permit. (Note: If a need for additional 
facility-specific conditions arises after you make a permit 
determination, or any of the facility-specific conditions you initially 
included need to be amended at a later time, you could modify the 
permit at that time, in accordance with existing provisions in 
Sec. 270.41.) These proposed facility-specific conditions would go 
beyond the nationwide conditions in the uniform portion of the 
standardized permit. We propose that the site-specific conditions that 
you impose would be those that, in your discretion, are necessary for 
corrective action purposes or otherwise to ensure protection of human 
health and the environment. Your authority to impose permit conditions 
necessary for corrective action purposes comes from RCRA section 
3004(u) and (v) and EPA regulations at 40 CFR 267.101. Your authority 
(and your obligation) to impose permit conditions that ensure 
protection of human health and the environment (including conditions 
requiring cleanup of any contamination not subject to 3004(u) and (v)) 
comes from the ``omnibus'' provision of RCRA section 3005(c)(3) and EPA 
regulations at 40 CFR 270.32(b)(2).
    We anticipate that in certain cases communities may raise the need 
for site-specific conditions, or actually propose such conditions, 
during the proposed pre-application meeting. You would see the 
community's concerns or proposed conditions in the meeting summary that 
the facility owner or operator submits with their notice of intent. For 
example, the community may express concern that certain waste 
management units are too close to the facility's boundaries. To address 
the concern, you might specify how far back from the boundaries to 
place the units. As another example, the community might have concerns 
or pertinent information about the facility's location in relation to 
local flood patterns, especially if the facility is located in a 100-
year floodplain area. (Under the Sec. 267.18 locations standards, 
facilities can locate in the 100-year floodplain only if the waste 
management units are properly designed, constructed and operated to 
prevent damage during flooding events.) You may need to address this 
situation by imposing site-specific conditions similar to what would be 
considered under the current individual permit process.
    Of course, under the proposal, a facility owner or operator could 
voluntarily suggest additional permit requirements in response to 
community concerns or to address corrective action. We are proposing 
that a facility owner or operator could include a statement with their 
Notice of Intent specifying additional conditions they would like you 
to attach to their standardized permit.
    If you found that some of the general design or management 
standards of 40 CFR part 267 are not adequate for a particular 
facility, we are proposing that you could determine that more stringent 
standards would be necessary. We do not anticipate that more stringent 
standards would be necessary in most standardized situations. However, 
if you determine more stringent standards are necessary for a 
particular facility, then you would add conditions in the supplemental 
portion of the standardized permit.
    We are proposing that you could determine, in some situations, that 
there is no need for additional site-specific conditions to satisfy 
regulatory requirements or to ensure protection of human health and the 
environment, and that a facility could operate under the terms of the 
uniform portion of the permit alone. In these situations, you would 
simply not include any conditions, beyond those in the uniform portion, 
as part of the draft permit. This scenario is certainly plausible, 
since existing regulatory controls for the types of units eligible for 
the proposed standardized permit (e.g., tanks, containers) generally do 
not need much site-specific variation. Where a site

[[Page 52203]]

requires corrective action, however, the corrective action 
requirements, which are generally not uniform among sites, could drive 
the need for supplemental permit conditions.
2. Denying Coverage Under the Standardized Permit
    We are proposing that you, as the Director, could decide to 
tentatively deny coverage under the standardized permit--for example, 
if a facility owner or operator failed to submit all the information 
required under Sec. 270.275, or if the facility does not meet the 
eligibility requirements for a standardized permit (e.g., the 
facility's activities are outside the scope of the standardized 
permit). We also propose that you could consider the facility's 
compliance history, in situations where the facility is operating under 
RCRA interim status or already has an individual permit and is choosing 
to convert to the standardized permit. Given the self-implementing 
nature of the proposed requirements in the uniform portion of the 
standardized permit, we believe that it is important that the facility 
demonstrate its ability to adhere to the regulations. If a facility has 
a demonstrated history of not complying with applicable requirements, 
it may not be a viable candidate for a standardized permit. We welcome 
your comments on this issue.
    We are also proposing that you may decide not to allow a facility 
to operate under the standardized permit where such a permit cannot 
ensure protection of human health and the environment, even if 
additional site-specific conditions were imposed. We are proposing that 
facilities that you determine are ineligible for the standardized 
permit would, of course, still have the option of applying for an 
individual permit.
3. Preparing Your Draft Permit Decision in 120 Days
    Under proposed Sec. 124.204(c), you, as the Director, would need to 
make a draft permit decision within 120 days of receiving a notice of 
intent and supporting documents from the facility owner or operator. 
The proposed 120-day time frame for issuing the draft permit is a new 
concept in the RCRA program. Although the existing process for RCRA 
individual permits requires EPA to determine the completeness of an 
application within a set time frame (60 days), it does not impose any 
time limit for issuing a draft permit. To ensure that the standardized 
permitting process does, in fact, streamline the administrative process 
and shorten the time required to obtain the permit, we believe it is 
appropriate to propose a time limit for preparing standardized permits. 
On the other hand, it is important to allow a sufficient period of time 
for you to review the supporting documents for information that may 
influence your decision on a facility's eligibility for the 
standardized permit or prompt you to develop facility-specific 
conditions to include in a supplemental portion. We suggest that a 
limit of 120 days would still provide a reasonable amount of time for 
you to review the supporting documents to (1) determine that the 
facility is in compliance with applicable regulations (in the case of 
existing facilities); (2) propose conditions that might be necessary 
for corrective action purposes, or to otherwise ensure protection of 
public health and the environment; or (3) propose conditions to address 
community concerns raised in the early public meeting. This time would 
also afford you the opportunity to consult with the community or the 
facility, if necessary to expand on the information submitted with the 
Notice of Intent.
    We request your comments on whether 120 days is an appropriate time 
frame for a draft permit decision, or whether a longer or shorter time 
frame would be more suitable. We anticipate that the proposed 120-day 
period leading up to the draft permit decision would provide sufficient 
time for you, as the Director, to decide whether to grant or deny 
coverage under the standardized permit. We would also like comments on 
whether we should allow for a one-time extension to the time limit, and 
what an appropriate amount of time for such an extension might be. For 
example, if state and EPA regional permitting authorities anticipate 
that they might continue to have joint permitting issues under the 
standardized permit scenario (such as those that currently exist under 
the individual permit scenario), how much additional time would be 
sufficient to address joint permitting or other types of permitting 
issues? Would a one-time, 90-day extension period be an appropriate 
amount of time to address concerns? Is some other time period more 
appropriate? We would also like comments on whether to suspend the 120 
day ``clock'' if site-specific conditions require a comprehensive site 
visit and follow up by the permitting authority. Under this approach 
the review ``clock'' would be restarted after the site-specific issues 
were resolved.

B. How Would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Final Standardized Permit?

    We are proposing that, after the close of the public comment 
period, you, as the Director, would make a final determination on your 
draft permit decision. In other words, you would decide whether to 
grant or deny coverage to a facility to operate under the standardized 
permit. In arriving at your decision you would need to consider all 
significant comments on the draft decision that were raised during the 
public comment period or the public hearing, if one took place. If you 
decide to grant coverage, you would, as part of your final permit 
decision, make a final determination on the facility's eligibility, and 
on the terms and conditions to include in the supplemental portion, if 
any. As we discuss below, we propose applying the current procedures 
for final issuance of an individual permit, codified in Sec. 124.15, to 
the standardized permit as well.
    Once you issue a draft standardized permit, we are proposing that 
you would follow the same procedures for finalizing the permit that you 
use to finalize a draft individual permit for a facility--i.e., you 
would generally follow the procedures of 40 CFR part 124, subpart A, 
with the exception of certain steps as modified in subpart G.
    We propose in Sec. 124.205 which sections of part 124 subpart A 
would apply to the preparation of your final permit decisions, in the 
context of a RCRA standardized permit process, as administered by EPA. 
These proposed procedures include, among other things, requirements for 
responding to comments, establishing an administrative record, and the 
issuance and effective date of the final permit. For example, by 
applying the provisions in Sec. 124.15 Issuance and effective date of 
the permit, we are proposing that your final permit decision would 
become effective 30 days after you announce it, with three possible 
exceptions: (1) You specify a later date in your notice of final 
determination; (2) someone requests an appeal under Sec. 124.19 Appeal 
of RCRA, UIC, and PSD Permits (Sec. 124.19 is referenced by 
Sec. 124.210 May I, as an interested party in the permit process, 
appeal a final standardized permit?); or, (3) you received no comments 
requesting a change in the terms and conditions in the supplemental 
portion. In this third situation, the permit would become effective 
immediately upon issuance of your notice. We welcome comments on 
whether it is appropriate to apply the current provisions of 
Sec. 124.15 for final issuance of an individual permit to the process 
for issuing standardized permits. However, we are not reopening for 
comment the provisions of Sec. 124.15

[[Page 52204]]

or the Part 124 permit procedures more generally.

C. In What Situations Could Facility Owners or Operators Be Required To 
Apply for an Individual Permit?

    We are proposing to provide the flexibility for you, as the 
Director of a permitting agency, to require a facility owner or 
operator to obtain an individual permit (see Sec. 124.206). We are also 
proposing to allow any interested person to petition you to require a 
facility to get an individual permit. We do not anticipate that you 
would invoke this provision very often. There are at least two reasons 
for such a situation. The first is if the facility is not eligible for 
the standardized permit. The second is if the facility has a poor 
compliance record while operating under the standardized permit. Given 
the self-implementing nature of the technical requirements applicable 
to the facility, we believe it will be important that the facility 
demonstrate its ability to adhere to the regulations. If a facility has 
consistently failed to fulfill this obligation in the past, then it 
likely warrants the more in-depth review that occurs under the 
individual permit scenario. We are proposing that if you decide to 
invoke this provision, you would have to provide notice to the facility 
of your decision, including a description of the reasons that led up to 
your decision. We are interested in you comments on this topic.

V. Proposed Opportunities for Public Involvement in the 
Standardized Permit Process

A. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Public Notices?

    We propose in Sec. 124.207 that you (the Director) would issue a 
public notice announcing your draft permit decision, and place in a 
location accessible to the community near the facility or at your 
office a copy of: the draft permit denial or the draft standardized 
permit (including both the uniform portion and the supplemental 
portion, if any); the statement of basis or fact sheet; the facility's 
notice of intent to operate under the standardized permit; and the 
supporting documents. We are limiting these proposed requirements to 
the information that the facility owner or operator actually submits to 
you, since we are proposing in Sec. 270.280 that you would certify that 
the information that supports the Notice of Intent and the 
certifications (e.g., all the technical design information for the 
units) would be available for review at the facility itself. We request 
comments on whether the public notice requirements are sufficient.
    The public notice requirements we are proposing in Sec. 124.207 for 
announcing your draft permit decision for RCRA standardized permits 
mirror the public notice requirements for individual RCRA permits that 
are specified in Sec. 124.10(c). These current requirements specify how 
you must develop and maintain facility mailing lists and to whom you 
must send public notices. We are likewise proposing to mirror the 
methods for distributing public notices. For example, under proposed 
Sec. 124.207, you would need to publish public notices in a local 
newspaper and broadcast them over local radio stations.
    Section 124.207(c) lays out the proposed content for the notice, 
such as contact people at both the facility and the permitting agency, 
the location where you put the draft standardized permit and the 
supporting information, a brief description of the facility and its 
operations (including an address or a map showing the facility's 
location), and an address people can write to join the facility's 
mailing list. The notice would also provide a mailing address to which 
people may direct comments, information, opinions and inquiries. We are 
also proposing that you would provide public notice of your final 
permit determination according to the requirements in Sec. 124.207. We 
believe the information in this notice will provide the public an 
adequate opportunity to stay involved in the standardized permitting 
process beyond the initial meeting with the facility owners or 
operators. We are interested in your comments on the appropriateness of 
this proposed public notice procedure which is modeled after the 
existing individual RCRA permit public notice procedure.

B. What Are the Proposed Opportunities for Public Comments and 
Hearings?

    We are proposing that the notice described in Sec. 124.207 would 
initiate a 45-day public comment period (see proposed Sec. 124.208). 
Anyone who chooses to comment on your draft standardized permit 
decision would need to submit their comments to you in writing. We are 
proposing a 45 days because it parallels the existing public comment 
period on a draft individual RCRA permit.
    During the public comment period, we are proposing that anyone 
could ask you to hold a public hearing. They would need to submit their 
request for a hearing to you in writing and would state the nature of 
the issues they want to address in the hearing. You could hold a public 
hearing whenever you find, on the basis of requests, a significant 
degree of public interest in your draft permit decision. You could also 
hold a public hearing at your discretion, whenever, for instance, such 
a hearing might clarify one or more issues involved in your permit 
decision. However, as is the case for RCRA individual permits, we are 
proposing that you must hold a public hearing whenever you receive 
written notice of opposition to a standardized permit and a request for 
a hearing within the public comment period. The hearing should be held 
at a location that is convenient to the community, for example, at a 
town hall or school auditorium. As is the case in the individual 
permitting process, you would need to automatically extend the public 
comment period to the close of any public hearing you schedule.
    We also propose that the requirements for providing public notice 
of the hearing, and governing the manner in which the hearing will be 
conducted, be the same as those followed by the individual RCRA 
permitting process (see Secs. 124.10(c), 124.12(b), (c), and (d)). We 
propose in Sec. 124.208(d) that you provide the public notice at least 
30 days before the hearing. This requirement is consistent with the 
timing requirements in 124.10(b) for individual permits. Under the 
proposal, you could give notice of the hearing at the same time you 
provide public notice of your draft permit decision, and you could 
combine the two notices.
    During the public comment period, we are proposing that interested 
parties could provide comments on your draft permit decision, including 
the facility's eligibility for the standardized permit. For example, 
they could ask you to reconsider a facility's eligibility to operate 
under the standardized permit. They could also comment on any site-
specific conditions, either those you proposed in a draft supplemental 
portion, or those the commenters would like you to impose when you make 
your final permit decision. We discuss examples of site-specific 
conditions in Section IV A 1: Drafting terms and conditions for the 
supplemental portion. We are also proposing that people could also 
comment on your decision to deny the permit because sufficient 
conditions could not be imposed.
    Although we are proposing the terms and conditions of the uniform 
portion on a national basis in Part 267 (see Section VII: Proposed Part 
267 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities 
Operating Under a Standardized Permit), which makes them subject to 
public comment and challenge as part of this rulemaking,

[[Page 52205]]

we are also proposing that the public may comment on the adequacy of 
those terms and conditions in the context of a particular facility. In 
other words, if people believe there are site-specific factors that 
impact the effectiveness of those national standards in protecting 
human health and the environment, they can submit comments to this 
effect. In this situation, the terms of the uniform portion would still 
apply to the facility, but you could impose additional conditions in 
the supplemental portion to ensure that the facility indeed operates in 
a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. We 
request your comments on the adequacy of the proposed opportunities for 
public comments and hearings, and whether they should be strengthened 
or even relaxed (given that the management units potentially eligible 
for the standardized permits are more straightforward).

C. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Responding to Comments?

    We are proposing that, at the time you make your final decision on 
the draft permit, you must also provide a response to comments you 
received during the public comment period. We propose in Sec. 124.209 
that the requirements for the response to comments under the 
standardized permit process be consistent with the requirements under 
the individual permit process. That is, your response would (1) specify 
any additional site-specific conditions that you changed in the final 
permit, and the reasons for the change, and (2) describe and respond to 
all significant comments on the facility's ability to meet the general 
requirements, and on any additional conditions necessary to protect 
human health and the environment. You would make your response to 
comments available to the public. We are also proposing that you would 
include in the administrative record for your final permit decision any 
documents cited in your response to comments. If new points are raised 
or new material supplied during the public comment period, you could 
document your response to those matters by adding new materials to the 
administrative record.
    We are also proposing to allow you to request additional 
information from the facility (i.e., information beyond that submitted 
with their notice of intent and supporting documents). We are including 
this provision to address situations that may arise when you need 
additional information to adequately respond to the comments, or to 
make decisions about additional conditions you may need to add to the 
standardized permit for a particular facility. This provision parallels 
the authority we have under 40 CFR 270.10(k). We are requesting your 
comments on this topic.

D. How could People Appeal a Final Standardized Permit Decision Under 
the Proposal?

    We propose in Sec. 124.210 to allow interested parties to appeal 
your final EPA permit decision to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board 
(EAB) within 30 days. Anyone who filed comments on the draft permit 
decision, either in writing or orally at the public hearing, if one 
took place, could initiate an appeal. We are proposing that the 
procedures for appealing permit decisions in Sec. 124.19 also apply to 
standardized permits. A petition to the EAB is currently a prerequisite 
to seeking judicial review of a final permit determination. Appeals of 
RCRA permit actions are often resolved at the administrative appeal 
step, and do not progress to judicial appeal. We believe the 
administrative appeal is important to propose as part of the RCRA 
standardized permitting procedures.
    Under today's proposal, people could appeal the standardized 
permit, including any terms and conditions in the supplemental portion, 
only after you make your final permit decision. They could also appeal 
your decision about the facility's eligibility for the standardized 
permit at this time (e.g., someone may challenge that the unit is not a 
tank but a thermal treatment unit, and thus not eligible for coverage 
under the proposed standardized permit). People could not, however, 
appeal the terms and conditions of the uniform portion. As we point out 
in Section V B: What are the Proposed Opportunities for Public Comments 
and Hearings?, we are proposing to promulgate the uniform portion of 
the permit as regulation, which would make it subject to public notice 
and comment procedures that are an integral component of our rule-
making process. Once the uniform portion becomes a final rule, it could 
not be challenged after 90 days under RCRA section 7006(a)(1).

VI. Maintaining a Standardized Permit

A. What Types of Changes Could Owners or Operators Make?

    Regardless of what type of permit you (the owner or operator) may 
have, you will likely need to modify your permit over time to reflect 
changes in your facility's design or operations. For example, you may 
add new units or start managing a different waste stream, or you may 
need to reflect administrative changes, like name changes or changes in 
ownership.
    We believe many changes to standardized permits, as proposed, can 
occur without regulatory oversight or with greatly reduced regulatory 
oversight and processing time. We also recognize that not all potential 
changes are of the same magnitude, and thus not all potential changes 
need to follow one prescribed set of procedures. Consequently, we 
propose categorizing potential modifications to your standardized 
permit into two categories: Routine changes and significant changes.

B. What Are the Proposed Definitions of Routine and Significant 
Changes?

    We are proposing to define routine changes as any changes that 
qualify as class 1 or 2 permit modifications under 40 CFR 270.42 
Appendix I (commonly referred to as the permit modification table). 
These types of changes typically include things such as: Administrative 
and informational changes, changes in ownership or operational control, 
changes to allow less than 25% increase in capacity of a hazardous 
waste management unit, and changes to allow you to store different 
wastes at your facility as long as they undergo similar waste 
management processes.
    We are proposing to define significant changes as: (1) Any changes 
that qualify as class 3 permit modifications under 40 CFR 270.42 
Appendix I, (2) any changes that are not specifically identified in 
Appendix I, or (3) any changes that amend terms or conditions in the 
supplemental portion of your standardized permit. These types of 
changes typically include such things as a greater than 25% increase in 
a unit's capacity, as well as managing wastes that you did not 
previously identify and which require different management processes 
than those you currently use.
    We decided to propose categorizing modifications in this way 
because it is consistent with the approach we used in the existing RCRA 
pre-application meeting requirements in Sec. 124.31(a). In applying 
those requirements, we are proposing that the pre-application meeting 
would only apply to renewal applications in cases where the facility 
owner or operator was proposing a significant change in facility 
operations. Additionally, in Sec. 124.31(a) we said that for the 
purposes of that section, ``a `significant change' is any change that 
would qualify as a class 3 permit modification under 40 CFR 270.42.''
    We would like people to comment on whether these categories are 
appropriate, and whether the

[[Page 52206]]

procedures we describe in the following two sections correctly reflect 
the appropriate level of regulatory oversight necessary for these 
levels of changes. Of particular interest to us is whether changes in 
ownership or operational control should be included with routine 
changes. Is there a need for the permitting authority to evaluate the 
impacts of owner or operator changes on existing permits prior to such 
changes being made (as currently provided for in Secs. 270.40 and 
270.42), to confirm that the new owner(s) or operator(s) are legitimate 
and financially capable of complying with the facility's closure and 
post-closure care responsibilities and corrective action obligations, 
if any?

C. What Are the Proposed Standardized Permit Procedures for Making 
Routine Changes?

    We propose in Sec. 124.212 to allow you to make routine changes 
without prior approval by the regulatory agency. If the changes amend 
any of the information you submitted under proposed Sec. 270.275, 
however, you would need to submit the revised information to the 
Director before you make the change. For example, Sec. 270.275(a) would 
require you to provide the Part A information to the Director. The Part 
A form includes information such as your name and address. If you 
change ownership or operational control of your facility, this would be 
a routine change (it is a type of class 1 modification in Sec. 270.42 
Appendix I) which you can make without obtaining approval from the 
Director. However, the Director would need to know of these types of 
changes (for purposes including accountability and liability), and so 
it would be important for the Director to have the revised information. 
In cases where you have to provide notice to the Director, you would 
also provide notice of the changes to the facility mailing list and to 
appropriate units of state and local government before putting the 
changes in place.
    We are not proposing to require you to provide advance notice of 
all routine changes. Some types of modifications that qualify as 
routine may not amend information submitted under Sec. 270.275. For 
example, some changes could be within the scope of the uniform portion 
of your standardized permit (e.g., a less than 25% capacity increase in 
a unit). Under the proposed standardized permit scheme, you would not 
provide detailed information about the technical aspects of your 
operations. You would instead certify that you meet the technical 
standards in part 267. Since you would not submit the detailed 
information as part of the permit application, it would not make sense 
to submit modifications to that information. In other words, the 
information would not be part of a permit application and would not 
result in any facility-specific permit conditions that the Director 
would need to modify. We are proposing that, regardless of what routine 
changes you make, you would still need to operate your facility in 
accordance with the proposed design and management standards of part 
267, and you would still be bound by the certifications submitted with 
the notice of intent to operate under the standardized permit. We 
request your comments on these proposed procedures.

D. What Are the Proposed Standardized Permit Procedures for Making 
Significant Changes?

    If you want to make significant changes to your facility, you would 
need to follow a set of procedures we are proposing in Sec. 124.213 
that closely resemble the initial standardized permitting process. 
Under the proposed Sec. 124.213 procedures, you would initiate the 
process for making significant changes by publishing a notice 
announcing a public meeting on your permit modification request. Since 
the site-specific conditions by their very nature relate directly to 
your facility and your neighboring community, and could be the direct 
result of community input, we believe it is important to make sure the 
community is aware of potential changes to those conditions. Therefore, 
we propose requiring you to advertise and conduct a meeting with the 
public about the proposed modifications. This meeting would be similar 
to the pre-application meeting you must conduct as part of the initial 
standardized permitting process.\3\ For example, as proposed, you would 
hold both meetings prior to submitting the notice of intent either to 
operate under the standardized permit or to modify the standardized 
permit. As in the case of the initial meeting, you would provide notice 
of the meeting about the proposed changes at least 30 days beforehand 
and in the same manner (i.e., as required by Sec. 124.31(d). During the 
meeting, you would solicit questions from the community and inform the 
community of the proposed changes to your facility's hazardous waste 
management activities. Also, as in the case with the initial meeting, 
you would post a sign-in sheet or otherwise provide a voluntary 
opportunity for attendees to provide their names and addresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The meeting we propose here is also consistent with current 
class 3 modification regulations for individual permits. Those 
regulations include a requirement for you to conduct a public 
meeting as part of the modification process (see 40 CFR 
270.42(c)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that, after the public meeting on the 
modifications you want to make, you would submit a modification request 
to the Director. In your request, you would describe the exact changes 
you want to make, identify whether they are changes to the information 
you submitted under 40 CFR 270.275 or to terms and conditions in the 
supplemental portion of your standardized permit, and you would explain 
why you need to make the changes. You would also include a summary of 
the meeting, the list of attendees, and copies of any written comments 
or materials people submitted at the meeting. We propose that the 
Director would then have 120 days to make a tentative determination to 
approve or not approve your modification request.
    The proposed 120-day time frame for the Director to make a 
tentative determination on the modification request is the same as the 
proposed 120-day time frame that the Director would have to make a 
draft decision about your initial standardized permit. We solicit 
comments in Section IV A 3: Preparing your draft permit decision in 120 
days, on the appropriateness of the 120-day time frame. If we adopt a 
different time frame in the initial process in response to comments on 
this proposal, we plan to make the same change in the modification 
process as well. Nevertheless, we request comments on our assumption 
that the modification process would require the same level of effort as 
the initial process.
    We are proposing that, once the Director makes a tentative 
determination on your modification request, the remaining procedures 
governing the initial standardized permitting process, i.e., the 
procedures for providing public notice of the tentative determination, 
public comment, public hearings, final determination, response to 
comments, and appeals, would apply to the modification process as well. 
We request your comments on the applicability of these proposed 
procedures to the modification process.

E. What Would Be the Proposed Process for Renewing Standardized 
Permits?

    We examined the possibility of having a standardized permit remain 
in effect for the entire life of a facility. The Agency's Permits 
Improvement Team (PIT) included this as a possible approach for 
streamlined permitting procedures in its recommendation for a RCRA 
standardized permit. However,

[[Page 52207]]

we are bound by statute (under RCRA Section 3005(c)(3), see also 
Sec. 270.50)) to limit the lifetime of a RCRA permit to a maximum of 10 
years in length, and so are not proposing any new provisions to govern 
renewals of standardized permits.
    Under current regulations (see Secs. 270.11(h) and 270.30(b)), if 
you wish to continue an activity regulated by your permit after the 
expiration date of your permit you must submit a new application at 
least 180 days before the expiration date unless you have obtained 
permission for a later date. This same provision applies to you if you 
operate under an individual permit, and would apply if you had a 
standardized permit. To renew a standardized permit, you would follow 
the same procedures as you would to initially obtain coverage under the 
standardized permit (those in 40 CFR part 124 subpart G).

VII. Proposed Part 267 Standards for Owners and Operators of 
Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating under a Standardized Permit

A. Overview

    This section of the preamble discusses the specific part 267 RCRA 
hazardous waste requirements that we propose standardized permitted 
facilities must meet. The specific topics that will be discussed are:

 1. General Facility Standards
 2. Preparedness and Prevention
 3. Contingency Plans and Emergency Procedures
 4. Record Keeping, Reporting, and Notifying
 5. Releases from Solid Waste Management Units
 6. Closure of Units
 7. Financial Requirements
 8. Use of Management of Containers
 9. Tank Systems, and
10. Containment Buildings.

    We are proposing to add a new part to the RCRA hazardous waste 
standards that specifies the general facility requirements and the unit 
specific standards for RCRA hazardous waste facilities operating under 
a standardized permit. These proposed requirements would form the basis 
of the ``uniform'' portion of the standardized permit. Specifically, 
during the standardized permit application process, you, as the 
facility owner or operator, would certify that you are meeting the 
performance standards and waste management unit design requirements of 
part 267. You would prepare specific documentation on how your facility 
is meeting the performance standards and unit-specific requirements 
found in part 267, and would keep this information on-site at the 
facility. You would not have to submit this information to the 
permitting agency for review and approval. Table 4 offers a comparison 
of the waste management standards found in part 264 (for the individual 
permit) and in part 267 (for the standardized permit).
    We request comment on all aspects of the proposed part 267 rules. 
Since many of these provisions are restatements of the existing part 
264 regulations in plain language format, we particularly invite 
comment on whether, in rewriting and reorganizing the existing part 264 
requirements, we inadvertently changed their meaning. As noted 
previously, however, we are not reopening the existing regulations to 
public comment, except those provisions explicitly modified by this 
proposal. Nevertheless, we request comments on whether each of these 
existing requirements should apply (and to what extent) to units 
covered by standardized permits, which we consider inherently more 
straightforward than other types of management units.

                                     Table 4.--Technical Standard Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Individual
                                           permits                    Proposed Standardized Permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability:
    Facilities that treat, store, or          
     dispose of hazardous waste.
    Only for facilities that store or                                            
     non-thermally treat hazardous
     waste on-site in tanks,
     containers, or containment
     buildings.
General Facility Standards:
    EPA identification numbers.......                                     
    Waste analysis plans.............                                     
    Security.........................                                     
    Inspection schedules.............                                     
    Personnel training...............                                     
    Preventive measures..............                                     
    Floodplain and seismic location                                       
     standards.
    Construction quality assurance...         
Preparedness/Prevention:
    Requirements for minimizing                                           
     threats from unplanned events.
Contingency Plan and Emergency
 Procedures:
    Requirements for contingency                                          
     plans that describe how hazards
     from fire/explosion/and other
     releases will be minimized.
Manifest system, record keeping and
 reporting:
    Requirements for keeping:                 
     manifests for wastes accepted
     from off-site.
    Operating records................                                     
    Other records....................                                     
Releases from Solid Waste Management
 Units:
    Requirements for ground water             
     monitoring.
    solid waste management unit                                           
     corrective action.
Closure: Requirements for facility
 closure including:
    Closure performance standards....                                     
    A closure plan...................                                     
                                                        However, closure plan not submitted until 6 months prior
                                                         to closure.
    Time for closure.................                                     
    Post-closure.....................         
Financial Assurance:

[[Page 52208]]

 
    Requirements for financial                                            
     assurance for closure, post-                       Except financial assurance for post-closure and non-
     closure, and liability.                             sudden liability requirements are not applicable.
Management Standards for Containers:
    Requirements for management of                                        
     containers and container storage
     areas, and closure.
Tank Systems:
    Requirements for design and                                           
     installation of tanks,                             Except no waiver provision from secondary containment,
     containment of releases,                            no underground tanks allowed, and clean closure
     operating standards,                                required.
     inspections, and closure.
Containment Buildings:
    Requirements for design and                                           
     operation, and closure.                            Except, clean closure required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the current minimum national requirements for 
hazardous waste management in tanks, containers, and containment 
buildings found in 40 CFR Part 264 are appropriate for facilities 
covered under the proposed standardized permit. Therefore, we are 
proposing to incorporate most of the part 264 standards for owners and 
operators of hazardous waste facilities into the proposed part 267 
standards with minor changes necessary to accommodate the intent of the 
standardized permit. For example, we made some changes to accommodate 
the reduced level of interaction under the standardized permit between 
the permitting agency and the facility owner or operator. Other changes 
were made to make the part 267 standards more readable. We believe that 
the proposed part 267 standards provide the same baseline of protection 
that the part 264 standards do.

B. Subpart A--General

1. What Are the Purpose, Scope, and Applicability of This Proposed 
Part?
    In Sec. 267.1, we discuss the purpose, scope, and applicability of 
the part 267 regulations. The purpose of proposed part 267 would be to 
establish minimum national standards for facilities managing waste 
under a standardized permit. As discussed previously in Section I C 4: 
Who would be Eligible for a Standardized Permit?, facilities that 
generate waste and then manage the waste on-site in tanks, containers, 
or containment buildings would be eligible for a standardized permit 
under today's proposal. The proposed part 267 regulations would apply 
to owners and operators of facilities who non-thermally treat or store 
waste under a standardized permit as described in Sec. 270.67. We 
explain that three categories of facilities are exempt from the part 
264 regulations, and the proposed part 267 regulations would include 
the same exemptions.
    First, the existing part 261 regulations contain requirements for 
the identification and listing of hazardous waste and also discuss 
several waste streams that are not hazardous waste. Facilities that 
manage these exempted wastes and non-hazardous waste are not currently 
subject to the part 264 standards. Similarly, we are proposing that 
facilities managing these excluded wastes would not be subject to the 
proposed part 267 standards.
    Second, Sec. 264.1(f) currently provides an exemption from the part 
264 regulations for facilities that manage hazardous waste if the state 
in which the hazardous waste management activity is occurring has a 
RCRA hazardous waste program authorized under part 271 of this chapter. 
The proposed part 267 regulations would also contain this provision.
    Finally, existing Sec. 264.1(g) requirements provide an exemption 
from the part 264 regulations for various facilities and individuals 
who manage hazardous waste, such as small quantity waste generators, 
certain recyclers, farmers disposing of waste pesticides, to name a 
few. The proposed part 267 regulations would also contain the 
Sec. 264.1(g) exemption provisions.
2. What Is the Proposed Relationship to Interim Status Standards?
    The provisions of proposed Sec. 267.2 discuss the relationship of 
the standardized permit requirements to the interim status standards. 
Under section 3005(e) of RCRA, owners and operators of hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in existence on November 
19, 1980 or when they are subjected to RCRA permitting, and who submit 
appropriate notification and a Part A permit application have ``interim 
status.'' The proposed Sec. 267.2 provisions are similar to those found 
in the current Sec. 264.3. Under the proposed provisions, if you are 
currently complying with the requirements for interim status as defined 
in section 3005(e) of RCRA and qualifying for interim status under 
Sec. 270.70, you would be required to continue to comply with the 
interim status standards specified in part 265 until final disposition 
of your standardized permit application.
3. How Would This Subpart Affect an Imminent Hazard Action?
    Proposed Sec. 267.3 repeats the provisions found currently in 
Sec. 264.4 concerning imminent and substantial hazards. As this 
proposed provision states, the permitting agency could issue 
enforcement orders to a facility if an imminent and substantial 
endangerment to human health or the environment is present, even if the 
facility is complying with the proposed part 267 provisions.

C. Subpart B--General Facility Standards

    This section of the preamble discusses the general facility 
standards that we are proposing for standardized permitted facilities. 
These proposed general facility standards are similar to the general 
facility standards currently found in the 40 CFR part 264 subpart B. 
They describe how you would obtain an EPA identification number, and 
what the proposed requirements would be for waste analysis, site 
security, general inspection schedule, employee training, managing 
ignitable, reactive, or incompatible waste, and locations standards. We 
are requesting your

[[Page 52209]]

comments on the appropriateness of these proposed general facility 
standards.
1. Would This Subpart Apply to Me?
    Section 267.10 contains the proposed applicability language of this 
subpart. This section states that ``this subpart applies to you if you 
own or operate a facility that treats or stores hazardous waste under a 
part 270 subpart I standardized permit, except as provided in 
Sec. 267.1(b).'' We repeat this applicability language in all the 
proposed subparts of part 267.
2. How Would I Comply With This Subpart?
    Proposed Sec. 267.11 lists the steps that you would take if this 
subpart applies to you. Specifically, you would obtain an EPA 
identification number, and follow prescribed requirements for waste 
analysis, security, inspections, training, special waste handling, and 
location standards.
3. How Would I Obtain an Identification Number?
    Proposed Sec. 267.12 repeats the requirement found currently in 
Sec. 264.11 on identification numbers with the addition of who to 
contact for information. Permitting agencies use a facility's 
identification number to track the operations at the facility and to 
enter the facility in their hazardous waste facility data system. The 
existing notice requirements of Sec. 264.12(a) and (b) are not 
applicable to the proposed standardized permit situation because, under 
this proposal, no waste would be coming onto a standardized permitted 
facility from any off-site sources. The existing requirements of 
Sec. 264.12(c), stipulating that you notify a new owner or operator of 
your facility of the requirements of both this part and part 270, are 
included in proposed subpart E (Record keeping, reporting, and 
notifications).
4. What Are the Proposed Waste Analysis Requirements?
    Proposed Sec. 267.13 discusses general waste analysis requirements 
and repeats most of the requirements currently found in Sec. 264.13 
except for those specific to off-site generated waste and land disposal 
units, which are not proposed to be eligible for standardized permits. 
We are not proposing to include in Sec. 267.13 off-site waste and 
disposal units discussed in Secs. 264.13(a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), (b)(5), 
(b)(7), and (c).
    Under the standardized permit procedures proposed in Sec. 270.67, 
you, as the facility owner or operator, would be required to develop a 
waste analysis plan and keep it at your facility. You can find the 
proposed waste analysis plan requirements in Sec. 267.13(b). The waste 
analysis plan would describe sampling and analytical procedures. The 
purpose of the waste analysis plan would be to ensure that you possess 
sufficient information on the properties of the waste to be able to 
treat or store the waste in a safe manner. The waste analysis plan 
required by proposed Sec. 267.13 (b) should be the same level of detail 
as the existing plan currently required by Sec. 264.13. You would be 
required to specify in the plan the level of analysis you would perform 
on your waste and the frequency with which you would repeat the 
analysis.
5. What Are the Proposed Security Requirements?
    The facility security procedures we proposed in Sec. 267.14 are 
important factors in the safe management of hazardous waste. These 
proposed requirements are similar to the security requirements found in 
current Sec. 264.14. The provisions of Sec. 267.14 would require you to 
have security procedures that prevent the unknowing entry of people and 
minimize the potential for the unauthorized entry of people or 
livestock onto the active portion of the facility. We are proposing 
that, during inspection of the facility, the permitting agency could 
review the security procedures and determine if the components of the 
security system are in place and in working order.
    If you wish an exemption to any component of the security system, 
as provided under the proposed provisions in Sec. 267.14(a) (similar to 
provisions of Sec. 264.14), you would be required to prepare a written 
justification and keep it readily available on-site at your facility. 
This procedure is different from the existing Sec. 264.14 provisions in 
that you would not make the demonstration to the Director, but instead 
self-certify that you qualify for the exemption. This self-
certification is similar to the demonstration currently available to 
interim status facilities under Sec. 265.14. The proposed Sec. 267.14 
provision contains two conditions for the exemption: (1) If 
unauthorized entry will not result in injury to people or livestock who 
might enter the facility, and (2) if such entry will not result in 
injury to the environment (for example, as a result of disturbing the 
waste or the equipment within the active portion of the facility). 
Because past experience shows us that these two conditions are rarely 
satisfied, we do not expect many of you would be able to qualify for 
the proposed exemption from security requirements. We invite comment on 
the inclusion of this proposed exemption for standardized permits. Do 
you believe that the exemption from security provisions is appropriate 
for facilities operating under standardized permits?
6. What Are the Proposed General Inspection Schedule Requirements?
    We propose requiring you to make the general inspection schedule, 
as well as the inspection logs or summaries, as described in proposed 
Sec. 267.15, readily available at your facility. You would generally 
develop and follow your own written inspection schedules. You would be 
required to base the written inspection schedule described in proposed 
Sec. 267.15 on your facility's critical processes, equipment, and 
structures, and on the potential for failure and the rate of 
deterioration processes (for example, corrosion) that may lead to 
failure (just as is required currently in Sec. 264.15). We are 
proposing to retain minimum inspection requirements and schedules for 
tanks, containers, and containment buildings. You would be required to 
incorporate these inspection schedules into your written inspection 
schedules. You would document all repairs and responses to problems 
noted during inspections in your inspection log and keep the 
documentation with the inspection schedule. Several of the regulatory 
citations currently in Sec. 264.15(b)(4) are not appropriate because 
they refer to units that are not eligible for the proposed standardized 
permit (for example, thermal treatment units and land disposal units); 
therefore, we are not including these citations in the proposed 
Sec. 267.15(b)(3) requirements.
7. What Training Would my Employees be Required to Have?
    The purpose of the training requirement is to reduce the potential 
for mistakes that might threaten human health or the environment by 
ensuring that facility personnel are knowledgeable in the areas to 
which they are assigned. The proposed standards found in Sec. 267.16 
are essentially the same as the training standards currently in 
Sec. 264.16, and include requirements that specify what training your 
personnel would be required to have and when they need to receive 
training to do their jobs. You would be required to keep a description 
of the training program and individual personnel training logs with the 
other required records at your facility.

[[Page 52210]]

8. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Managing Ignitable, Reactive, 
or Incompatible Waste?
    We propose general requirements for handling ignitable, reactive, 
or incompatible waste in Sec. 267.17 which are similar to the existing 
requirements found in Sec. 264.17. These general requirements minimize 
the potential for accidents when you handle ignitable or reactive 
waste, or when you mix incompatible wastes. Extreme heat or pressure, 
fires, explosions, violent reactions, or damage to the structural 
integrity of the device or unit containing the waste are clearly 
undesirable because of the likelihood that they will cause injury or 
death or release hazardous waste into the environment.
9. What Are the Proposed Standards for Selecting the Location of my 
Facility?
    The proposed technical standards would require you to comply with 
location standards described in Sec. 267.18. These standards are 
similar to the location standards currently found in Sec. 264.18. We 
believe that the location characteristics of a facility are an 
important consideration in ensuring safe waste management. The hazards 
a facility could present to human health and the environment may be 
increased by locating a facility in certain areas. These proposed 
location standards are designed to reduce these additional risks. We 
believe that you should be required to submit the information required 
by the location standards to the permitting agency, because the 
location of the facility is a site-specific factor that determines its 
suitability for hazardous waste management activities. We discuss the 
submittal of this information to the permitting agency in more detail 
later in Section IX B: What Information would I need to submit to the 
Permitting Agency to Support my Standardized Permit Application?
    The proposed location standards found in Sec. 267.18 would restrict 
the siting and waste management activities of facilities in floodplains 
and seismic zones. We determined in 1981 that waste management 
activities should be restricted in those two areas because of the risks 
that these locations pose.
    The existing Sec. 264.18(c) provision that sets forth location 
standards for salt domes, salt bed formations, and underground mines 
and caves is not included in the proposed location standards of 
Sec. 267.18 because this provision deals with hazardous waste disposal 
which is not eligible for a proposed standardized permit.
    The proposed Sec. 267.18 standards retain the existing 
Sec. 264.18(b) provisions allowing facilities to locate within a 100-
year floodplain as long as the facility meets proper design, 
construction, and operating requirements to prevent washout, and to 
seek a waiver if the facility can remove the waste before flood waters 
can reach the facility. If a waiver is granted, the facility to where 
the waste is moved would be required to either have a RCRA permit to 
manage that particular waste or have interim status. We invite comments 
on whether we should retain the floodplain waste removal waiver in the 
standardized permit. It has been our experience that the submittal and 
approval of any waiver involves a lengthy review process. This review 
process may defeat the streamlined permitting goal of the standardized 
permit.
    The Sec. 264.18(b)(ii) provisions are specific to land disposal 
waste management activities and is not applicable to the standardized 
permit situation. Therefore, these requirements have not been added to 
the proposed Sec. 267.18(b) provisions.
10. Would I Be Required To Have a Construction Quality Assurance 
Program?
    No, under the proposed rule, you would not need a construction 
quality assurance program because you are not managing waste in land 
disposal units. The existing Sec. 264.19 construction quality assurance 
program has provisions that are applicable to surface impoundments, 
waste piles, and landfill units. Because these units are considered 
land disposal units and not eligible for a proposed standardized 
permit, the construction quality assurance program is not included in 
the proposed part 267 requirements. Therefore, we did not include a 
section containing those provisions.

D. Subpart C--Preparedness and Prevention

    This proposed subpart contains standards that would require you, as 
the owner or operator of a hazardous waste facility, to minimize 
threats to human health and the environment caused by the release of 
waste from a fire, explosion or any unplanned event. Except where 
noted, the proposed requirements of this subpart are the same as those 
currently found in subpart C of part 264. We are requesting your 
comments on these proposed preparedness and prevention requirements.
1. What Are the Proposed General Design and Operation Standards?
    Proposed Sec. 267.31 would require you to design, construct, 
maintain, and operate your facility to minimize threats to human health 
and the environment caused by the release of waste being managed at the 
facility from a fire, explosion or any unplanned event. This is the 
same provision that is found in existing Sec. 264.31.
2. What Equipment Would I Be Required To Have?
    Proposed Sec. 267.32 would require you to have certain equipment at 
the facility, including an alarm system, communication equipment, fire 
extinguishers and fire control equipment, and either water for hose 
streams, foam equipment, or water spray systems. This proposed 
provision would also allow you to not have certain equipment if the 
potential hazards at the facility don't warrant having the equipment. 
This proposed section differs from the existing Sec. 264.32 in that the 
Director would not have to make a determination about whether your 
facility can be exempt from having some of the required equipment. 
However, you would be required to keep documentation supporting any 
equipment exemption at the facility and you would make the 
documentation available for review by the permitting agency and the 
public. In this respect, the proposed Sec. 267.32 is the same as the 
current Sec. 265.32 regulation governing interim status facilities.
3. What Are the Proposed Testing and Maintenance Requirements for the 
Equipment?
    Proposed Sec. 267.33 would require you to test and maintain, as 
necessary, all the equipment proposed in Sec. 267.32 so that it would 
be ready when needed. This provision is the same as the requirements 
currently found in Sec. 264.33.
4. When Would Personnel Be Required To Have Access to Communication 
Equipment or an Alarm System?
    Proposed Sec. 267.34 would require all personnel involved in waste 
handling to have ready access to the communication equipment and 
alarms, including situations when only one employee is working at the 
facility. The requirement would not apply when the equipment is not 
required under proposed Sec. 267.32. As opposed to the existing 
requirements in Sec. 264.34, no prior determination by the Regional 
Administrator would be required for the exemption. However, you should 
keep documentation supporting the exemption at your

[[Page 52211]]

facility, and would be required to make it available for review by the 
public and the permitting Agency. This is the same approach applicable 
to interim status facilities under existing Sec. 265.34.
5. How Would I Ensure Access for Personnel and Equipment During 
Emergencies?
    Proposed Sec. 267.35 would require you to maintain sufficient aisle 
space to allow for rapid remediation of any emergency. The aisle space 
should be wide enough to allow personnel, fire protection equipment, 
spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment to move to any 
facility operation in the case of an emergency. This provision is the 
same as the current Sec. 264.35 requirement, except for the provision 
for a waiver in Sec. 264.35. We have not provided for a waiver in 
proposed Sec. 267.35 because we do not believe, under the proposed 
standardized permit, that a situation would arise when sufficient aisle 
space should not nor could not be provided.
6. What Arrangements Would I Be Required To Make With Local Authorities 
for Emergencies?
    The proposed Sec. 267.36 provisions would require you to attempt to 
make arrangements with local police, fire and emergency response 
authorities, and hospitals to assist in responding to emergencies. 
These requirements are similar to those found in existing Sec. 264.37 
and include provisions on familiarizing emergency response personnel 
with the facility layout, properties of the wastes you manage, possible 
evacuation routes, and types of injuries or illnesses that could result 
from fires, explosions, or releases at the facility. You would be 
required to document, in the facility's operating record, any refusal 
on the part of any of the State or local authorities to enter into such 
arrangements.

E. Subpart D--Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures

    This proposed subpart contains standards that would require your 
facility to have a contingency plan that describes how hazards to human 
health and the environment will be minimized. The requirements of this 
proposed subpart are similar to the provisions currently found in 
subpart D of part 264, with the exception that you would not be 
required to submit the plan with your application.
1. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Contingency Plan and How Would I 
Use it?
    The proposed provisions of Sec. 267.51 would require you to have a 
contingency plan at your facility. The purpose of the plan is to 
minimize hazards to human health or the environment whenever a fire, 
explosion or unplanned event results in the release of hazardous waste 
or hazardous waste constituents. You would be required to comply with 
the proposed requirements of Sec. 267.51 immediately whenever there is 
a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous 
constituents that could threaten human health or the environment. The 
proposed requirements in Sec. 267.51 are the same as the provisions 
currently found in Sec. 264.51.
2. What Would Be Required To Be in my Contingency Plan?
    Under proposed Sec. 267.52, you would be required to include the 
following in your contingency plan: a description of the planned 
response to emergencies at your facility; any arrangements with local 
and state agencies to provide emergency response support (Sec. 267.36); 
a list of your facility's emergency coordinators, a list of your 
facility's emergency equipment; and an evacuation plan, where 
necessary. The primary purpose of the proposed contingency plan is to 
ensure that you have anticipated potential emergencies and have 
developed appropriate response plans. Under EPA's existing ``one-plan'' 
guidance for contingency planning (61 FR 28641, June 5, 1996), you are 
currently allowed to consolidate multiple plans that may be required 
under various regulations into one functional emergency response plan. 
Facilities that are required to comply with the existing Sec. 264.52 
requirements, are allowed to meet these requirements by following the 
``one-plan'' guidance. Likewise, if you need to comply with proposed 
Sec. 267.52 requirements, you would not need to prepare a separate plan 
if you already had a contingency plan that followed the ``one-plan'' 
guidance. The proposed requirements of Sec. 267.52 are similar to the 
current provisions of Sec. 264.52. However, proposed Sec. 267.52 does 
not include the existing requirement of Sec. 264.52(d) to submit the 
compliance plan information at the time of certification. However, this 
information would be kept at the facility as proposed by 
Sec. 270.290(g).
3. Who Would Be Required To Have Copies of the Contingency Plan?
    Section 267.53, as proposed, would require that you keep a current 
copy of the plan at your facility and give copies to all local 
authorities, including hospitals, that may be called in the event of an 
emergency. This requirement is the same as the provision in current 
Sec. 264.53. You may choose, in the interests of promoting good 
community relations, to provide a copy of the plan to the heads of any 
local community groups as well. EPA has learned anecdotally that 
communities can be very interested in this type of information.
4. When Would I Have To Revise the Contingency Plan?
    Proposed Sec. 267.54 lists the criteria that dictate when you would 
need to revise the contingency plan. The proposed Sec. 267.54 
requirements are the same as provisions currently found in Sec. 264.54. 
Factors that would require you to modify the contingency plan include 
changes in any of the lists of equipment or emergency coordinators, a 
failure of the plan when it was implemented, permit revision, and 
changes in design, construction, operation, or maintenance that 
materially increase the potential for harm to human health or the 
environment.
5. What Is the Proposed Role of the Emergency Coordinator?
    Section 267.55, as proposed, would require at least one employee to 
be responsible for coordinating all emergency responses. The employee 
may be either at the facility or on call, and would be required to be 
knowledgeable of all aspects of the contingency plan, the facility 
operations, the waste handled, location of records, and facility 
layout. Equally important, the employee should be able to commit 
necessary resources to implement the contingency plan. Existing 
Sec. 264.55 has the same requirements.
6. What Are the Proposed Emergency Procedures for the Emergency 
Coordinator?
    Proposed Sec. 267.56, which elaborates on the responsibilities of 
the emergency coordinator, is the same as the existing provisions found 
in Sec. 264.56. Applicable responsibilities vary with type and variety 
of waste handled and the complexity of the facility. The 
responsibilities include the following: activating alarms; notifying 
appropriate State and local authorities, as needed; identifying the 
nature, source, and extent of any release; assessing possible

[[Page 52212]]

hazards to human health or the environment; and monitoring for leaks, 
pressure buildups, gas generation, or ruptures, as appropriate.
    Proposed Sec. 267.57 discusses actions that the emergency 
coordinator would be required to take after an emergency. These actions 
include the following: the treatment, storage, or disposal of any 
materials or waste that result from a release, fire, or explosion at 
the facility; and the examination and replacement, if necessary, of any 
emergency equipment you use in response to the emergency. This 
provision corresponds to existing Sec. 264.56(g) and (h).
    Proposed Sec. 267.58 identifies your responsibilities, as the owner 
or operator of a hazardous waste management facility, operating under a 
standardized permit. You would be required to notify the Director and 
appropriate state and local authorities about details of the incident 
that required implementing the contingency plan. This provision 
corresponds to existing Sec. 264.56 (i) and (j) .

F. Subpart E--Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Notifying

    This proposed subpart of 267 contains the standardized permit 
record keeping, reporting and notifying requirements.
1. When Would I Need To Manifest my Waste?
    Because the part 267 standardized permit regulations, as proposed, 
would not apply to facility owners and operators who receive waste from 
off-site, the requirements currently found in Sec. 264.71 (a), (b), and 
(d) are not included in Sec. 267.71. Existing regulations that apply to 
waste sent from the generator Sec. 264.71(c), has been retained in 
proposed Sec. 267.70. This is because there could be situations where 
waste generated, stored, or treated at a facility operating under a 
standardized permit could be shipped off-site for final treatment or 
disposal. Also this proposed subpart has been renamed (compared to 
subpart E of part 264) to reflect that no manifest system is involved. 
The existing provisions of Sec. 264.72, which cover manifest 
discrepancies, apply only to wastes received from off-site sources. 
Because the proposed rule does not currently apply to off-site 
shipments, we did not include that section in Part 267. As mentioned 
earlier in Section I E 3, we are interested in your comments on whether 
the scope of the proposed standardized permit regulations should be 
expended to include facilities that treat or store waste generated off-
site.
2. What Information Would I Need To Keep?
    Proposed Sec. 267.71 would require you to maintain a record of 
operations at your facility. This provision is similar to the current 
requirements found in Sec. 264.73. You would be required to keep the 
operating record at your facility until final closure of your facility. 
The information that you would place in the operating record includes 
the following: descriptions and quantities of waste handled, location 
of the wastes at the facility, results of waste analyses and 
determinations, reports of incidents that required implementing the 
contingency plan, inspection reports, monitoring and testing data, 
closure cost estimates, waste minimization certification, and 
information required under the land disposal restrictions found in part 
268 of this chapter. Under existing Sec. 268.7, if a generator sends 
waste off-site for land disposal, the generator must determine if the 
waste has to be treated before it can be land disposed. The generator 
must keep records that were used to make this determination. Because 
proposed part 267 only applies to the on-site storage and treatment of 
hazardous waste, certain existing paragraphs in Sec. 264.73 were not 
included in the proposed Sec. 267.71 standards.
3. What Records Would I Provide to the Permitting Agency?
    Proposed Sec. 267.72 stipulates that you would furnish all records 
required in this part upon request to the permitting authority. This is 
the same requirement currently found in Sec. 264.74. It should be noted 
that proposed part 270 subpart I requires many of the same records be 
made available to the public for review. However, the Agency is not 
proposing to make the entire operating record available for public 
review. This is the same as the current situation; a RCRA facility's 
operating record is not subject to public review. However, the 
information described in part 270 subpart I is subject to public 
disclosure. See Section IX B: What Information would I Need to Submit 
to the Permitting Agency to Support my Standardized Permit 
Application?, and Section IX D: What Information would be Required to 
be Kept at My Facility?. The existing provisions in Sec. 264.74(c) are 
not proposed for Sec. 267.71, because they apply to land disposal, 
which is not currently covered by the proposed standardized permit.
4. What Reports Would I Need To Prepare and Who Would I Need To Send 
Them to?
    Proposed Sec. 267.73 contains the same requirement for submitting a 
biennial report as the existing requirements of Sec. 264.75. As with 
264.75, the report covers a facility's activities including: the method 
of treating or storing waste, the most recent cost estimate for 
closure, waste reduction efforts, and changes in waste volume and 
toxicity. Section 264.75(c) and (d), which applies to off-site 
facilities and wastes received, have not been included in proposed 
Sec. 267.73, because the proposed standardized permit does not apply to 
such facilities.
    Because the existing Sec. 264.76 provision for unmanifested waste 
report applies to facilities that receive waste from off-site, which is 
not currently allowed under the proposed standardized permit rule, that 
section has not been included in proposed Sec. 267.73.
    Proposed Sec. 267.73 also lists reports, in addition to the 
biennial report, that you would have to submit in special 
circumstances. You would report on fires, releases, and explosions at 
your facility and report when your facility closes. You would also 
submit any other reports required for container storage units, tanks, 
and containment buildings, and reports required under the air standards 
in part 264 subparts AA, BB, and CC.
5. What Notifications Would Be Required?
    If your facility changes owner or operator, you would be required 
to notify that person, in writing, of the proposed requirements of 
Sec. 267.74 as well as those in proposed part 270.

G. Subpart F--Releases From Solid Waste Management Units

1. Would This Proposed Rule Require me To Address Releases of Hazardous 
Waste or Constituents From Solid Waste Management Units?
    This proposed rule would require you to undertake corrective action 
to address releases of hazardous waste or constituents from solid waste 
management units (SWMUs) ( the ``facility-wide corrective action 
requirement imposed by section 3004(u)) if your facility, or a portion 
of your facility, as a condition of your standardized permit (unless of 
course, standardized permit conditions are being added to an existing 
permit that already addresses corrective action).
    The corrective action requirements proposed for standardized 
permits for

[[Page 52213]]

storage facilities are identical in substance to the existing 
corrective action requirements for non-standardized permits for such 
facilities\4\ and, as in the case of non-standardized permits, site-
specific cleanup requirements would be required to be determined on a 
site-by-site basis. Because corrective action requirements are site-
specific, EPA or the authorized State would include them in the 
supplemental portion of your standardized permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The specific language of the provisions, however, differs 
from the language in Part 264 because of the Agency's recent efforts 
to use ``plain language'' techniques when drafting regulations and 
other documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Are the Proposed Corrective Action Requirements for Standardized 
Permits Different From the Corrective Action Requirements for 
Individual Permits?
    The proposed corrective action requirements for standardized 
permits are specified in Sec. 267.101 of part 267 subpart F and are 
analogous in substance to the current requirements of Sec. 264.101, 
which otherwise would apply to the facilities addressed in this 
proposed rule.\5\ Proposed Sec. 267.101(a) (analogous to existing 
Sec. 264.101(a)) would impose the general RCRA section 3004(u) 
requirement that all facilities seeking a permit must conduct 
corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the 
environment for all releases of hazardous wastes or constituents from 
solid waste management units at the facility. Proposed Sec. 267.101(b) 
(analogous to existing Sec. 264.101(b)) would require that the permit 
specify a schedule of compliance for completing corrective action at 
the facility (where corrective action is not completed prior to permit 
issuance), and provide assurances of financial responsibility for 
completing corrective action. Proposed Sec. 267.101(c) (analogous to 
existing Sec. 264.101(c)) generally would require you to conduct 
corrective action beyond the facility boundary, and to provide 
financial assurance for such corrective action. Proposed 
Sec. 267.101(d) (analogous to existing Sec. 264.101(d)) provides that 
facilities that require a RCRA permit only because they treat, store, 
or dispose of hazardous waste in the course of conducting a cleanup are 
not subject to the facility-wide proposed corrective action 
requirements of Sec. 267.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ You should note that there are significant differences 
between existing part 264 subpart F and proposed part 267 subpart F, 
because the hazardous waste management units that are proposed to be 
eligible for standardized permits are not subject to most existing 
provisions of part 264 Subpart F. The existing requirements of 
Secs. 264.91-100, apply to ``regulated units,'' which are currently 
defined in Sec. 264.90 as surface impoundments, waste piles, and 
land treatment units or landfills that receives hazardous waste 
after July 26, 1982. Since these units are not proposed to be 
eligible for the standardized permits, proposed part 267 Subpart F 
does not contain provisions analogous to sections 264.91-100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Why Are we Proposing These Requirements?
    In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress directed EPA to 
require corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the 
environment for releases from all solid waste management units (SWMUs) 
at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposable facilities 
seeking a permit. Section 3004(u) of RCRA requires that any permit 
issued under section 3005(c) of RCRA to such a facility after November 
8, 1984, address corrective action for releases of hazardous wastes or 
hazardous constituents from any SWMU at the facility. Section 3004(u) 
requires that schedules of compliance (where corrective action cannot 
be completed prior to permit issuance) and financial assurances for 
completing such corrective action be included in the permit. In 
addition, section 3004(v) directs EPA to require corrective action 
beyond the facility boundary, where permission to conduct such 
corrective action can be obtained. Because standardized permits, like 
non-standardized permits (individual permits and permits-by-rule), 
would be issued under the authority of section 3005 of RCRA to 
facilities seeking a permit, these corrective action requirements 
extend to standardized permits as well and EPA has included these 
requirements for corrective action in proposed part 267.
4. Why Would the Proposed Corrective Action Requirements Be Included in 
the Supplemental Portion of the Standardized Permit?
    One of EPA's objectives in developing this proposed rule was to 
streamline the permit application and permit issuance processes by 
developing generic design and operating standards for storage permits, 
thereby avoiding detailed review of permit applications. To the extent 
possible, we have developed such standards and proposed them in this 
rule. However, in developing this proposal, we had to balance our 
desire for a streamlined permitting process against the need for 
flexibility in the corrective action program. In the past 16 years, 
since we began implementing the corrective action mandates of HSWA, EPA 
has been reminded consistently that most sites in the RCRA universe are 
unique, and that site-specific determinations for corrective action 
remedies are typically vital to assuring the best remedy is selected at 
each site. Based on this experience, rather than attempting to develop 
generic standards for corrective action, we chose early in the 
development of this proposed rule to utilize the same site-specific 
flexibility for corrective action under standardized permits as is 
currently available under non-standardized permits. That corrective 
action process provides us with considerable flexibility to fashion 
remedies that are protective of human health and the environment and 
that reflect the conditions and the complexities of each facility.
    We solicit comment on this proposed approach to corrective action 
in standardized permits. Further, though we have not proposed 
standardized permit conditions for corrective action, we specifically 
request suggestions for standardized permit conditions that might be 
used for corrective action under standardized permits.
5. Would I Be Able To Utilize the Flexibility Provided by CAMUs, 
Temporary Units, and Staging Piles When I Conduct Corrective Action 
Under a Standardized Permit?
    All of the flexible mechanisms available under non-standardized 
permits for corrective action would be available to you under a 
standardized permit. To utilize any of these mechanisms, you would be 
required to comply with the existing requirements in part 264 that are 
applicable to them.

H. Subpart G--Closure

    The title of this subpart has been changed from the current part 
264 subpart G title: ``Closure and Post-Closure'' because we are 
proposing that facilities with standardized permits be required to meet 
clean closure standards (or obtain individual RCRA post-closure permits 
instead). Also, land disposal facilities (which are subject to post-
closure care) are not proposed to be eligible for standardized permits.
    For most cases, the basic proposed requirements of subpart G in 
part 267 parallel the existing provisions in part 264 subpart G. 
However, we propose several changes to the closure provisions in part 
267. These proposed changes include the following: the closure plan not 
being submitted until at least 180 days prior to closure, not allowing 
the option to close as a landfill and therefore requiring clean 
closure, and not allowing time extensions for closure. The policy 
considerations prompting these changes are discussed in further detail 
below.

[[Page 52214]]

    The purpose of these proposed changes is to streamline the closure 
process in appropriate areas by eliminating unnecessary review and 
approval of plans by the permitting agency. By not requiring a closure 
plan until 180 days before closing, you would have better knowledge of 
what steps and procedures should be taken to ensure closure of each 
waste management unit. This would preclude the necessity of changing 
the plan and modifying the permit, which is typically the sequence of 
events under the existing individual permit process.
    Once a standardized permit rule is promulgated, we would recommend 
that you begin preparing your closure plan as early as possible prior 
to the submittal of the plan, preferably when the other documents that 
are normally part of the existing Part B application are prepared. This 
would allow you to update and change the plan as more details become 
available. We are proposing that the plan be required to be submitted 
at least 180 days before you expect to begin closure, and you may not 
know that date until shortly before the 180-day period. Once a final 
rule is in place, preparing the plan early would better enable you to 
meet the deadline.
    We are asking comments and suggestions for procedures to be 
followed in the event that you do not know you are to receive the last 
volume of hazardous waste until you are within the 180-day period. As 
the proposed regulations read, you would be required to submit the 
closure plan at least 180 days before you begin closure, and you would 
be required to complete closure within 180 days of receiving the last 
hazardous waste shipment, but you would not be able to begin closure 
without an approved closure plan. If, because of circumstances that you 
could not have foreseen, you were unable to submit a closure plan in 
the time required, you could be in violation of the regulations.
    We have considered several options for addressing this situation, 
and we invite comments on these as well as suggestions for other 
possible options. One option would be to require the closure plan to be 
submitted with the original permit application, as in individual 
permits. Another approach would be a waiver limited to narrow 
circumstances, such as a bankruptcy forcing an unexpected final 
shipment of waste. Alternatively, we could attempt to develop a 
standardized closure plan for each type of unit. The Agency could also 
leave this aspect of the proposal unchanged, which would place the 
burden of compliance on you. Under that approach, if you are in a type 
of business in which it is difficult to predict when the final shipment 
of waste might occur, we would encourage you to consider submitting 
your closure plan early to minimize potential noncompliance.
    We also intend to simplify the closure plan requirements, by 
proposing to require the units covered by the standardized permit to 
meet ``clean closure requirements.'' We believe that in most cases the 
units can meet these requirements and therefore would not require post-
closure care. Consequently, part 267 subpart G, as proposed, contains 
no provisions for units to close as a landfill or to undergo post-
closure care. If your facility could not be clean-closed, you would be 
required to apply for an individual ``post-closure care'' permit under 
the proposed rule. No separate provisions are proposed for modifying 
the closure plan. We believe that a plan submitted at least 180 days 
before clean closing a container storage area, tank system, or 
containment building would not require modifying. Since the closure 
plan would become part of the permit, we are proposing that any changes 
to the closure plan would be required to follow the permit modification 
procedures found in Secs. 124.211-213. We solicit comments on this 
requirement and whether our assumptions are valid.
    We are also considering an option of not requiring a closure plan. 
A written plan may not be necessary because we are proposing to require 
clean closure of all units, and because the procedures for clean 
closing the types of units subject to this rule should not vary 
greatly. Instead, we would use inspections and certifications to assure 
that the unit(s) were closed in accordance with the clean closure 
performance standards in Sec. 267.111 (general closure standards), 
Sec. 267.176 (containers), Sec. 267.201 (tanks), and Sec. 267.1108 
(containment buildings).
    Under this proposed option, the clean closure requirements, 
including any site-specific requirements, would be written as 
conditions into the permit. The permitting agency inspectors would 
verify that all remaining hazardous waste was properly removed and that 
decontamination and removal of equipment was accomplished according to 
the permit conditions. The independent professional engineer would also 
certify that the facility was closed according to the permit 
conditions, rather than the closure plan as currently proposed in 
Sec. 267.117. You would still be required to notify the director 45 
days before you expect to begin final closure of a unit, so that the 
permitting agency inspectors and the independent professional engineer 
can be present.
    We invite comments on the feasibility of not requiring a closure 
plan and on the enforecability of performance standards in the permit. 
We note that, if you select option 4 as a means of estimating closure 
cost (see Section VII.I.6.) you would have collected all of the 
information necessary to prepare a detailed closure plan.
    Operations at the units affected by this proposed rule should not 
effect your ability to clean closure because spills should not occur. 
The containment standards for container storage areas in section 
Sec. 267.173 are designed to prevent releases from accidental spills. 
Furthermore, the proposed standards do not allow a waiver from 
secondary containment for tanks systems, which will also prevent 
releases from accidental spills. Finally, the proposed standards 
require that any releases be quickly collected and contained. For these 
reasons, a detailed closure plan may also not be necessary.
1. What General Standards Would I Need To Meet When I Stop Operating 
the Unit?
    The proposed closure performance standards of part 267 subpart G 
are the same as the performance standards currently found in part 264 
subpart G. Tanks, container storage areas, and containment buildings 
are required in both part 264 and under today's proposal to ``clean 
close.'' Both parts 264 and 267, however, allow you to close tanks and 
containment buildings as landfills if you cannot attain clean closure. 
Under the proposed part 267 standards, you would be required to obtain 
an individual post-closure permit, separate from the standardized 
permit, if you do not clean close. Thus, for these types of units to 
continue to be eligible for the standardized permit, you would be 
required to remove all waste, decontaminate the containment unit, and 
clean up any spills during closure. The proposed performance standard 
found in Sec. 267.111 would require you to minimize the need for 
further maintenance and to minimize or eliminate the potential for 
post-closure escape of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents, 
leachate, contaminated run-off, or hazardous waste decomposition 
products to the extent necessary to protect human health and the 
environment. We propose minor citation changes in Sec. 267.111(c) to 
remove inapplicable regulatory references that were in the existing 
requirements in Sec. 264.111.
    We invite comments on whether to make other options available to 
facilities

[[Page 52215]]

that cannot meet the clean closure standards. Under the Post-Closure 
rule (63 FR 56710, October 22, 1998), if you own or operate a facility 
with land disposal units, you would have the options of obtaining a 
post-closure permit or integrating the closure of the unit with on-
going corrective action activities in progress at the facility. We are 
interested in comments on whether a similar process should be available 
to storage and treatment units covered by the standardized permit that 
have difficulty clean closing. Under this option, you may not have to 
obtain an individual post-closure permit if you can address the 
residual contamination at the closing unit by on-going corrective 
action activities at your facility.
2. What Procedures Would I Need To Follow?
    You would need to follow the procedures listed in proposed 
Secs. 267.111-267.113. These requirements for a written closure plan in 
proposed Sec. 267.112 parallel those in existing Sec. 264.112, for the 
most part. One notable exception is that you would not have to submit 
the plan until at least 180 days before you expect to begin closure. 
Generally, closure of a unit begins within 90 days of receiving the 
last volume of waste. Under today's proposal, you would be required to 
notify the permitting authority 45 days prior to beginning the final 
closure of a unit. You would still have your closure plan approved by 
the Director before you begin closure. In addition, because you would 
not submit the plan with the Notice of Intent described in Section III 
A 2: Submit a Notice of Intent to operate under the standardized permit 
along with appropriate supporting documents, the Director would provide 
the public an opportunity to comment on the plan. You would provide 
persons on the facility mailing list with a copy of the closure plan at 
the same time you submit a copy to the permitting authority. You would 
also place a notice in the local newspaper notifying the public of the 
opportunity to comment on the plan. The comment period would be open 
for 30 days. After review of the public comments, the permitting agency 
would approve, modify, or disapprove the plan. The permitting authority 
would have 60 days after receipt of the closure plan to make its 
decision on it.
    You would identify and describe in the plan all steps necessary to 
perform partial and/or final closure of the facility. The proposed 
Sec. 267.112(b) provisions describe the contents of the closure plan. 
These provisions are similar to the current requirements found in 
Sec. 264.112(b) with a few exceptions. You would be required to 
describe in the plan how you would close each hazardous waste 
management unit in accordance with the closure performance standards of 
proposed Sec. 267.111. You would also include, in the plan, an estimate 
of the maximum inventory of hazardous waste on-site at the facility and 
a detailed description of the method you would use during final closure 
for removing, transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of all 
hazardous waste and identify the types of off-site hazardous waste 
units you plan to use. You would describe the steps needed to remove or 
decontaminate hazardous waste residues, contaminated containment system 
components, contaminated soils, and contaminated ground water. You 
would also include a schedule for closure of each hazardous waste 
management unit and the total time for closure of each unit.
    No provisions are included in proposed Sec. 267.112 for closing 
land disposal units or combustion facilities because they are not 
proposed to be eligible for a standardized permit. We would retain the 
provision that allows you to modify the closure plan before you notify 
the Director of your intent to close. Even though you do not have to 
submit a closure plan until 180 days before you begin closing, we 
understand that unusual circumstances could cause you to change how you 
plan to close your facility. To allow for that situation, we have 
included procedures for modifying your closure plan through a permit 
modification. Proposed Sec. 267.112(c) includes procedures for amending 
the closure plan. As with the original plan, you would have to submit 
the modified plan to the Director of the permitting authority for 
approval before you could begin closure. Proposed Sec. 267.112 does not 
contain provisions that require you to modify the closure plan. We do 
not anticipate that we would need to require you to change the plan 
given the fact you are submitting it just six months prior to closure 
of the units.
    We are proposing in Sec. 267.112(d) to greatly simplify the 
existing Sec. 264.112(d) requirement for you to notify the Regional 
Administrator when closure is expected to begin. This simplification 
results from several factors. First, we are proposing to limit the 
applicability of the standardized permit to on-site storage and 
treatment units. Second, we are proposing to allow only clean closure 
of the units covered by a standardized permit. Third, we are proposing 
to prohibit any extensions to the start of closure. These factors are 
intended to greatly simplify the closure notification provisions 
currently found in Sec. 264.112(d).
    We used provisions similar to those found in the current part 265 
interim status requirements as a model for the proposed provisions 
found in Sec. 267.112(d). We modified slightly in proposed 
Sec. 267.112(c) and Sec. 267.113 the existing Sec. 265.112 (d)(4) 
process for submitting and approving the closure plan. Proposed 
Sec. 267.113 requires the Director to make the closure plan available 
for public review and comment. This provision is necessary because the 
closure plan is not available for comment by the public at the time the 
``notice of intent'' is submitted to the permitting agency.
3. After I Stop Operating, How Long Would I Have Until I Close the 
Unit?
    We are proposing to simplify the requirements for the time allowed 
for closure in proposed Sec. 267.115 from those found in existing 
Sec. 264.113. As proposed, Sec. 267.115(a) would require you to begin 
closure of the unit following the approved closure plan within 90 days 
after you receive the final volume of hazardous waste. Because we are 
proposing to require you to clean close the hazardous waste management 
units, and because you would not have to submit the closure plan until 
six months prior to closure under this proposal, we do not expect you 
to need any extension to the closure period. Additionally, the nature 
of the units subject to this rulemaking reduces the likelihood of any 
unforseen circumstances making the closure take longer than planned. We 
have therefore decided to propose that no time extensions for closing 
are appropriate for the standardized permit. The Sec. 267.115(b) 
provisions, as proposed, require you to complete final closure 
activities in accordance with your approved closure plan within 180 
days after receiving the final volume of waste. We do not believe that 
the existing Sec. 264.113(c) provisions are appropriate for 
standardized permitting because they focus on the timing of 
demonstrations for extending the closure period. Existing Sec. 264.113 
(d) and (e) have not been incorporated into proposed part 267 because 
they apply to land disposal units which are not considered in this 
proposed rule.
    The Agency invites comments on the requirement for closure within 
180 days. Extensive ground water contamination may prevent the owner or 
operator from completing clean closure within 180 days. Under this 
situation, should the Agency allow for extending the closure time 
period or

[[Page 52216]]

should the owner or operator be required to apply for a post-closure 
permit (or use the corrective action process)?
4. What Would I Have To Do With Contaminated Equipment, Structures, and 
Soils?
    We are proposing to adopt the requirements for disposal or 
decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils that are currently 
found in Sec. 264.114 for standardized permits. Proposed Sec. 267.116 
repeats most of the existing part 264 requirements. You would have to 
properly dispose of or decontaminate all equipment, structures, and 
soils. You would be required to handle any waste that is removed during 
closure of a unit according to the generator standards of existing part 
262. Several regulatory citations found in existing Sec. 264.114 were 
not repeated in proposed Sec. 267.114 because they are applicable to 
land disposal or combustion situations.
5. How Would I Certify Closure?
    The provision for certifying closure is in proposed Sec. 267.117 
and is similar to the current provision in Sec. 264.115. This proposed 
provision would require you to submit a certification, signed by you 
and by an independent registered professional engineer, that you have 
closed your facility following the approved closure plan.

I. Subpart H--Financial Requirements

    Much of the regulatory language in this proposed rule uses a format 
of questions and answers that refers to the permittee as ``you'' and to 
EPA as ``we.'' Except for the introduction to the regulations 
(Sec. 267.140), the proposed language in Subpart H does not follow the 
question and answer format, and it does not use these first and second 
person pronouns to identify the subject. There are two main reasons for 
this difference. First, the underlying current financial responsibility 
regulations in subpart H of 40 CFR 264 and 265, which remain integral 
to the proposed part 267 regulations, do not use first and second 
person pronouns, and EPA has not rewritten the existing part 264 and 
265 regulations to conform to the question and answer format. The 
regulations proposed here cross reference the existing part 264 
regulations extensively, and often provide that compliance with an 
existing part 264 provision would constitute compliance with proposed 
part 267. This linkage of the regulations is necessary so that firms 
with facilities under both existing part 264 (or part 265 regulations) 
and proposed part 267 could use the same mechanism for more than one 
facility, thus eliminating the expense of a separate mechanism. EPA 
expects that several firms using the proposed standardized permit could 
have other facilities operating under existing part 265 interim status 
or part 264 permitting standards.
    Second, unlike many other permitting regulations, the 
responsibilities in the financial assurance regulations often extend to 
parties other than EPA (or the state permitting agency) and the 
permittee. For example, a trustee agrees to perform certain functions 
as part of a trust agreement where EPA is the beneficiary, but EPA is 
not a signatory. Third, parties must fulfill these responsibilities and 
the language used for the documents often must conform to specific 
industry standards such as the Uniform Commercial Code. Because third 
parties are integral to the operation of the financial responsibility 
regulations, EPA has not proposed regulatory language based upon first 
and second person subjects.
    If in the future EPA revises the language of existing parts 264 and 
265, including the financial requirements sections, then EPA will make 
corresponding changes in proposed part 267 requirements. This would 
allow the changes to be consistent across facilities. At present, EPA 
believes that it is more important to maintain consistency with the 
existing part 264 and part 265 standards than to introduce 
substantially different proposed regulatory language in part 267 for 
the financial requirements.
1. Who Would Have To Comply With This Subpart and Briefly What Would 
They Have To Do?
    The financial responsibility requirements proposed for the 
standardized permit largely mirror the provisions found currently in 40 
CFR part 264 subpart H. Under proposed Sec. 267.140 you would have to 
comply with these regulations if you are the owner or operator of a 
facility that treats or stores waste under a standardized permit, 
except as provided under proposed Sec. 267.1(b), and Sec. 267.140(d), 
which similarly to current part 264 subpart H, would exempt the States 
and the Federal government from the requirements of this proposed 
subpart. If you are subject to these proposed regulations, you would be 
required to prepare a closure cost estimate, demonstrate financial 
assurance for closure, and demonstrate financial assurance for 
liability. You would also notify the Regional Administrator if you are 
named as a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding under Title 
11(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code.
2. Definitions
    The definitions and terms proposed in Sec. 267.141 largely follow 
those currently used in Sec. 264.141. As discussed below, the proposed 
regulatory text includes a financial test as a method of complying with 
the financial assurance requirements that reflects the test that EPA 
has proposed for other hazardous waste TSDFs. Because this proposed 
test does not use some of the terms in the current financial test, EPA 
has not included all of the definitions in the current part 264 
regulations in the proposed part 267. If EPA promulgates the current 
Subtitle C financial test instead, EPA will include those definitions 
when it promulgates this rule in final form.
3. Closure Cost Estimates
    For the financial assurance portion of the standardized permit rule 
proposal, EPA has tried to develop a process that takes into account 
the differing regulatory and operating status of facilities that will 
seek a standardized permit. The first group is facilities that already 
are subject to part 265 subpart H interim status standards and are 
already providing financial assurance. The second group of facilities 
may already be permitted and providing financial assurance under the 
part 264 subpart H requirements, but wish to switch to a standardized 
permit. Both of these types of facilities will already have closure 
plans, cost estimates and financial assurance instruments in place 
before receiving a standardized permit. EPA believes that the 
regulations proposed here will not cause conflicts for facilities that 
are already complying with the existing part 264 and 265 standards. EPA 
requests comments on any aspects of this proposal that appears to cause 
conflicts for facilities switching from either part 264 or part 265 
requirements to a proposed standardized permit.
    The third group is new facilities that will adopt the standardized 
permit so that they can begin operation. The proposed standardized 
permit rule would require them to have a closure cost estimate even if 
they do not yet have a closure plan. There is no separate deadline for 
the initial estimate. The cost estimate is necessary to comply with the 
requirement for a financial responsibility instrument which has its own 
deadline.
    Similar to the requirements for other permitted facilities, you 
would be required to develop and keep at the facility a detailed 
written estimate, in

[[Page 52217]]

current dollars, of the cost of closing the facility in accordance with 
the proposed closure requirements of Secs. 267.111 through 267.117, and 
applicable closure proposed requirements in Secs. 267.176, 267.201, and 
267.1108. Unlike the requirements for facilities operating under 
individual permits, initially you would not have to base these cost 
estimates upon a closure plan, since treatment and storage facilities 
with a standardized permit need not have a closure plan until six 
months before closure begins. However, we propose retaining the other 
requirements for closure cost estimates. Under proposed 
Sec. 267.142(a)(1) the estimate would equal the cost of final closure 
at the point in your facility's active life when the extent and manner 
of its operation would make closure the most expensive. We are 
proposing in Sec. 267.142(a)(2) that you base the closure cost estimate 
on the cost to hire a third party to close the facility. The closure 
cost estimate may not incorporate any salvage value from the sale of 
hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste, facility structures or equipment, 
land, or other assets associated with the facility at the time of 
partial or final closure (proposed Sec. 267.142(a)(3)). Further, your 
cost estimate may not incorporate a zero cost for hazardous waste or 
non-hazardous waste that you might be able to sell because they have an 
economic value (proposed Sec. 267.142(a)(4)).
    In proposed Sec. 267.142(b) you would be required to adjust the 
closure cost estimate for inflation within 60 days before the 
anniversary of the date you established the financial instruments to 
comply with Sec. 267.143. Proposed Sec. 267.143, which we discuss 
below, would require an instrument to demonstrate financial assurance 
for closure. If you use the financial test or corporate guarantee to 
demonstrate financial responsibility, you would be required to update 
your closure cost estimate for inflation within 30 days after the close 
of the firm's fiscal year and before submitting the updated financial 
test information to the Regional Administrator. We are asking for 
public comment on whether to change the deadline for updating the cost 
estimate for inflation for users of the financial test to 90 days after 
the close of the fiscal year. Changing to 90 days would make this 
requirement consistent with the deadline for updating the financial 
test. In adjusting your cost estimate, you could recalculate the 
maximum costs in current dollars or use an inflation factor derived 
from the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product published 
by the U.S. Department of Commerce. This is a slightly different 
specification for the adjustment than is currently in Sec. 264.142 
because the existing regulations currently specify the use of the 
Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National Product rather than the 
Gross Domestic Product. We are proposing to use the Gross Domestic 
Product deflator since it is more readily available. Generally, the 
differences between the two series are not significant and we believe 
using the more readily available information will help you comply with 
this requirement.
    Under proposed Sec. 267.142(a)(5), you would be required to revise 
your closure cost estimate in accordance with the closure plan within 
30 days after submitting your closure plan. You would also adjust this 
revised closure cost estimate for inflation as proposed in 
Sec. 267.142(b). These requirements mirror those currently in part 264 
for facilities operating under individual permits.
    Unlike the current Sec. 264.142(c) requirement, you do not have to 
update the closure cost estimate when a modification to the closure 
plan has been approved. This is because there is no provision for 
updating an existing closure plan. Since you only need to submit a 
closure plan 180 days before closure, there is no need to have a 
provision allowing for modification of the plan, or for updating the 
cost estimate as a result of the modification. However, this absence of 
a modification requirement does not change your responsibility to 
maintain a current cost estimate. If you modify your operations so that 
the cost of closure would increase, you would be required to increase 
the closure cost estimate and provide financial assurance for that 
amount under proposed Sec. 267.143.
    Similarly, the proposed requirements in Sec. 267.142(c) correspond 
to the existing requirements in Sec. 264.142(d) and would require you 
to maintain the latest cost estimate at the facility, and, when the 
cost estimate has been adjusted for inflation as proposed under 
Sec. 267.142, the latest adjusted closure cost estimate.
    Currently, we are aware of various methods that owners or operators 
use to prepare closure cost estimates. You may base cost estimates for 
closure, in part, on your past experience closing other facilities. You 
also may use handbooks to estimate costs for labor, materials, and 
equipment associated with performing closure activities, such as 
decontamination, sampling and analysis of wastes or residues, or the 
off-site transportation and disposal of wastes. In addition, you may 
reference specific quotes or cost estimates from contractors to perform 
various closure activities. Whichever method of cost estimating you 
choose, you would be required to have a cost estimate that meets all of 
the proposed requirements of Sec. 267.142, and you would need to 
demonstrate that it meets the requirements.
4. Methods for Estimating Costs for Units Eligible for Standardized 
Permits
    We would not require owners or operators of units eligible for 
standardized permits to submit to the implementing agency a complete 
closure plan as part of the initial standardized permitting process. 
However, we would still require you to prepare a cost estimate for 
closure as part of the initial standardized permitting process and 
under proposed Sec. 267.112(a) to submit the closure plan at least 180 
days prior to closure. In addition, under proposed Sec. 267.142(a)(5) 
you would be required to submit a revised closure cost estimate no 
later than 30 days after submitting a closure plan. In conjunction with 
today's proposed rule, we are assessing different options that would 
provide to owners and operators several methods for preparing closure 
cost estimates for units eligible for standardized permits. Use of the 
methods would be optional. We intend to design methods that would 
reduce the burden on the regulated community of complying with proposed 
requirements under Sec. 267.142 by enabling you to generate estimates 
that you and the permitting agency can accept as reasonably accurate 
without preparing an accompanying closure plan for those units. To 
facilitate the use of any of these alternative methods, we expect to 
provide guidance explaining the methods in detail and identifying the 
types of information that you will need to use them.
    We recognize that estimating closure costs before developing a 
closure plan means that you might potentially have less information to 
factor into your estimates, which could make them less accurate. We are 
interested in obtaining information on the practical difference between 
the quality of cost estimates without closure plans and the quality of 
costs estimates currently received by permitting agencies. While we 
believe that the closure plan can lead to more accurate estimates, we 
also have some information that even with closure plans, cost estimates 
can be incomplete or low.
    We compared closure cost estimates submitted to states in one of 
our regions to an estimate we developed using a cost estimating 
methodology. This

[[Page 52218]]

comparison showed a fairly consistent pattern of lower estimates from 
the owners and operators than from the methodology. Overall, the cost 
estimates from the owner or operator were about one-half of the 
estimates generated by the methodology's model.
    We recognize that our evaluation of closure cost estimates only 
compares estimates developed by owners or operators to estimates 
generated using our methodology. We did not compare cost estimates from 
either of these sources with the actual costs incurred by viable owners 
and operators, or by States which have had to perform closures on 
facilities with non-viable (bankrupt) owners or operators. We seek 
information from owners or operators or state permitting agencies which 
compares the closure cost estimates with the costs actually incurred in 
performing closure, either by the owner or operator, or the state 
permitting authority. For more information on EPA's comparison of 
closure cost estimates please see the document entitled ``Revised Draft 
Report on Analysis of Cost Estimates for Closure and Post-Closure 
Care,'' PRC Environmental Management, Inc., October 15, 1996 in the 
docket, and also on the Internet. See Supplementary Information. 
Because adequate cost estimates are an essential component of the 
financial responsibility program, EPA considered several options for 
improving cost estimates.
5. We Considered Six Options for Developing Cost Estimates, but Prefer 
Three of Them for This Proposal
    We considered six options for guidance for developing closure cost 
estimates for units eligible for the standardized permit. Under each of 
the options we considered, our goal was to reduce the burden on owners 
and operators of developing such cost estimates. The options we 
considered were:
    (1) Have owners or operators provide to the permitting agency 
specific data from which the agency will calculate cost estimates for 
closure;
    (2) Prepare a methodology for the agency to use to generate 
``default'' cost estimates for closure;
    (3) Develop a cost estimate matrix based on historical data;
    (4) Provide to owners or operators standard forms that they can use 
to calculate cost estimates for closure;
    (5) Prepare a methodology for owners or operators to prepare 
``default'' cost estimates for closure; and
    (6) Waive requirements to develop cost estimates for eligible units 
based on the owners or operators ability to demonstrate financial 
assurance for closure and post-closure care for all other types of 
units using the financial test or corporate guarantee.
    Further information on these options appears in the docket to this 
rule.
    We believe that Options 1 and 2: would remove from the owner or 
operator the responsibility of preparing a cost estimate for closure, 
would impose a significant administrative burden on the implementing 
agency, and might prevent the owner or operator from providing 
financial assurance for the unit immediately upon submitting its permit 
application because the owner or operator would have to wait for the 
implementing agency to generate a cost estimate before the amount of 
assurance required for closure of the unit could be determined.
    Under Option 3, we would use actual costs government agencies 
incurred when performing closure at abandoned facilities to develop 
default cost estimates. We believe that we might be able to obtain such 
data from the files of authorized states or EPA regions that managed 
closures at facilities when the owners or operators were unwilling or 
unable to do so. Because the cost data would reflect actual third-party 
expenditures incurred by the government, default cost estimates based 
on this research might provide a more realistic basis for 
demonstrations of financial assurance than cost estimates prepared 
under more traditional methods.
    We have considered this option carefully because it might provide 
us cost data for closure that are more accurate than those currently 
available from other widely-used cost estimating methodologies. We may 
wish to undertake efforts to gather historical cost data for closures 
of abandoned facilities in the future. At this time, however, we have 
elected not to propose Option 3 because we do not currently have this 
information. If we receive sufficient information during the public 
comment period to support it, we may use such information in the final 
rule. We requests comments on the advisability of pursuing this option.
    As noted above, however, we are requesting that anyone who may have 
historical cost data regarding the closure of any type of RCRA 
hazardous waste facility (not just facilities with only the types of 
units eligible for the standardized permit), or who knows how we might 
readily access such data, submit it to us for further consideration. To 
be useful for this effort, the historical cost data should be: (1) Be 
specific to the actual costs and whether these costs were incurred when 
either the governmental agency or another entity closed specific units, 
(2) be specific whether the facilities were abandoned or not, (3) be in 
sufficient detail to identify costs for specific closure activities, 
and (4) state when the closure activities occurred. Being able to 
relate specific costs to specific activities is an important factor in 
ensuring that we use the data properly when developing methods to 
estimate closure costs for units at facilities, particularly because 
the total costs incurred to effect ``closure'' at abandoned facilities 
frequently include costs of both corrective action and closure 
activities. Because the distinction between corrective action and 
closure activities is not always clear, it can be difficult to 
differentiate between costs that pertain only to closure activities for 
the regulated unit and all other costs associated with the cleanup of a 
site. However, we can only use those cost data that differentiate the 
closure activities to support the development of less burdensome 
methods for estimating closure costs.
6. Option 4, Standard Forms for Estimating Closure Costs
    Under Option 4, EPA developed draft standard forms that you could 
use to estimate the costs of closing those units proposed to be 
eligible for a standardized permit. (See the report entitled ``Closure 
Cost Estimates for Standardized Permits, Background Document--Option 
4,'' prepared by Tetra Tech EM Inc., December 31, 1998, available in 
the docket to this rulemaking and also electronically. See 
Supplementary Information.) Because cost data derived from private, 
nationally recognized sources often are proprietary, the draft forms do 
not contain suggested costs for specific closure activities. The draft 
forms, however, provide you with a methodology that would help reduce 
the burden on you by standardizing the cost estimating process. Use of 
the draft forms also would help to ensure that you recognize all 
applicable closure activities and incorporate them into your cost 
estimates for those activities.
    Use of the draft forms would reduce the burden of complying with 
the applicable regulations because the draft forms would provide a 
step-by-step approach for developing cost estimates for closure. The 
draft forms would identify the specific activities required for closure 
in a standard format, so using the forms also would also reduce the 
burden on the regulatory agency of reviewing and evaluating cost 
estimates that you submit. It would be easier for the agency to review 
and evaluate the

[[Page 52219]]

adequacy of cost estimates based on the forms because the agency could 
more easily check the costs of specific activities for reasonableness. 
However, we recognize that some may wish for a larger reduction of 
burden associated with cost estimating and so in addition to this 
option we have also developed an Option 5, discussed below, that has a 
larger burden reduction, but tends to produce higher cost estimates 
than this option.

What Information Would I Need To Develop Cost Estimates for Containers?

    In the case of container storage areas, information you would need 
to use the draft forms to develop closure cost estimates would include: 
(1) Type and physical state of each waste you plan to store; (2) 
maximum capacity of each waste you plan to manage; (3) types of 
containers that you plan to use (for example, 55-gallon drums); (4) 
surface area of all pads, berms, or other secondary containment 
structures; (5) types of heavy equipment you plan to use during closure 
activities; (6) level of personal protective equipment (PPE) you 
anticipate needing during closure activities; (7) methods of 
decontamination you plan to use for the unit and for heavy equipment; 
(8) number and types of samples you plan to take and appropriate 
analytical procedures you anticipate using to determine ``clean'' 
closure; (9) a prediction of whether you will close with the 
containment system in place or will remove the containment system; and 
(10) methods you anticipate using to treat and dispose of all wastes 
you remove and all residues you generate during closure.

What Information Would I Need To Develop Cost Estimates for Tanks?

    In the case of tanks, information you would need to use the draft 
forms to develop closure cost estimates would include: (1) Types of 
tanks; (2) type and physical state of each waste you plan to store or 
treat in the tanks; (3) maximum capacity of each type of waste you plan 
to store or treat in the tanks; (4) interior surface area of the tanks; 
(5) length and nominal diameter of all ancillary piping; (6) surface 
area of all pads, berms, or other secondary containment structures; (7) 
types of heavy equipment you anticipate using during closure 
activities; (8) level of PPE you anticipate needing during closure 
activities; (9) methods of decontamination you expect to use for the 
unit and for heavy equipment; (10) number and types of samples you plan 
to take and appropriate analytical procedures you anticipate using to 
determine ``clean'' closure; (11) a prediction of whether you will 
close the tanks in place or will disassemble and remove them; and (12) 
methods you anticipate using to treat and dispose of all wastes you 
remove and all residues you generate during closure.

What Information Would I Need To Develop Cost Estimates for Containment 
Buildings?

    In the case of containment buildings, information you would need to 
use the draft forms to develop cost estimates would include: (1) Type 
and physical state of each waste you plan to store at the unit; (2) 
maximum capacity of each waste you plan to store at the unit; (3) 
interior surface area of the containment building; (4) types of heavy 
equipment you plan to use during closure activities; (5) level of PPE 
you anticipate needing during closure activities; (6) methods of 
decontamination you plan to use for the unit and for heavy equipment; 
(7) number and types of samples you plan to take and appropriate 
analytical procedures you anticipate using to be performed to determine 
``clean'' closure; (8) a prediction of whether you will close the 
containment building in place or will remove the containment building; 
and (9) methods you anticipate using to treat and dispose of all wastes 
you removed and all residues you generate during closure.
    Using the draft forms and the information listed above, you would 
be able to estimate costs for all applicable closure activities for 
each of the three proposed types of eligible units. In addition to all 
basic closure activities, the forms would allow you to estimate costs 
for items such as certification of closure, contingencies, and 
management and design that frequently are overlooked during the 
preparation of cost estimates for closure.
    We request comments on the potential for further development of 
Option 4. We recognize that of the information needs listed above for 
each proposed type of eligible unit, certain factors may be more 
crucial than others in increasing the accuracy of estimated costs. Some 
factors might not be necessary at all, or would not be cost-effective. 
Therefore, we also request comments on which of the information needs 
listed above to require for use in estimating the costs for closure for 
the proposed eligible units.
7. Option 5, Default Estimates for Estimating Closure Costs
    Option 5 uses data from available cost estimating methodologies to 
develop ``default'' cost estimates for proposed eligible units. The 
methodology uses only a minimal amount of key, unit-specific data, you 
would use those data to calculate costs for all closure activities for 
each unit. (See the report entitled ``Closure Cost Estimates for 
Standard Permits, Background Document--Option 5,'' prepared by Tetra 
Tech EM Inc., December 31, 1998, available in the docket to this 
rulemaking.) To use this methodology, you would only need the following 
data: (1) Type of unit; (2) maximum capacity of each waste that would 
be managed at the unit; and, (3) type and physical state of each waste 
that would be managed at the unit.
    We have developed a possible methodology for container storage 
areas and tank systems. (We do not have sufficient information to 
develop this methodology for containment buildings.) The methodology 
for tank systems differentiates the costs based on whether you close 
the tanks in place or remove them. The approach further differentiates 
the costs based on whether the wastes are ignitable or non-ignitable. 
For both container storage and tank systems, costs per gallon can vary 
by the volume of waste in gallons. To determine the cost of closing the 
unit (exclusive of the cost of treating and disposing of the waste), 
you would multiply the cost per gallon for the size and type of unit by 
the maximum number of gallons of waste.
    To determine the cost of treating and disposing of the waste in the 
units, we developed a table showing these costs per gallons for 
different types of waste. First, you would have to determine whether 
the waste is an aqueous waste or a non-aqueous waste. For an aqueous 
waste, a table shows a different multiplier depending upon whether the 
waste is in drums or in bulk, because waste in bulk form is less 
expensive to treat and dispose of. For several dry wastes there is also 
a table that provides a cost per gallon for treatment and disposal. 
Again, you would produce a cost estimate for treating and disposing of 
the waste by multiplying the quantity of waste by the estimated cost 
per gallon. The total estimated cost for the facility would be the 
costs of closing the units plus the cost of treating and disposing of 
the maximum amount of waste you plan to handle.
    We compared the costs using Option 5 with those using industry 
standard costs in Option 4. Our comparison shows that except for the 
smallest operations, the cost estimates in Option 5 are higher by an 
average of one-quarter to one-third. Thus, if you would want to 
minimize the amount of time necessary to derive a cost estimate, you 
could

[[Page 52220]]

simply use the information in Option 5. Using Option 5 could be 
especially useful for those of you who would use the financial test and 
so do not incur the expense of obtaining a third party instrument whose 
costs depends upon the amount assured. Alternatively, if you would 
prefer to use a more involved method to obtain a more accurate closure 
cost estimate, you could use Option 4 or a more complicated approach of 
your choice. Currently, we believe that additional efforts by us to 
make the estimates generated using Option 5 (which is quick and easy to 
use) closer to the estimates generated by Option 4 or other methods are 
not warranted. Variations can occur around any closure cost estimates.
    While we have discussed these alternative methods of estimating 
closure costs, the purpose of the proposed regulatory requirement for 
those of you operating under the standardized permit remains the same 
as for a facility currently operating under a Part 264 permit or under 
interim status. Under proposed Sec. 267.142 you would be required to 
have a closure cost estimate that ensures you have sufficient funds 
available to close your facility properly. While options 4 and 5 
provide simplified methods of estimating these costs, you would still 
be responsible for ensuring that the use of these methods provides an 
estimate that will cover the costs of closure by a third party.
8. Option 6, Waiving the Cost Estimate for Facilities Using the 
Financial Test or Corporate Guarantee
    Under Option 6, we would waive the requirement that you develop 
cost estimates if you are able to demonstrate financial assurance for 
closure and post-closure care using the financial test or the corporate 
guarantee. We discuss the actual requirements of the financial test in 
a later section of the preamble. As discuss more fully latter, under 
this approach we presume a firm that passes the financial test has the 
financial wherewithal to close the facility. We base our presumption on 
the fact that a firm that passes the financial test has a very low 
probability of bankruptcy, and because the closure costs would not 
represent a significant outlay for the firm in comparison with its net 
worth.
9. Availability of Information on EPA's Proposed Approaches
    The regulatory language in this proposal does not specify any of 
the six options outlined above. Instead the proposed regulatory 
language in Sec. 267.142 includes only the requirement to develop the 
cost estimate. We intend to provide guidance on how to estimate closure 
costs for facilities with a standardized permit which have not already 
developed a closure plan. (Once the facility has submitted a closure 
plan, EPA proposes that the facility must update the closure cost 
estimate within 30 days to reflect the information in the closure 
plan). We have included in the docket to this rulemaking information 
explaining more fully the approaches for estimating costs under options 
4 and 5. We seek comments on the advisability of these options (and on 
option 6 which we discuss more fully below) and on whether the use of 
guidance for cost estimating in the absence of a closure plan is 
advisable. If the commenter believes that we should require the use of 
a particular cost estimating techniques in the standardized permit 
regulations, we would like information on how to maintain current 
costing methodologies in regulations. Since methodologies change over 
time, this approach could obligate us to update the regulations 
periodically and authorized states to adopt the updated language.
10. Financial Assurance for Closure
    We designed the requirements proposed in Sec. 267.142(a)(1)-(4) to 
ensure that the cost estimate which forms the basis for determining the 
amount of the financial assurance instrument required in Sec. 267.143 
would provide sufficient funds to close the facility properly at any 
time. We want to ensure that there would be sufficient financial 
resources to close the facility properly even in the event that you 
enter bankruptcy. The requirements proposed in Sec. 267.143 specify the 
mechanisms from which you can choose to demonstrate financial assurance 
for closure obligations.
    The proposed Sec. 267.143 provides you the same mechanisms that are 
available to owners and operators of facilities operating under permits 
currently issued under part 264. However, we have made modifications to 
these requirements (from the analogous requirements in part 264) to 
account for the particular circumstances of the standardized permit. 
The differences between the requirements under Secs. 264.143 and 
267.143 are discussed below.
    Closure Trust Fund (Sec. 267.143(a)). Under the proposed 
Sec. 267.143(a) the pay-in period for the closure trust fund for the 
standardized permit facility would differ slightly from the requirement 
for facilities with permits issued under part 264. Currently, if you 
have a new facility seeking coverage under a part 264 permit, you must 
make annual payments into the trust fund over the remaining life of 
your facility, as estimated by your closure plan, or over the life of 
the permit which is usually ten years, whichever is shorter. Under the 
proposed standardized permit procedures, however, you would not have to 
provide a closure plan as part of the initial permitting process. 
Without the requirement for a closure plan as part of the initial 
process, we needed a time period over which to compute the pay-in 
period, and so are proposing a period of three years. We chose this 
time period, which is shorter than the life of the permit as currently 
allowed for individual permits under Sec. 264.143(a)(3), because the 
current requirements in Sec. 264.143(a)(3) were selected to accommodate 
types of operations, such as landfills, which would normally be 
receiving waste over a period of years, with potentially increasing 
closure costs over that time period. Conversely, we do not expect 
facilities proposing to operate under the standardized permit to build 
up their waste volumes, and the resulting closure costs, over time. 
Moreover, the cost for closing a facility operating under the 
standardized permit would not include the costs of ground water 
monitoring, covers, or post-closure monitoring, so we would expect the 
cost to be less than for many of the other types of facilities with 
individual permits that are currently subject to Sec. 264.143. 
Therefore, we anticipate that the burden of the three year pay-in 
period will not be excessive. Further, we note that requiring a three 
year pay-in period can preclude some potential problems that can arise 
under the longer pay-in period. For example, a long pay-in period can 
lead to insufficient funds being available at the time of closure. If 
the financial condition of the permittee were to deteriorate toward the 
beginning of the period, the owner or operator would not yet have 
funded a substantial fraction of the trust, and the permitting 
authority could be left with insufficient funds for closure in the 
event of the permittee's failure to perform closure. Furthermore, the 
three year period is consistent with the requirements for financial 
assurance for commercial storers of PCB wastes. See 
Sec. 761.65(g)(1)(i). EPA requests comment on the proposed use of three 
years as the pay-in period for a trust fund in the absence of a closure 
plan.
    We are proposing to simplify the requirements for the pay-in period 
for a trust fund for existing facilities seeking coverage under the 
standardized permit and wishing to use a trust fund to demonstrate 
financial assurance. An

[[Page 52221]]

existing facility whose trust fund's value is less than its closure 
cost estimate when it receives a standardized permit would have 60 days 
to increase the value of the trust to the amount of the closure cost 
estimate. The requirement proposed in Sec. 267.143(a)(3) clarifies that 
the 60 days will apply both to existing facilities under interim status 
and under individual permits, regardless of when they obtain a 
standardized permit. This means that it would effectively have a 60 day 
pay-in period.
    The Agency arrived at this proposed requirement by considering the 
two classes of existing facilities that could use a trust fund with the 
standardized permit: Those currently operating under interim status 
(part 265 standards) and those operating under part 264 permits. A 
facility operating under interim status and using a trust fund must 
fully fund its trust by July 6, 2002, which is twenty years after the 
effective date of the Sec. 265.143 standards. See Sec. 265.143(a)(3), 
and 47 FR 15432. For such a facility, the deadline for a fully funded 
trust under interim status would probably be close to the effective 
date of their standardized permit. The effective date of a standardized 
permit would be after we promulgate this proposed rule in final form, 
and, in authorized States, after the State has adopted the rule and 
begun to issue these permits. Therefore, EPA proposes a 60 day pay-in 
period for an existing interim status facility seeking a standardized 
permit and using a trust fund to demonstrate financial assurance. This 
60 day period is the same deadline facing an interim status facility 
that must increase the amount of a trust fund after the end of the pay-
in period.
    A facility that already has an individual permit based on the 
existing part 264 requirements must fully fund the trust over the term 
of the initial permit (or over the remaining life of the facility, 
whichever is shorter). See Sec. 264.143(a)(3). Thus a facility that 
wishes to convert to a standardized permit rather than renew its 
existing permit should already have funded its trust fully. A permitted 
facility using a trust could also decide to convert to a standardized 
permit before the normal end of its current permit's life by asking to 
have its individual permit revoked and reissued as a standardized 
permit. Under existing Sec. 264.143(a)(3), owners or operators must 
make payments into the trust annually over the ``term of the initial 
permit,'' or the remaining operating life of the facility, whichever is 
shorter. This is the ``pay-in period'' for an existing permitted 
facility. By terminating its permit early (in order to convert to the 
standardized permit), the owner or operator in effect terminates the 
pay-in period. After the pay-in period which would end at the end of 
the life of the initial Part 264 permit, an owner or operator using a 
trust must comply with existing Sec. 264.143(a)(6) and maintain within 
60 days the value of the trust to at least the amount of the closure 
cost estimate (or obtain other financial assurance). Therefore the 60 
day requirement in the proposed standardized permit regulations is the 
same as in the current 264 standards.
    Surety Bonds (Sec. 267.143(b) and (c)). The proposed rule would 
allow you to use surety bonds guaranteeing either payment or 
performance as mechanisms for demonstrating compliance with proposed 
Sec. 267.143(b) or (c) respectively. As in the existing part 264 
subpart H standards, you must also establish a standby trust fund.
    Letter of Credit (Sec. 267.143(d). The proposed regulations would 
allow you to use an irrevocable standby letter of credit, and a standby 
trust fund as specified in existing Sec. 264.143(d).
    Closure Insurance (Sec. 267.143(e)). Under proposed 
Sec. 267.143(e), we would allow you to use insurance as a mechanism for 
demonstrating financial assurance for closure. The requirements of this 
section reference the corresponding existing requirements in 
Sec. 264.143(e).
    Some companies which do not qualify for the financial test 
(discussed more fully latter) for any or all of their obligations, have 
sought to use captive insurance as a method of self insurance. These 
companies can establish a pure captive insurer subsidiary to provide 
insurance for the parent company's costs of closure, or third party 
liability requirements. The pure captive insurance company provides 
insurance for the parent, and the parent can have direct involvement 
and influence over the insurance company's major operations such as 
underwriting, claims management, and investment. We discuss captive 
insurance in more detail in Section X B: Financial assurance.
    Financial Test (Sec. 267.143(f)) and Corporate Guarantee 
(Sec. 267.143(g)). The proposed regulation in Sec. 267.143(f) would 
allow the use of a financial test by you or by a corporate guarantor as 
currently provided in Sec. 264.143(f) though the tests proposed here 
differ from those currently in effect in parts 264 and 265. We proposed 
changes to the financial test on July 1, 1991 (56 FR 30201) for owners 
and operators of treatment, storage and disposal facilities. In 
addition, on October 12, 1994 (59 FR 51523) we proposed changes to the 
domestic asset requirement for the RCRA Subtitle C financial test when 
we proposed a financial test for private owners and operators of 
municipal solid waste landfill facilities (MSWLFs). It is important to 
understand how the proposed changes to the financial test could affect 
the proposed standardized permit rule.
    The proposed changes to the financial test would make the test less 
available to firms more likely to enter bankruptcy. The test would do 
this by changing the financial test ratios to make the test less 
available to firms with large debts compared with their cash flow or 
net worth. However, the proposed test allows firms that pass to assure 
a higher level of obligations than the current RCRA Subtitle C 
financial test. Under the current financial test, companies must have 
tangible net worth at least six times the amount of the obligations 
covered, and also at least $10 million. Firms that pass the proposed 
test can assure an amount of obligations up to $10 million less than 
their tangible net worth.
    We anticipate that companies passing the proposed financial test 
will be much more likely to cover all of their obligations than under 
the current rule. This occurs because the additive requirement 
(tangible net worth of at least $10 million more than the amount of 
obligations covered) covers a larger amount of obligations that the six 
times multiple of the current rule. With this in mind, we are seeking 
public comment on not requiring a firm to prepare a closure cost 
estimate for units covered by the standardized permit if it passes the 
financial test and can cover all of its other obligations with the 
financial test. By all of their other obligations, we mean to include 
costs for liability, closure, post-closure care and corrective action 
under RCRA Subtitle C; costs for closure, post-closure care, and, if 
necessary, corrective action obligations for municipal solid waste 
landfills under RCRA Subtitle D; closure costs for PCB storage 
facilities; plugging and abandonment costs for Class I wells under the 
UIC program; financial assurance obligations for underground storage 
tanks; financial assurance for actions under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); and 
any other environmental obligations (see proposed 
Sec. 267.143(f)(2)(i)(A)(1)). If such a company could no longer pass 
the financial test, it would have to prepare a cost estimate and 
provide a financial assurance mechanism through a third party.
    We promulgated a final regulation establishing a financial test for 
private

[[Page 52222]]

owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfill facilities April 
10, 1998 (63 FR 17706). That financial test differs from the regulatory 
text in the rule proposed for RCRA Subtitle C facilities. To assist the 
reader in determining what the proposed financial test for the 
standardized permit could look like if we were to adopt the test 
proposed for Subtitle C and adopted for municipal solid waste landfill 
facilities, we have included proposed regulatory text in this notice. 
We could also determine that we would use the financial test currently 
in existing Sec. 264.143(f), Sec. 264.147(f), and the associated 
language for the instruments in Sec. 264.151(f) and (g) if we should 
promulgate the standardized permit rule in final form before 
promulgating revisions to the RCRA Subtitle C financial test.
    In the record keeping and reporting requirements of today's 
proposal we have proposed the requirements for a special report from 
the firm's independent certified public accountant consistent with 
those in existing Sec. 258.74(e)(2)(i)(C) rather than the existing 
Sec. 264.143(f)(3)(i). Under the existing financial test for hazardous 
waste facilities, we always require a special report from the firm's 
independent certified public accountant (Sec. 264.143(f)(3)(i)), even 
if the data in the chief financial officer's letter come directly from 
the annual report. The proposed requirement (Sec. 267.143(f)(2)(i)(C)) 
would only require a special report from the independent certified 
public accountant in instances where we cannot verify financial data in 
the chief financial officer's letter from the firm's financial report. 
This change could reduce the reporting burden for users of the 
financial test whose submissions of information could be verified from 
their audited financial statements, and eliminate for these companies 
the expense of requiring a letter from the outside auditor. We are 
interested in comments on the appropriateness of reducing this 
reporting burden, whether this would also be appropriate for facilities 
currently regulated under part 264 or 265, and whether this change 
would significantly reduce the reporting burden and by how much.
    Today's proposed regulatory language has some other differences 
from the current RCRA Subtitle C test regulations. The first is that we 
do not prescribe language for the chief financial officer's letter as 
we currently do under Sec. 264.151(f). The advantage of this approach 
would be the additional flexibility it provides to facilities that 
could operate under the standardized permit and who would use the 
financial test. Another advantage to this approach might be that 
requiring standard language could make compliance easier, since the 
chief financial officer would not have to choose the wording of the 
letter. EPA could also promulgate a final regulation that includes the 
language requirement similar or identical to that currently in 
Sec. 264.151. We request information from States and the regulated 
community on the need for specific language, or whether the current 
arrangement used in the municipal solid waste landfill regulations 
(Sec. 258.74), which does not specify the language of the letter, is 
appropriate. Second, today's proposed language follows the model of the 
existing part 258 regulations by giving a separate section for the 
regulations governing the use of a corporate guarantee.
    Use of Multiple Mechanisms. Under proposed Sec. 267.143(h) you 
could utilize a combination of mechanisms at your facility. In the 
proposed revisions to the RCRA Subtitle C financial test (56 FR 30201), 
EPA proposed to allow the combination of the financial test with 
another mechanism for demonstrating financial responsibility for 
closure at a single location. We propose to allow this same flexibility 
for facilities qualifying for the standardized permit.
    Under proposed Sec. 267.143(i), if you have multiple facilities 
with a standardized permit you would be able to use a single mechanism 
for more than one of your facilities. This provides the same 
flexibility that owners or operators of facilities with individual 
permits or interim status facilities have under existing Secs. 264.143 
and 265.143.
11. Post Closure Financial Responsibility
    Because the proposed standardized permit rule would only be 
available to facilities that can clean close, the proposed standardized 
permit regulation does not anticipate a need for post-closure cost 
estimates, or financial assurance for post-closure care. Similarly 
there is no need for mechanisms for combining financial assurance for 
closure and post-closure care. Therefore, the proposed regulations in 
part 267 do not have provisions reflecting the existing requirements of 
Sec. 264.144-146.
12. Liability Requirements
    We are proposing to require financial assurance for third party 
liability for sudden accidental occurrences. We propose that you have 
and maintain liability coverage of at least $1 million per occurrence, 
with an annual aggregate of at least $2 million exclusive of legal 
costs (Sec. 267.147(a)). These proposed requirements are the same as 
for facilities with individual permits, and apply to the facility or a 
group of facilities. Thus, if the owner or operator of facilities with 
individual permits had the required liability coverage for them, the 
addition of facilities under the standardized permit would not increase 
the dollar amount of the liability coverage.
    The proposed mechanisms available for demonstrating financial 
assurance for third party liability would be the same under the 
standardized permit rule as for units covered by individual permits. In 
this proposed rule, we have arranged the mechanisms in the same order 
as they appear for closure, even though this is different from the 
order currently in Sec. 264.147. We request comments on whether this 
makes the regulation easier to follow, or if we should organize 
proposed Sec. 267.147 in the same order as existing Sec. 264.147. The 
mechanisms for third party liability would be a trust fund 
(Sec. 267.147(a)(1), surety bond (Sec. 267.147(a)(2), letter of credit 
(Sec. 267.147(a)(3), insurance (Sec. 267.147(a)(4), financial test 
(Sec. 267.147(a)(5), or guarantee (Sec. 267.147(a)(6). Furthermore, we 
would also allow the use of multiple mechanisms under proposed 
Sec. 267.147(a)(7), as allowed under existing Sec. 264.147(a)(6).
    As noted above, we are considering whether to disallow the use of 
captive insurance as a mechanism for providing financial assurance for 
closure. However, we believe that liability requirements are generally 
better suited to the use of insurance. Insurance is a mechanism for 
protecting from risk, or the probability that an unfortunate event may 
occur. Closure is a certain event because an owner or operator (or the 
permitting authority in the event of the permittee's bankruptcy) will 
have to close its hazardous waste facility and so the risk only 
involves the timing of the closure, and not whether it might occur. 
Because the hazardous waste regulations are designed to protect human 
health and the environment, a release from a facility that could affect 
a third party is not a certainty, and in fact, there can be a low 
probability of a facility having a release that could affect a third 
party. We request comments on whether pure captive insurance should be 
treated differently for third party liability where there is a risk of 
an event occurring than for closure where the risk involves the timing 
of an event that will occur.
    We are proposing that the standardized permit would not be 
available for land disposal units such as

[[Page 52223]]

surface impoundments, landfills, land treatment facilities, or disposal 
miscellaneous units. Therefore, requirements for land disposal units 
under existing Sec. 264.147(b) to maintain third party liability for 
non-sudden accidental occurrences should not be necessary for 
standardized permit units. The proposed regulation reserves 
Sec. 267.147(b).
    Because the proposed standardized permit is intended to rely upon 
limited interaction between the permittee and the permitting agency, we 
believe it would not be appropriate to include the provisions of 
existing Sec. 264.147(c) and (d). These provisions, respectively, allow 
the owner or operator to request a variance from the amounts required 
in Sec. 264.147(a), or allow the Regional Administrator to require a 
different amount. Thus, there are no corresponding provisions in the 
proposed Sec. 264.147 and the corresponding paragraphs are reserved.
    Along with the proposed changes to the financial test for closure, 
we have previously proposed changes to the financial test for liability 
coverage (56 FR 30201 and 59 FR 51523). Under the proposed test, we 
expect that more owners and operators will be able to pass the 
liability financial test than under the current financial test. We 
expect that when we promulgate these tests in final form that they 
would also apply to the standardized permit. We are publishing the 
language of the proposed liability financial test here for your 
convenience. If we promulgate the standardized permit rule in final 
form before final promulgation of the revised RCRA Subtitle C financial 
test, we may use the current RCRA Subtitle C financial test in the 
final standardized permit rule.
13. Other Provisions of the Financial Requirements
    We are proposing that the requirements in existing Sec. 264.148 to 
notify the permitting authority in the event of a bankruptcy would 
apply also to the standardized permit (see proposed Sec. 267.148). We 
have also referenced this requirement in proposed Sec. 267.140(c).
    Under existing Sec. 264.149, if your facility is in a state where 
EPA administers the program but the state imposes its own financial 
assurance mechanism, you may continue to use the state approved 
mechanism. There are only three states where we administer the program, 
and we do not expect that these states have their own mechanisms. 
Therefore, we are not including an analogous provision, and have 
reserved Sec. 267.149.
    In the financial responsibility regulations covering facilities 
with permits under part 264, States can assume responsibility for an 
owner or operator's compliance with existing Secs. 264.143 and 147 
(Sec. 264.150). We have included a similar provision (Sec. 267.150) in 
this proposal, but request comment on whether such a provision is 
appropriate. Do States in fact undertake such responsibilities, and 
would they for holders of a standardized permit?
    The proposed language of Secs. 267.143 and 267.147 references 
existing Sec. 264.151, and would require the use of the language in 
existing Sec. 264.151. Section 264.151 contains the exact wording of 
the instruments used to demonstrate financial assurance. In light of 
the substantial amount of text in existing Sec. 264.151, we have 
decided not to propose the creation of a Sec. 267.151. This is similar 
to our decision not to include the instrument language in the current 
interim status standards in part 265. We request comments on suggested 
changes to the language of Sec. 264.151 that we should make for 
consistency with the proposed standardized permit rule.

J. Subpart I--Use and Management of Containers

    The proposed standards for the use and management of containers in 
this subpart of part 267 are similar to the existing provisions in 
subpart I of part 264. However, we are proposing conforming changes to 
reflect the standardized permit rather than the individual permit. We 
also are proposing changes to make the requirements more readable. We 
request comments on these changes, and whether additional modifications 
are warranted.
1. Would This Subpart Apply to Me?
    These proposed standards would apply to you if you own or operate a 
facility that stores hazardous waste under a standardized permit, 
except as provided in proposed Sec. 267.1(b). Note that, under existing 
Secs. 261.7 and 261.33(c), if you empty a hazardous waste from a 
container, the residue remaining in the container is not considered a 
hazardous waste if the container is ``empty'' as defined in Sec. 261.7. 
If the container is ``empty'' we are proposing that the management of 
the container would be exempt from the requirements of this subpart.
2. What Standards Would Apply to the Containers?
    We are proposing that the requirements of Sec. 267.171 would be the 
same as standards currently found in Sec. 264.171. This provision would 
require you, as the facility owner or operator, to transfer hazardous 
waste from a leaking container to a container in good condition, or 
otherwise manage the waste in a manner that complies with the proposed 
part 267 requirements.
    Proposed Sec. 267.171 would require that the container be made of 
materials or lined with materials that will not react with the 
hazardous wastes being stored. We are proposing this requirement, which 
is the same as that in existing Sec. 264.172, to ensure that the 
container is suitable for managing the wastes.
    Proposed Sec. 267.171 would further require you to close (keep 
covered) all containers that store hazardous waste except when 
necessary to handle the waste, and that care be taken not to rupture 
the container or somehow create a leak. This proposed provision is the 
same as the existing Sec. 264.173 standards. Note that the U.S. 
Department of Transportation regulations, including those in 49 CFR 
173.28, govern the reuse of containers in transportation.
3. What Are the Proposed Inspection Requirements?
    Section 267.172, as proposed, would require you to inspect at least 
once a week to check for leaking containers. This proposed requirement 
is the same as the current Sec. 264.174 provision. If you find a leak, 
you would need to follow the proposed procedures in Secs. 267.15(c) and 
267.171.
4. What Proposed Standards Apply to the Container Storage Area?
    Section 267.173, of the proposed rule, specifies the design and 
operation requirements of a system for containing any leaks, spills, or 
precipitation. These requirements would apply if you are storing free 
liquids in the containers. As proposed, they would also apply, even if 
no free liquids are present, for F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 
wastes. The containment system would need to contain 10 percent of the 
volume of all the containers or the volume of the largest container, 
whichever is greater. Also, you would need to prevent run-on to the 
storage area unless the containment system is large enough to contain 
that container volume and the run-on. You would need to remove any 
spills or leaks as soon as possible to avoid overflowing the 
containment system. These proposed provisions are the same as the 
requirements in existing Sec. 264.175.
    Note that if the collected material is a hazardous waste under part 
261 of this chapter, we are proposing that you must

[[Page 52224]]

manage it as a hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable 
requirements of parts 262 through 266 of this chapter. If the collected 
material is discharged through a point source to waters of the United 
States, it would be subject to the requirements of section 402 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended, under our proposed rule.
5. What Special Requirements Would I Need To Meet for Ignitable or 
Reactive Waste?
    Under proposed Sec. 267.174, we would require that you store 
ignitable or reactive waste no closer than 50 feet from your facility's 
property line. The general requirements proposed in Sec. 267.17(a) 
provide additional requirements for ignitable or reactive wastes. This 
proposed standard is the same as the provision currently in 
Sec. 264.176.
6. What Special Requirements Would I Need To Meet for Incompatible 
Wastes?
    Under proposed Sec. 267.175, we would stipulate that you cannot 
place incompatible wastes in the same container. This provision would 
also apply to an unwashed container that previously held an 
incompatible waste. The exception to this prohibition is found in 
proposed Sec. 267.17(b), which would stipulate precautions that you 
would need to take if you have to mix incompatible wastes.
    Section 267.175, as proposed, would further require that you 
physically separate incompatible wastes from other wastes and protect 
them with barriers such as dikes, berms, or walls. The purpose of this 
proposed section is to prevent fires, explosions, gaseous emissions, 
leaching, or other discharge of hazardous waste or hazardous waste 
constituents which could result from the mixing of incompatible waste 
or materials if containers break or leak. All of these proposed 
provisions are the same as the existing Sec. 264.177 requirements.
7. What Would I Need To Do When I Want To Stop Using the Containers?
    Section 267.176, as proposed, would require clean closure of the 
facility. This proposed requirement would require you to remove all 
hazardous waste and residues and to decontaminate or remove all 
components that came in contact with the hazardous wastes, including 
soils. These proposed requirements are the same as the existing 
provisions in Sec. 264.178. Under our proposal, unless you can 
demonstrate, following Sec. 261.3(d), that the solid waste removed from 
the containment system is not a hazardous waste, you would become a 
generator of hazardous waste and would need to manage it in accordance 
with all applicable requirements of parts 262 through 266 of this 
chapter. This provision would apply to any solid waste you remove from 
the container system during closure as well as during the operating 
period.
8. What Air Emission Standards Are Proposed?
    We are proposing that the air emission standards in Sec. 267.177 be 
similar to those currently in Sec. 264.179. Under the proposed rule, 
you would need to comply with the requirements of subparts AA, BB, and 
CC of part 264. There is a one notable difference between proposed 
Sec. 267.177 and the current Sec. 264.179. Section 267.177, as 
proposed, would only allow the following control devices: thermal vapor 
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, flame, boiler, process 
heater, condenser, and carbon absorption unit. This is because 
performance testing and reporting is required in part 264 subpart AA 
and BB to support alternative control devices. This requires close 
interaction on the part of the facility owner/operator and the 
permitting agency. Because this proposed rule is intended to reduce the 
burdens of such interactions, we have chosen to limit the type of 
control devices. We welcome public comment on this decision.

K. Subpart J--Tank Systems

    We believe that most of the tank system standards in subpart J of 
part 264 would be appropriate for tank units operating under a 
standardized permit. However, some provisions in today's proposed tank 
requirements are different from those in part 264. Today's proposal 
would require secondary containment for all tank systems managing free 
liquids, with no provisions for waivers. The waiver provision in the 
part 264 standards requires significant work on the part of you, as the 
facility owner or operator, to justify that secondary containment is 
not necessary. It also requires that the permitting agency review the 
waiver demonstration and determine its appropriateness. The close 
review and exchange of materials taking place during the waiver process 
do not fit the intent of the standardized permit. Part of our premise 
in developing the standardized permit is that a high level of 
interaction between the permittee and the permitting agency is not 
necessary. In addition, our experience is that few owners or operators 
have availed themselves of this waiver provision. We welcome public 
comment on this topic.
    We are not requiring integrity testing for tanks managing free 
liquids and operating under a standardized permit because we would 
require secondary containment. Under the existing part 264 tank 
standards, we only require tanks that don't have secondary containment 
to undergo annual integrity testing. Also, we are proposing that the 
standardized permit only apply to above ground or on ground tanks (for 
example, tanks raised off the ground or resting on a pad or the ground 
surface). Therefore, as proposed, underground or in-ground tank systems 
would not be eligible for a standardized permit. This is because we 
would rely on inspections to ensure compliance with the standardized 
permit. Underground and in-ground tank systems are inherently harder to 
inspect than above ground or on ground tanks. We are soliciting 
comments on the merits of excluding underground and in-ground tank 
systems from obtaining standardized permits.
    Finally, as explained above in the preamble for subpart G, you 
would be required to clean close all units at the facility. We believe 
that a properly designed, constructed, and operated tank system with 
secondary containment should always be able to clean close with minimal 
unforseen contingencies.
1. Would This Subpart Apply to Me?
    Subpart J of part 267 would apply to you if you own or operate a 
facility that treats or stores hazardous wastes in above ground or on 
ground tanks under a standardized permit. We would, however, provide 
exemptions from some requirements of subpart J for special situations. 
Specifically, the requirement for secondary containment, as specified 
in Sec. 267.195, would not apply to you if you have tanks that do not 
contain free liquids and are inside of a building or for tanks or sumps 
that you are using as secondary containment. All other tanks that 
manage hazardous waste, whether it's a free liquid or not, would 
require secondary containment.
2. What Are the Proposed Design and Construction Standards for New Tank 
Systems or Components?
    The proposed Sec. 267.191 provisions differs from existing 
Sec. 264.192 requirements in several areas. First, under the proposed 
standardized permitting process there would be no ``part B 
application'' therefore we did not include any references to the part B 
application in the proposed Sec. 267.191 standards. Under this section, 
you would still be required to obtain a written assessment, reviewed 
and certified by an independent, registered

[[Page 52225]]

professional engineer, attesting to the structural integrity and 
acceptability of tank system. However, instead of requiring you to 
submit this estimate to the Regional Administrator, this section would 
require you to retain it at your facility. The assessment would be 
required to show that the foundation, structural support, seams, and 
connections are adequately designed and that the tank system has 
sufficient structural strength to ensure that it will not collapse, 
rupture or fail. The design and construction requirements in proposed 
Sec. 267.191 would be the same as the current Sec. 264.192 provisions. 
However, the proposed requirements in proposed Sec. 267.191 differ from 
the part 264 standards in that facilities with underground tank systems 
or components not be eligible for a standardized permit. Therefore, we 
would not be carrying over the existing provisions in 
Secs. 264.192(a)(4) and 264.192(c) in today's proposal. The Agency 
invites comments on whether we should allow underground piping 
connecting above ground or in-ground tank systems under a standardized 
permit. The proposed regulations in the part 267 tank standards do not 
allow any underground tank components, including piping. If, in the 
final rule, the Agency chooses to include underground tanks, part 267 
would include provision similar currently found in Sec. 264.192.
3. What Are the Proposed Handling and Inspection Requirements for New 
Tank Systems?
    Proposed Sec. 267.192 retains the same requirements as existing 
Sec. 264.192(b). You would be required to follow these requirements 
during the installation phase of the new tank system to ensure that the 
integrity of the system is maintained.
4. What Testing Would Be Required?
    As with existing Sec. 264.192(d), you would be required to test for 
leaks as proposed in Sec. 267.193.
5. What Installation Requirements Would Be Required?
    In addition to the general requirements proposed in Sec. 267.192 
and Sec. 267.193 regarding installation, you would be required to 
follow the specific installation requirements proposed in Sec. 267.194. 
These are the same requirements found in existing 264.192(e), (f), and 
(g).
6. What Are the Proposed Preventative Requirements for Containing a 
Release?
    The proposed Sec. 267.195 standards would require secondary 
containment and a leak detection system for all tank systems (except 
indoor tanks that do not contain free liquids.) Neither the age of the 
tank nor the waste it contains would be taken into consideration when 
deciding when a tank needs secondary containment; the secondary 
containment requirement would apply to all new and existing tanks for 
which you would be seeking a standardized permit. All proposed design, 
installation, and operating requirements of Sec. 267.195 are identical 
to the current provisions Sec. 264.193, except for the current part 264 
requirement to submit a demonstration to the Director when the leak 
detection and removal system cannot detect a leak within 24 hours of it 
occurring. Instead, you would self-certify and document that a leak or 
spill cannot be detected and/or removed within 24 hours. You would keep 
this documentation on-site and make it available for review by the 
permitting agency.
7. What Are the Proposed Devices for Secondary Containment and What Are 
Their Design, Operating, and Installation Requirements?
    Proposed Sec. 267.196 lists the specific devices that you would be 
required to use in providing secondary containment, as well as the 
design, operating, and installation requirements for each one. These 
requirements are the same as those in existing Sec. 264.193 (d) and 
(e).
8. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Ancillary Equipment?
    The proposed requirements for ancillary equipment in Sec. 267.197 
are the same as the existing provisions in Sec. 264.193 (f). We have 
retained the requirement for secondary containment for all ancillary 
equipment, such as piping, valves and pumps. We have also retained the 
exemption from secondary containment for four particular situations.
9. What Are the Proposed General Operating Requirements for Tank 
Systems?
    The proposed requirements in Sec. 267.198 are identical to those 
currently in Sec. 264.194. This section stipulates that you manage your 
tanks to prevent the tank system from rupturing, leaking, corroding, or 
failing in any manner. Also, proposed Sec. 267.198 specifies controls 
and practices for preventing spills and overflows from occurring. It 
includes spill prevention controls, overfill prevention controls, and 
the maintenance of freeboard in uncovered tanks.
10. What Are the Proposed Inspection Requirements?
    The inspection requirements of proposed Sec. 267.199 are the same 
as current provisions in Sec. 264.195, noting, however, that today's 
proposed part 267 standards apply to above ground tank systems only. 
You would be required to inspect your tank system daily to detect 
corrosion or releases and to check data from monitoring and leak 
detection equipment. These provisions would also require you to inspect 
any cathodic protection systems on a regular schedule. Note that 
proposed Sec. 267.15(c) would require you to fix any deterioration or 
malfunction that you find. Further, proposed Sec. 267.200 would require 
you to notify the Director within 24 hours of confirming a leak, and 40 
CFR part 302 and part 355 may require you to notify the National 
Response Center or state and local emergency responders of a release. 
You would be required to document all inspections in your facility's 
operating record.
11. What Would I Do in Case of a Leak or a Spill?
    Proposed Sec. 267.200 specifies the procedures you would be 
required to follow in the event of a leak or spill from a tank system 
or secondary containment system, or if a tank system or secondary 
containment system is unfit for use. The proposed Sec. 267.200 
provisions are similar to the current requirements found in 
Sec. 264.196 with a few modifications. We did not propose in 
Sec. 267.200 the current provisions of Sec. 264.196 related to releases 
from a tank system without secondary containment because all tank 
systems operating under a standardized permit would be required to have 
secondary containment.
    The proposed Sec. 267.200 provisions require that, in the case of a 
leak or a spill you would be required to immediately remove the tank 
systems or secondary containment systems from service. These provisions 
also identify the steps you would be required to take to stop the flow 
of hazardous waste and find the source of the release, and to remove 
the released waste within 24 hours. You would have to report any 
releases to the Director within 24 hours of detection. We have included 
in this section the same exception that is currently available in 
Sec. 264.196 for reporting small releases that you clean up quickly. 
The proposed Sec. 267.200 provisions would require you to submit a more 
detailed report on any release to the environment to the Director 
within 30 days of the release. This section would also require you to 
close the tank

[[Page 52226]]

system unless you satisfy specified repair requirements. Any major 
repairs must be certified by an independent, qualified, registered, 
professional engineer, in accordance with Sec. 270.11(d), before you 
return the tank system to service.
12. What Would I Do When I Stop Operating the Tank System?
    When you stop operating the tank system you would be required to 
clean close it. The proposed Sec. 267.201 requirements differ from 
Sec. 264.197 standards in two important areas. As stated earlier, we 
are not proposing to allow any waivers from secondary containment for 
tank systems operating under a standardized permit. Therefore, we would 
not carry over the existing Sec. 264.197 provisions for closing a tank 
system that does not have secondary containment to proposed 
Sec. 267.201. Another important difference is that if you cannot clean 
close a tank system, you would be required to close it as a landfill 
under part 264. Therefore, you would have to submit a RCRA part B 
application described in Sec. 270.14 and follow the RCRA individual 
permitting process to obtain a post-closure permit.
13. What Are the Proposed Special Requirements for Ignitable or 
Reactive Waste?
    The proposed Sec. 267.202 provisions are the same as the existing 
Sec. 264.198 standards. This section would require special handling of 
ignitable or reactive wastes before you can store them in tanks. The 
section would require that you: (1) Manage the wastes so that they are 
no longer ignitable or reactive (before or after being placed in the 
tank); (2) store or treat the waste to prevent the waste from igniting 
or reacting; or (3) use the tank system strictly for emergencies. 
Additionally, you would be required to adhere to all requirements for 
maintenance of protective distances as specified in the National Fire 
Protection Association's ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.''
14. What Are the Proposed Special Requirements for Incompatible Wastes?
    Proposed Sec. 267.203 stipulates, as does existing Sec. 264.199, 
that you could not place incompatible wastes in the same tank system, 
or in a tank system that previously held an incompatible waste and has 
not been decontaminated, unless you follow the provisions proposed in 
Sec. 267.17(b). Proposed Sec. 267.17(b) specifies precautions that you 
would be required to take if you have to store incompatible wastes in 
the same tank system.
15. What Air Emission Standards Are Proposed?
    Proposed Sec. 267.204 contains similar requirements to those 
currently in Sec. 264.200 for complying with subparts AA, BB, and CC of 
part 264 of this chapter. There is one notable difference between 
proposed Sec. 267.204 and existing Sec. 264.200. Proposed Sec. 267.204 
only allows the following control devices: thermal vapor incinerator, 
catalytic vapor incinerator, flame, boiler, process heater, condenser, 
and carbon absorption unit. This is because performance testing and 
reporting is required in part 264 subpart AA and BB to support 
alternative control devices. This requires close interaction on the 
part of the facility owner/operator and the permitting agency, which is 
not appropriate for the standardized permit.

L. Subpart DD--Containment Buildings

    The Agency is proposing to adopt most of the design and operating 
requirements for containment buildings in part 264 directly into the 
standardized permit standards of part 267. However, we are proposing 
changes to several of the existing part 264 requirements as we tailor 
the analogous part 267 requirements to the standardized permit. First, 
containment buildings that would be managing free liquids would need to 
have secondary containment measures in place. You would not be allowed 
to delay the installation of secondary containment measures. As with 
the secondary containment requirement for tanks, we believe that the 
part 264 secondary containment waiver demonstration and its subsequent 
review by the permitting agency does not fit with the intent of the 
standardized permit. We are, however, proposing to retain the provision 
that allows you to request a waiver if the only liquids in the building 
are the result of required dust suppression measures. Another change 
from the part 264 standards that we are proposing would be to require 
clean closure of containment buildings. We believe if your containment 
buildings have secondary containment, and they are properly designed, 
constructed and operated, you should be able to clean close them with 
minimal problems.
1. Would This Subpart Apply to me?
    This subpart would apply to you if you own or operate a facility 
that stores or treats hazardous wastes on-site in containment 
buildings. As with the current requirements in subpart DD of part 264, 
if the unit was designed and operated according to proposed 
Sec. 267.1101, you would not be subject to the land disposal 
restrictions in RCRA section 3004(k).
2. What Are the Proposed Design and Operating Standards for Containment 
Buildings?
    Proposed Sec. 267.1101 stipulates design and operating standards 
similar to those currently in Sec. 264.1101. We are proposing specific 
design requirements for floor, walls, doors, and windows, as well as 
for the primary barrier which would come in contact with the waste.
3. What Additional Design and Operating Standards Would Apply if 
Liquids Will Be in my Containment Building?
    If you plan to use your containment building to treat or store 
hazardous wastes that contain free liquids, then the primary barrier 
would be required to be able to prevent the migration of hazardous 
constituents into the barrier. You could accomplish this, for example, 
by putting a geomembrane on top of a concrete surface. You would also 
be required to install a secondary containment system. The function of 
the secondary containment would be to allow the use of a leak detection 
system capable of detecting leaks in the primary barrier, and to 
collect the liquids that could penetrate the primary barrier. Proposed 
Sec. 267.1102 stipulates the same design requirements for the secondary 
containment system as does existing Sec. 264.1101. This proposed 
section would also require a certification by a qualified registered 
professional engineer that the unit meets all design and operating 
requirements.
    The existing Sec. 264.1101 provisions allow you to delay 
implementation of secondary containment for existing containment 
buildings and describe the process for granting the delay. We are not 
proposing such a delay for containment buildings under a standardized 
permit. We believe that, in the interest of streamlining the 
standardized permitting process, the permitting agency should not have 
to review any demonstrations. The standardized permitting process does 
not provide for an iterative process of submitting a demonstration for 
a waiver, and responding to comments.
4. What Are the Proposed Other Requirements To Prevent Releases?
    The proposed Sec. 267.1103 would require you to use certain 
controls and practices to make certain any hazardous waste stored in 
your containment building does not leave the building. These are the 
same requirements currently in Sec. 264.1101(c). These requirements 
include maintenance of

[[Page 52227]]

the primary barrier and of the height of the waste in relation to the 
wall height. Also, you would be required to take measures to prevent 
tracking of the waste by personnel and equipment, including 
decontamination procedures. Finally, this section would require methods 
of containing fugitive emissions so that you could meet a ``no visible 
emissions'' standard.
5. What Would I Do if I Detect a Release?
    The proposed Sec. 267.1106 provisions specify procedures for 
responding to releases of hazardous waste that are the same as those 
currently in Sec. 264.1101(c)(3). These procedures would require you to 
enter all such incidents in your facility's operating record, and to 
notify the Regional Administrator both of the release and of the 
repairs.
6. What Would I Do if My Containment Building Contains Areas Both With 
and Without Secondary Containment?
    Proposed Sec. 267.1105 addresses those buildings with areas where 
you would manage wastes with free liquids and areas where you either 
would manage wastes without free liquids or you would have a waiver 
from secondary containment requirements in proposed 267.1104. For 
buildings with this type of ``mixed use'', you could construct a 
portion without secondary containment. The requirements in proposed 
Sec. 267.1105, which are the same as those currently in 
Sec. 264.1101(d), and are designed to prevent migration of the wastes 
that require secondary containment to the areas that do not.
7. Could a Containment Building Be Considered Secondary Containment for 
Other Units?
    Proposed Sec. 267.1107 addresses the specific instance of a tank 
being inside of a containment building. In this situation, the 
containment building would be the secondary containment system for the 
tank if it meets the proposed requirements of Sec. 267.1107. This 
provision is the same as currently in Sec. 264.1101(b)(3)(iii).
8. How Would I Obtain a Waiver From Secondary Containment Requirements?
    Proposed Sec. 267.1104 would allow for a waiver from secondary 
containment if the only liquids in the building were a result of 
required dust suppression and you could assure the containment of 
liquids and wastes without secondary containment. This would be the 
only waiver from secondary containment. We are providing it because we 
believe you could easily make the demonstration without an iterative 
process with the permitting agency. This is the same waiver allowed 
currently in Sec. 264.1101(e).
9. What Would I Do When I Stop Operating the Containment Building?
    The proposed Sec. 267.1108 closure provisions would require the 
clean closure of containment buildings. This is similar to the proposed 
standardized permit requirements for container storage areas and tanks. 
During closure of the containment building, you would have to remove or 
decontaminate all waste residues from subsoils and containment system 
components. You should have no problem meeting clean closure 
requirements for a properly designed and operated containment building. 
However, if for some reason you cannot clean close your facility, you 
would be required to submit a part B application for an individual 
post-closure care permit for closure as a landfill. We discussed this 
before in more detail in Section VII H: Subpart G--Closure.

VIII. Conforming Permit Changes to Part 270

A. Overview of Proposed Part 270 Changes

    We are proposing to modify the hazardous waste permit program 
requirements by adding a new type of permit: The standardized permit. 
The hazardous waste permit program requirements are in part 270. This 
part of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations contains specific 
requirements for permit applications, permit conditions, changes to 
permits, expiration and continuation of permits, interim status, and 
special forms of permits.
    Under the existing hazardous waste permitting system, facility 
owners and operators must obtain an ``individual'' permit based on 
site-specific information in order to manage hazardous waste. We 
briefly described the existing individual permitting system in Section 
I D 1: What are the steps in Obtaining an Individual Permit?. As 
previously discussed, we propose allowing standardized permits for 
certain types of hazardous waste management activities: The storage and 
non-thermal treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, containers, and 
containment buildings at facilities that generate the waste. We are 
proposing to add Sec. 270.67 to part 270 subpart F and to add part 270 
subpart I that would allow a special form of permit, a RCRA 
standardized permit.
    We request comment on the changed sections and added sections of 
part 270 rules. As noted previously, however, we are not reopening the 
existing regulations to public comment, except those provisions 
explicitly modified by this proposal.

B. Specific Changes Proposed for Part 270

    We are proposing certain ancillary changes to other sections of 
part 270 to ensure we have fully incorporated the standardized permit 
into the existing regulations. These include: Proposed changes to 
Sec. 270.1 (b) Overview of the RCRA Permit Program, Sec. 270.2 
Definitions, Sec. 270.10(a) Applying for a permit, Sec. 270.10(h) 
Reapplying for a permit, Sec. 270.40 (a) and (b) Transfer of Permits, 
Sec. 270.41 Modify or revoking and reissuing permits, and Sec. 270.51 
Continuation of expiring Permits.
1. Overview of the RCRA Program
    We are proposing to add a sentence to Sec. 270.1(b) that briefly 
mentions that a facility that treats or stores hazardous waste on-site 
could be eligible for a standardized permit.
2. Definitions
    We are proposing to add ``standardized permit'' to the definition 
list in Sec. 270.2. This definition for standardized permit is the same 
definition that we are proposing to add to part 124: ``Standardized 
permit means a RCRA permit authorizing management of hazardous waste 
under part 124 subpart G and part 270 subpart I. The standardized 
permit may have two parts: A uniform portion issued in all cases and a 
supplemental portion issued at the Director's discretion.'' We are also 
proposing to modify the definition of ``permit'' to include a 
standardized permit.
3. Permit Applications
    We are proposing to modify Sec. 270.10(a) to make it more readable 
and to add a sentence to the Permit application section clarifying that 
the procedures for application, and issuance of a standardized permit 
are in part 124 subpart G and part 270 subpart I. However, as noted in 
Table 5: Permit program comparison, many of the current part 270 permit 
administration requirements would still be applicable for the 
standardized permit.
4. Permit Reapplication
    We are proposing to modify Sec. 270.10(h) to make it more readable 
and to take into account the standardized permit. If your facility is 
operating under an individual permit and

[[Page 52228]]

manages waste on-site in tanks, containers, or containment buildings, 
then you could meet the reapplication requirement for these units by 
submitting a notice of intent to operate under a standardized permit at 
least 180 days prior to expiration of your individual permit. Likewise, 
if your facility is operating under a standardized permit, you would 
submit a notice of intent at least 180 days before the expiration date 
of the permit.
5. Transfer of Permits
    We are proposing to make changes to Sec. 270.40 (b) that would 
allow transfer of a standardized permit to a new owner or operator. The 
change to this paragraph adds applicable reference to Secs. 270.320 and 
124.212. A transfer of a standardized permit to a new owner or operator 
would qualify as a routine permit modification and would follow 
appropriate procedures for this category of standardized permit 
modification.
6. Modification or Revocation and Reissuance of Permits
    We are proposing to make two changes to Sec. 270.41. First, we 
would add a reference to Sec. 270.320, which includes the requirements 
for modifying standardized permits. Also, we are proposing a new 
paragraph (b)(3) which would specify another reason for revocation and 
reissuance of a permit. This new paragraph would apply where a facility 
owner or operator with an individual RCRA permit wishes to operate 
under a standardized permit. This was discussed earlier in Section III 
B: How would I Switch from an Individual Permit to a Standardized 
Permit. Under this situation, you would request revocation of the 
individual permit and issuance of a standardized permit. The causes for 
modification (Sec. 270.41(a)), modification or revocation and 
reissuance (Sec. 270.41(b)), and facility siting (Sec. 270.41(c)) that 
apply to an individual permit would also apply to a standardized 
permit.
7. Continuation of Expiring Permits
    We are proposing to modify Sec. 270.51 by adding a new subsection 
(e) which discusses continuation of expiring standardized permits. This 
new paragraph is similar to the requirements in existing Sec. 270.51(a) 
except we have replaced references to the permit, permit application, 
and Secs. 270.14 through 270.29 citations with references to the 
standardized permit, notice of intent, and part 124 as appropriate. We 
are proposing this provision under the authority of the Administrative 
Procedures Act (APA).
    We are also proposing to add paragraph (2) to this subsection 
because we want to give you the opportunity to continue to operate 
under an existing permit if you submit an individual permit application 
following the Regional Administrator's decision that you are not 
eligible for a standardized permit.
    Under this paragraph, you would be able to continue to operate by 
submitting an application for an individual permit within 60 days of 
the Director giving you notice of your ineligibility for the 
standardized permit. This would be the case even if the Director 
provides the notice after your previous permit has expired. Under this 
proposed scheme, as long as your reapplication for a standardized 
permit is timely, you would qualify under the APA and Sec. 270.51 for 
an administrative continuance of the permit. We view the later 
reapplication for an individual permit as simply a part of the ongoing 
reapplication process.
8. Standardized Permit
    As discussed above in Section I C: What is the Agency's Proposal, 
we are proposing to add a new type of permit (e.g. ``standardized 
permit'') to part 270 subpart F: Special Forms of Permits. Section 
270.67 contains the general statement allowing the permitting authority 
the ability to issue standardized permits.

IX. RCRA Standardized Permits

A. General Information About Proposed Standardized Permits

    In proposed Secs. 270.250 and 270.255, we describe what a proposed 
standardized permit is and who would be eligible for one. This has been 
discussed earlier in Section I C: What is the Agency's Proposal. 
Although proposed regulatory language on these two topic is already in 
part 124 and 267, we have repeated these requirements in part 270 to 
give Subpart I better context.
    In proposed Sec. 270.260, we describe what sections and subparts of 
part 270 would be applicable to standardized permits. Table 5 offers a 
comparison of the hazardous waste permit program provisions of part 270 
that are applicable to individual permits and proposed standardized 
permits. Most of the part 270 requirements applicable to individual 
permits would also be applicable to standardized permits except where 
noted in Table 4 and proposed Sec. 270.260.

 Table 5.--Comparison of the Provisions of the Individual Permit Program
              and the Proposed Standardized Permit Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Proposed
                                           Individual      standardized
                                            permits          permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Information:
    Definitions.......................                   
    Consideration under Federal laws..                   
    Effect of permit..................                   
    Noncompliance and reporting                          
     program by the Director..........
Permit Application:
    General application requirements..                   
    Special form of permit procedures                           
     specific to standardized permits.
    Confidentiality of information....                   
    Signatories on permit application                    
     and reports......................
    Contents of part A of permit                         
     application......................
    Contents of Part B of permit                         
     application submitted............
    Permit information kept at                                  
     facility.........................
    Permit Denial.....................                   
Permit Conditions:
    Conditions Applicable to all                         
     permits..........................
    Requirements for recording and                       
     reporting of monitoring results..
    Establishing permit conditions....                   
    Schedule of compliance............                   

[[Page 52229]]

 
Changes to Permits:
    Transfer of permits...............                   
    Modification or revocation and                       
     reissuance of permits............
    Permit modification requirements..                   
    Special modification requirements                           
     for standardized permits.........
    Termination of permits............                   
Expiration and Continuation of
 Permits:
    Duration of permits...............                   
    Continuation of expiring permits..                   
Interim Status:
    Qualifying for interim status.....                   
    Operation during interim status...                   
    Changes during interim status.....                   
    Termination of interim status.....                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Information Would I Need to Submit to the Permitting Agency to 
Support My Standardized Permit Application?

    We are proposing that you submit certain information to the 
permitting authority. Under proposed Sec. 270.275, you would submit 
with the notice of intent: (1) The part A information required by 
Sec. 270.13, (2) A meeting summary and other materials required by 
Sec. 124.31, (3) Documentation of compliance with the location 
standards of Sec. 267.18 and Sec. 270.14(b)(11), (4) Information that 
allows the Director to carry out our obligations under other Federal 
laws as required by Sec. 270.3, (5) Solid waste management unit 
information Sec. 270.14(d), and (6) A certification meeting the 
requirements of proposed Sec. 270.280.
1. RCRA Part A Application Information
    Section 270.275(a) would require you to submit the information 
required by Sec. 270.13. This information is the general Part A 
application information required currently from all facility owners or 
operators seeking a RCRA individual permit. The Part A information 
includes: (a) General information on the hazardous waste management 
activity requiring a permit, the name and mailing address of your 
facility along with its latitude and longitude, (b) SIC codes that best 
reflect the products or services your facility provides, (c) the 
operator's name, address, phone number, and the ownership status of the 
facility, (d) the owner's name , address, and phone number, (e) whether 
your facility is located on Indian lands, (f) an indication of whether 
your facility is new or existing, (g) for existing facilities, a scale 
drawing showing past, present and future waste management areas along 
with photographs clearly delineating waste management structures, (h) a 
description of the processes you use to manage the waste, (i) a 
specification of the hazardous waste you treat or store at the 
facility, (j) an estimate of volumes of hazardous waste your facility 
manages annually, (k) a listing of all permits approved or applied for 
including federal and state Permits, (l) a topographic map which 
extends at least 1 mile beyond the facility boundary in all directions 
and indicates the location of the facility, the waste management areas, 
surface waters, and drinking water wells, and (m) a description of 
nature of the business. We published a document, RCRA Part A Permit 
Application (EPA form 8700-23 (October 1999), which describes the Part 
A application in detail and includes instructions for filling out the 
application form. You would be able to comply with proposed 
Sec. 270.275(a) requirements by attaching a completed EPA Form 8700-23 
or State equivalent form to the notice of intent to be covered by the 
standardized permit.
2. Preapplication Meeting Summary
    Proposed Sec. 270.275(b) would require you to submit a copy of the 
meeting summary and ancillary materials required by Sec. 124.31. This 
is the pre-application meeting that you host with the community before 
submitting a Notice of Intent. This meeting is also required if you are 
seeking an individual RCRA hazardous waste permit. As discussed above 
in Section III A 1: Conduct a pre-application meeting with the 
community, the meeting should provide an informal occasion for you and 
the public to share ideas, educate each other, and start building the 
framework for a working relationship. We encourage you to address 
topics such as: the type of facility, the location, the types of waste 
generated and managed, and waste minimization and pollution control 
measures. You would submit a summary of the meeting, along with a list 
of the attendees and their addresses, and copies of any comments or 
materials submitted at the meeting.
3. Compliance With Location Standards
    We are proposing under Sec. 270.275(c), that you submit 
documentation that your facility is in compliance with the location 
standards described in Sec. 267.18 and Sec. 270.14(b)(11). We believe 
that the location of a facility is an important site-specific aspect of 
safe waste management. Therefore, we propose to continue to require the 
submittal of the documentation of compliance with the location 
standards. This documentation would include several analyses.
    First, if you have a new facility, you would have to determine the 
applicability of the seismic standard by checking if your facility is 
in a political jurisdiction listed in the regulations at appendix VI of 
part 264. The demonstration should show no recent faults are present 
within 3000 feet of the facility. If you find evidence of a recent 
fault, then your demonstration would need to show that no fault exists 
within 200 feet of an area where you are going to manage waste.
    Second, you (whether your facility is new or already existing) 
would need to determine whether your facility is located in a 100-year 
floodplain. If your facility is in a 100-year floodplain, you would 
provide information on engineered structures which are designed to 
prevent washout or emergency procedures to remove hazardous waste to 
safety prior to flooding.

[[Page 52230]]

4. Compliance With Other Federal laws
    We are proposing in Sec. 270.275(d) that you submit information 
necessary for the Regional Administrator to carry out his/her duties 
under other federal laws as required by existing Sec. 270.3. This 
requirement is similar to the provision found in Sec. 270.14(b)(20). 
Specifically, the Regional Administrator would need to meet various 
obligations under several Federal laws: the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 
16 U.S.C. 1273 et. seq., the National Historic Preservation Act of 
1966. 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., the Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq., the Coastal Zone Management Act. 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and 
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 16 U.S.C. 611 et seq. You 
should discuss with the Regional Administrator the specific information 
that you would need to submit with your notice of intent for him/her to 
meet the obligations of these Federal laws. Failure to submit this 
information could either significantly delay the issuance of the 
standardized permit or result in denying the standardized permit and 
requiring you to obtain an individual RCRA permit.
5. Solid Waste Management Units
    Under current regulations in Sec. 270.14(d), permit applicants must 
include certain information about solid waste management units in their 
permit applications. Under the approach we are proposing today, you 
would need to submit this information to the permitting agency. As 
discussed in Section VII G: Subpart F--Releases from Solid Waste 
Management Units, corrective action requirements depend on site 
specific circumstances. The information that would be required to be 
submitted on solid waste management units includes: (1) The location of 
the unit on the facility topographic map; (2) a designation of the type 
of unit (e.g., storage, treatment, disposal); (3) a description of the 
general dimensions and structure of the unit, with any available 
drawings; (4) the dates over which the unit was operated; (5) to the 
extent available, a list of the types of wastes that have been managed 
in the unit; and (6) all available information pertaining to any 
releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents from the unit. 
We would use this information to make decisions about the specific 
types of corrective actions, if any, that might be necessary to protect 
human health and the environment at your facility.
    We believe that most of the facilities which would operate under a 
standardized permit are currently operating under RCRA interim status 
or an individual RCRA permit, and so would have already completed a 
RCRA Facility Assessment. Therefore, you should have this information 
available for all solid waste management units at your facility. In 
situations where you do not have this information available when you 
apply for a standardized permit, we will either develop the information 
(e.g., by conducting a RCRA Facility Assessment) or may require you to 
develop and submit it prior to issuing your permit.
6. Certification of Compliance With Proposed Part 267 Requirements
    Proposed Sec. 270.275(f) would require you to submit a 
certification meeting the requirements of proposed Sec. 270.280. 
Submittal of this certification would put you on record that you 
understand your obligation to comply with all the proposed requirements 
of part 267.

C. What Are the Proposed Certification Requirements?

1. Certification of Compliance
    Proposed Sec. 270.280 would require you to certify that your 
facility is either in compliance with all applicable proposed 
requirements of part 267 or would come into compliance with all 
applicable requirements. You would also certify that you would continue 
to remain in compliance with proposed part 267 during the term of your 
permit. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for 
severe penalties for submitting false information on application forms. 
If you knowingly submit false information or make a false 
representation you would be subject to significant monetary penalties 
and possible imprisonment. The proposed certification that you would be 
in compliance with proposed part 267 requirements would apply to new 
facilities and existing facilities currently operating under interim 
status or an individual RCRA permit. Your certification would be based 
on an internal audit of your facility's operations. You would submit 
the certification of compliance along with a copy of the audit to the 
Director.
    We are aware that the level of detail in compliance audits can 
range from the very general to the very specific. Although we don't 
expect the audit reports to consist of only a few pages of findings, 
they should not involve extensive documentation. The audits should be 
comprehensive and the reports should include supporting materials such 
as completed audit checklists. We expect to issue guidance on audit 
reporting concurrent with issuance of the final rule.
    We are asking for public comments on the benefits of such an audit 
and whether the audit should be performed by an independent third 
party. Our current proposal allows the facility owner or operator to 
perform the compliance audit.
2. Certification of Availability of Information
    Proposed Sec. 270.280 also would require you to certify that the 
information required by proposed Secs. 270.290-270.315 would be 
available at your facility for review by the public and the permitting 
authority. This would be a major departure from the existing RCRA 
permitting program. Under the proposed standardized permit, you would 
not have to submit most of the information contained in individual RCRA 
permit Part B applications currently required by Sec. 270.14. Instead 
of submitting detailed Part B type information to the permitting 
authority, you would retain this information on-site at your facility. 
Furthermore, you would certify when submitting the notice of intent to 
be covered by a standardized permit that the Part B type information 
would be available for on-site for review by the public and the 
permitting agency.
    As previously mentioned, we are not proposing to require you to 
submit the waste analysis plan with your notice of intent because of 
the relatively simple waste management practices that take place at the 
proposed type of facilities eligible for a standardized permit. We do 
not feel that it would be necessary for you to submit the waste 
analysis plan with the notice of intent or for the permitting agency to 
review the waste analysis plan prior to permit issuance. However, we 
are interested in the public's views on the submittal of the waste 
analysis plan. Specifically, are there waste management situations that 
may occur at an on-site hazardous waste treatment or storage facility 
that warrant the review of the waste analysis plan prior to permitting 
the facility? For example, does a waste analysis plan for a large 
facility with many different waste streams warrant prior review? We 
encourage the public to provide detailed descriptions of any situation 
that they are aware of in their comments to us.
3. What Happens if my Facility Is Not in Compliance With the Proposed 
Part 267 Requirements at the Time I Submit my Notice of Intent?
    Your standardized permit would not be issued until you are in 
compliance with proposed part 267 requirements. If

[[Page 52231]]

your facility is not in compliance with applicable part 267 
requirements when you submit your notice of intent, you would submit a 
certification stating that your facility would come into compliance and 
provide a schedule detailing when your facility would achieve 
compliance with applicable requirements. Your suggested schedule would 
be required to meet the requirements of existing Sec. 270.33 and 
include an enforceable sequence of actions with specific milestones. 
The milestones should clearly delineate when compliance would be 
attained for each proposed part 267 requirement that your facility 
would currently not be in compliance with. Delay in coming into 
compliance with applicable regulations would delay issuance of the 
standardized permit and could be a reason for the Director to extend 
the 120 day time period for making a draft permit decision (see Section 
IV: Issuing a Standardized Permit). A poor compliance history could 
also contribute to a Director's decision to not allow coverage under 
the standardized permit.

D. What Information Would Be Required To Be Kept at my Facility?

    We are proposing that information that you would normally submit to 
the permitting agency in a Part B permit application be kept at your 
facility. The specific information that you would keep at your facility 
would be based on the general and specific Part B permit application 
requirements currently found in Secs. 270.14-270.27.
    We are proposing that you keep this information at the facility 
(and make it available for review by agency inspectors and the public) 
instead of submitting it to the permitting agency. We expect that you 
would consolidate the information in one area at the facility to the 
extent practicable to facilitate access. Maintaining the information 
on-site would streamline the administrative permitting process and 
should shorten the time required to obtain a RCRA permit, without 
lessening the environmental protection provided by the permit. There 
could be some situations where people in the community may need special 
access to the information (i.e., beyond having it available on-site). 
For example, there could be facility safety issues that necessitate the 
information being kept at an off-site location. To address these 
situations, we propose to apply the information repository requirements 
codified in existing Secs. 124.33 and 270.30(m) to standardized 
permits. In other words, the permitting agency could require you to set 
up and maintain an information repository, and keep it up to date with 
information relevant to the standardized permit. Although you could 
initially choose the location, the Director could override your choice. 
The Director would have final say in where the repository is 
established and could require it to be located at an off-site location, 
such as a public library. We would not require that the information be 
maintained off-site in all cases. As discussed in Section I: Overview 
and Background, waste management activities at facilities eligible for 
the standardized permit have traditionally posed relatively less risk 
than other types of management activities, so we anticipate that people 
in nearby communities would generally not object to going to the 
facility to review the information.
1. General Facility Information
    The proposed requirements in Sec. 270.290 are the same as the 
existing Sec. 270.14(b) requirements with minor exceptions. We believe 
that it is appropriate to clearly articulate the information 
requirements with which facility owners or operators would have to 
comply. Therefore, we repeat many of the general information 
requirements of existing Sec. 270.14(b) verbatim in these proposed 
Sec. 270.290 requirements. We made minor changes in the requirements to 
make appropriate citation changes and for readability reasons. Existing 
part 264 citations were in most cases changed to part 267 citations.
    You will notice that there is no parallel reference in proposed 
paragraph Sec. 270.290(c) to existing Sec. 264.13(c) as there is in 
existing Sec. 270.14(b)(3) because Sec. 264.13(c) is applicable to 
facilities treating or storing waste generated off-site. As discussed 
previously, the proposed standardized permit is only applicable to on-
site facilities. Also, we did not include several of the inspection 
schedules currently required by Sec. 270.14(b)(5) in proposed 
Sec. 270.290(e) because they are for units not eligible for the 
proposed standardized permit (e.g. surface impoundments, landfills, 
waste piles, land treatment unit, and miscellaneous units). In 
addition, you would be required to submit the facility location 
information currently required by Sec. 270.14(b)(11) with your Notice 
of Intent. Therefore, we are proposing to reserve Sec. 270.290(k) in 
order to maintain the parallel structure between this section and 
existing Sec. 270.14(b). We have omitted several of the regulatory 
citations in existing Sec. 270.14(b)(13) from proposed Sec. 270.290(m) 
because they are for units not eligible for the proposed standardized 
permit. In addition, we have omitted references and regulatory 
citations to the post-closure plan currently found in 
Sec. 270.14(b)(13) from proposed Sec. 270.290(m) because the post-
closure plan would no longer be applicable. As discussed above in 
Section VII H: Subpart G--Closure, all units that receive a 
standardized permit would be required to either clean close or apply 
for an individual RCRA post-closure permit. Since existing 
Sec. 270.14(b)(14) refers to disposal units, which would not be 
eligible for a proposed standardized permit, we have not carried over 
this requirement and have reserved Sec. 270.290(n) to maintain a 
parallel regulatory structure. We have modified the proposed regulatory 
text in Sec. 270.290(o) from the text in existing Sec. 270.14(b)(15). 
This is because the last phrase referring to the Part B in paragraph 
Sec. 270.14(b)(15) would not be applicable to proposed standardized 
permits. Since existing Sec. 270.14(b)(16) refers to post-closure cost 
estimates, there is no parallel requirement proposed for standardized 
permits. Therefore, Sec. 270.290(p) has been reserved.
    Requirements in existing paragraphs Sec. 270.14 (b)(20), (b)(21) 
and (b)(22) are either not appropriate for the proposed standardized 
permit or are already addressed. Existing paragraph Sec. 270.14(b)(20) 
requires an information submittal for the purposes of the Regional 
Administrator to carry out his/her duties under other Federal Laws. We 
propose this requirement in Sec. 270.275(d), which would require that 
information to be submitted to the permitting agency to support your 
application. The current requirements of Sec. 270.14(b)(21) are not 
applicable because they are for land disposal facilities. The existing 
requirements of Sec. 270.14(b)(22) discuss the pre-application meeting 
and the submittal of the meeting summary along with other items. We 
proposed these requirements in Sec. 270.275(b), specifying that you 
would be required to submit these items with the Notice of Intent as 
discussed previously. We are not proposing to include the requirements 
of Sec. 270.14(c) because they address ground water monitoring that we 
believe is unnecessary for the types of units that would be eligible 
for proposed standardized permits.
2. Container Information
    The container information requirements we are proposing today in 
Sec. 270.300 are similar to the current requirements in Sec. 270.15. In 
developing the proposed language for proposed Sec. 270.300, we modified 
the existing

[[Page 52232]]

Sec. 270.15 requirements to make them more readable. You would be 
required to keep information at your facility on the design and 
operation of the container storage area including its containment 
system. You would also keep diagrams showing the location of ignitable, 
reactive, and incompatible waste at your facility along with drawings 
showing compliance with appropriate buffer zones.
3. Tank Information
    Under today's proposal, you would have to keep tank system 
information onsite at the facility. This information deals with design, 
construction, and operation parameters. The proposed Sec. 270.305 
requirements are similar to the individual permit requirements 
currently in Sec. 270.16. However, we would not carry over to proposed 
Sec. 270.305, the current requirements from Sec. 270.16(h). The 
existing Sec. 270.16(h) requirements deal with tanks with variances 
from secondary containment. As discussed previously, we are proposing 
that tanks have secondary containment to be eligible for the 
standardized permit.
4. Equipment Information
    Under today's proposal, you would be required to keep onsite the 
information required for equipment subject to the part 264 subpart BB 
requirements (air emissions standards for equipment leaks). These 
information requirements concern emission standards for equipment that 
contains or comes in contact with hazardous waste with organic 
concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight. The proposed 
Sec. 270.310 requirements are similar to the individual permit 
requirements currently found in Sec. 270.25. The proposed Sec. 270.315 
requirements differ from the existing Sec. 270.25 provisions in one 
main area. The performance test plan currently required by 
Sec. 270.25(c) for alternative control devices is not included in 
proposed Sec. 270.315 requirements because proposed Secs. 267.177 and 
267.204 would only allow the following control devices: thermal vapor 
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, flame, boiler, process 
heater, condenser, and carbon absorption unit. This is because the 
performance testing and reporting to support alternative control 
devices would require close interaction on the part of the facility 
owner/operator and the permitting agency, which would not be 
appropriate for the standardized permit.
5. Air Emission Control Information
    We are also proposing to have you keep onsite the information 
required for tanks and containers subject to the part 264 subpart CC 
standards (air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundments and 
containers). The proposed Sec. 270.315 requirements for air emission 
controls would be similar to the existing Sec. 270.27 requirements for 
facilities seeking individual permits. These information requirements 
concern compliance with the air emission controls that apply to 
facilities managing hazardous waste in tanks and containers. The 
proposed Sec. 270.315 requirements contain minor changes to the current 
Sec. 270.27 provisions because surface impoundments would not be 
eligible for standardized permits.

E. How Would I Modify my RCRA Standardized Permit?

    You would modify your RCRA standardized permit by following the 
procedures found in proposed Secs. 124.211-213. As mentioned above in 
Section VI: Maintaining a Standardized Permit, today's proposed 
modification procedures are separated into: (1) Routine changes to the 
standardized permit; and (2) significant changes. You would follow 
these procedures in lieu of the permit modification procedures found in 
existing Sec. 270.42, which describe permittee initiated permit 
modifications for individual permits.

X. Public Comment on Corrective Action and Financial Assurance 
Issues

    As was discussed previously, in addition to requesting public 
comment on the proposed provisions of this rule, we are requesting 
public comment on some additional issues related to corrective action 
and financial assurance requirements. These additional issues 
potentially affect the universe of RCRA treatment, storage, and 
disposal, including those that would receive standardized permits. We 
have discussed these issues, and our reasons for soliciting comment on 
them, in detail below.

A. Corrective Action

1. Could I Satisfy the RCRA Corrective Action Requirements for my Site 
by Conducting Cleanup Under an Alternate State Program? \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The discussion in this notice addresses only alternate State 
cleanup authorities. For information on conducting cleanup under 
non-RCRA Federal authorities see a memorandum dated September 24, 
1996 from Steven A. Herman and Elliott P. Laws to RCRA/CERCLA 
National Policy Managers entitled ``Coordination between RCRA 
Corrective Action and Closure and CERCLA Site Activities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting comment on whether and under what conditions it 
should adopt a policy that would promote the use of cleanup programs 
other than the authorized RCRA program to satisfy corrective action 
requirements at permitted facilities. In the discussion below, EPA 
presents several issues and options related to the use of such 
alternate authorities. You should note that these issues and options 
are presented by the Agency for the purpose of soliciting ideas. In 
developing this discussion, EPA did not develop an Agency position on 
these issues--rather, the Agency chose to present for comment the 
options and issues it currently is considering. Thus, the following 
discussion does not represent the Agency's position on the use of 
alternate authorities, and should not be used as guidance on the issues 
discussed.
    Currently, when an alternate State authority is used to address 
corrective action at a facility, the provisions of the cleanup order 
issued by the alternate authority are typically either written into the 
RCRA permit as conditions, or are incorporated by reference in the 
permit. In both cases, the provisions of the cleanup order become RCRA 
permit conditions, which are subject to administrative and judicial 
review at the time of permit issuance and may be enforced under RCRA.
    EPA is considering issuing a policy to address the use, in 
appropriate circumstances, of alternate cleanup authorities to satisfy 
the corrective action requirements of a permit. Under such a policy, 
EPA would recommend general guidelines for determining whether action 
under an alternate authority will result in cleanups that meet the 
requirements of Sec. 264.101, and would specify how the alternate 
authority cleanup generally should be addressed in the permit to ensure 
enforceability of cleanup requirements. This policy, if adopted, would 
likely apply at all facilities receiving RCRA permits, including 
standardized permits. It should be noted that, although the Agency 
currently is contemplating issuing policy guidance on the alternate 
authority issue, the Agency may decide instead to issue the guidance 
provisions discussed in this section as final regulations. EPA solicits 
comment on whether such a policy, if adopted, should be promulgated as 
regulations or issued as guidance.
    EPA believes that many alternate State cleanup programs conduct 
cleanups that are protective of human health and the environment, and 
that many alternate State cleanup authorities

[[Page 52233]]

offer features such as streamlined procedures, provisions for voluntary 
cleanup, and provisions for collection of user fees to pay for State 
oversight which, if used at RCRA facilities, could help speed the pace 
of RCRA cleanups nationwide. At the same time, EPA recognizes its 
responsibility to ensure that cleanups conducted at facilities subject 
to RCRA corrective action requirements satisfy the requirements of RCRA 
sections 3004(u) and (v) and the ``omnibus'' provision of section 
3005(c)(3) (i.e., are protective of human health and the environment). 
EPA believes that by developing a policy that recommends guidelines for 
the use of alternate authorities at permitted facilities, the Agency 
would be able to leverage the potential offered by alternate 
authorities, while at the same time ensuring that cleanups conducted 
under those authorities satisfy the statutory requirements of RCRA.
    Whether cleanup at facilities subject to RCRA corrective action is 
conducted under a Federal cleanup program (e.g., RCRA corrective action 
or CERCLA), an authorized RCRA corrective action program, or an 
alternate State cleanup program, EPA is responsible for reporting the 
progress of cleanups at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities to Congress and to the public, and for overseeing 
implementation of the RCRA corrective action program in authorized 
States. To meet these responsibilities, EPA regularly solicits 
information from the States regarding the progress of cleanups at RCRA 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, regardless of the 
authority under which they are being conducted, and includes this 
information in a national data base for reporting progress at those 
facilities. It should be noted that, if EPA develops a policy regarding 
the use of alternate authorities in permits, that practice would not 
change--EPA would still expect States to provide this information to 
the Agency.
    It also should be noted that Sec. 264.101(b) requires financial 
assurance for corrective action, and use of an alternate cleanup 
program at a RCRA permitted facility would not modify that requirement. 
If an alternate cleanup program were used to address corrective action 
at a RCRA permitted facility, the permit issuing agency (EPA or the 
authorized State) would be responsible for ensuring that adequate 
financial assurance was available to satisfy the requirement of 
Sec. 264.101 (or authorized State equivalent).
    Issues related to potential adoption of this policy, and specific 
requests for comment are detailed below.
2. How Would EPA and the Authorized States Address the Alternate 
Authority Cleanup Provisions in the RCRA Permit?
    At facilities where cleanup is completed satisfactorily prior to 
permit issuance, EPA or the State authorized for corrective action must 
make a determination that no additional corrective action is necessary 
to protect human health and the environment and consequently includes 
no provisions requiring corrective action in the permit (except those 
necessary to address future releases). Where corrective action is not 
completed satisfactorily prior to permit issuance, there may be a 
number of approaches to allow cleanups conducted under alternate State 
cleanup programs to satisfy the RCRA permit requirements for corrective 
action under section 3004(u) and (v).
    EPA is soliciting comment on whether to recommend, under certain 
circumstances, two methods of addressing, within the RCRA permit, the 
cleanups conducted pursuant to alternate State authorities. Both 
methods address situations where corrective action is determined by the 
Agency to be necessary to protect human health and the environment at 
the time of permit issuance. Under the first method, referred to as 
``postponement,'' the permit issuing agency would postpone the 
determination of RCRA-specific corrective action provisions until after 
a cleanup under an alternate State authority is completed. Under the 
second method, referred to in this notice as ``deferral,'' the permit 
issuing agency would make a determination that a cleanup conducted 
under an alternate authority will satisfy the corrective action 
requirements at the site, then completely defer corrective action 
requirements to the alternate program. Both of these methods are 
discussed below.
    Postponement. Using the postponement method, the agency issuing the 
RCRA permit would determine, considering the recommended criteria (see 
discussion below), whether the planned or ongoing cleanup under the 
alternate program would satisfy the requirements of Sec. 264.101 (i.e., 
whether it would result in a cleanup that is protective of human health 
and the environment). The agency would determine that, while corrective 
action is necessary at the facility, the requirements of Sec. 264.101 
will likely be satisfied by the planned or ongoing cleanup, so specific 
permit cleanup conditions are not necessary at the time of permit 
issuance. Instead, the Agency would incorporate a schedule of 
compliance into the permit that, among other things, postpones the 
final decision on whether specific cleanup conditions need to be 
included in the RCRA permit until completion of the cleanup under the 
alternate authority (the schedule of compliance should also include 
requirements, as appropriate, to report to EPA on the progress of the 
alternative state cleanup). EPA or the authorized State issuing the 
permit would make the decision to postpone imposition of specific 
cleanup permit requirements based on an analysis, considering the 
recommended criteria, of either the specific corrective action 
contemplated by the alternate cleanup program, on a review of the 
alternate program itself, or both, as appropriate. Where the agency 
determines that the cleanup under the alternate program, or the 
alternate program itself, would not likely result in a cleanup that is 
protective of human health and the environment, there would be no 
postponement and specific cleanup conditions would be required in the 
RCRA permit at the outset.
    As described above, if the agency finds that specific permit 
cleanup conditions are not necessary at the time of permit issuance, 
the agency would include in the permit a schedule under which the 
agency would make a determination, upon completion of the alternative 
cleanup, whether the requirements of Sec. 264.101 have been satisfied. 
At that time, if the agency were to determine that the cleanup did not 
satisfy the requirements of Sec. 264.101, it would impose further 
corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the 
environment, and modify the permit to reflect that determination (using 
the procedures in Sec. 270.41 for modifications based on new 
information). The basis for the agency's determination at the time of 
permit issuance that it is reasonable to postpone a determination on 
the need for RCRA-specific cleanup requirements until completion of 
cleanup under the alternate State authority would be part of the 
administrative record for the permit, and the public would have 
opportunity to comment on the postponement decision prior to permit 
issuance. Similarly, the basis for the determination, upon completion 
of the alternative state program cleanup, whether additional corrective 
action is required would be part of the administrative record for the 
permit; the Agency would include in the permit procedures for making 
such a determination, including an opportunity for public notice and 
comment. These

[[Page 52234]]

Agency decisions would be subject to applicable administrative and 
judicial review. It is important to note that under this approach, 
during the course of the cleanup, the conditions of the order or other 
mechanism issued under the alternate State authority would not be 
enforceable RCRA permit conditions and, therefore, would not be 
enforceable under RCRA by EPA or citizens. However, under 
Sec. 270.41(a) (or the authorized State equivalent), EPA or the 
authorized State would have authority to modify the permit if new 
information revealed that the cleanup under the alternate authority was 
not protective, and that RCRA-specific conditions were necessary to 
protect human health and the environment at that time.
    Further, as a condition to allowing postponement of corrective 
action, EPA or the authorized State would include in the permit 
schedule of compliance some type of conditions to assure that the 
Agency or State agency would be made aware of changed conditions at the 
site, so that the decision to postpone could be reviewed and corrective 
action conditions incorporated into the permit, if necessary. These 
conditions could be structured in several ways. For example, the permit 
might include a requirement that the permittee notify EPA or the 
authorized State if the conditions upon which the determination to 
postpone is made change (e.g., if cleanup under the alternate authority 
is not proceeding for some reason). Alternatively, the permit might 
require periodic reporting to the Agency or State agency; at that time 
the decision to postpone the inclusion of specific corrective action 
conditions could be reviewed. If necessary, specific corrective action 
conditions could then be incorporated into the permit. Another option 
would be to include in the permit schedule of compliance conditions 
such that EPA or the authorized State agency would receive notice prior 
to and after the completion of significant milestones of the cleanup. 
This also would allow for the opportunity to review the decision to 
postpone imposition of specific cleanup provisions in the RCRA 
permit.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA does not intend that the decision to postpone normally 
would be revisited. Moreover, EPA would not expect permits to 
require that the cleanup under the non-RCRA program wait for 
approval from the RCRA authorized program before proceeding with the 
cleanup. Instead, it would be incumbent upon the RCRA program to 
undertake affirmative steps if it was concerned with how the cleanup 
was proceeding under the non-RCRA program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA solicits comment on whether it should, as a general matter, 
recommend use of the postponement method and on situations where 
postponement may or may not be appropriate.
    Deferral. A second approach, referred to in this notice as 
``deferral,'' would allow EPA or the authorized State to completely 
defer corrective action requirements to an alternate cleanup program. 
To implement the deferral approach, upon permit issuance, EPA or the 
authorized State would make the finding that corrective action is 
necessary, and that the appropriate corrective action at the site would 
be the State action run by the State alternate program. Under this 
approach, the permit issuing agency would include in the permit a 
condition requiring the facility to meet all requirements of an 
alternate State cleanup program order or agreement (or whatever legal 
mechanism is used by the State program to document the facility's 
cleanup obligations). The permit would clearly state that the State 
alternate program is the sole implementer of the cleanup, in other 
words, it would be the State program that is responsible for the day-
to-day implementation of the cleanup without intervention by EPA. It 
should be noted, however, that because the cleanup requirements imposed 
by the State alternate authority would, under this approach, become 
RCRA permit conditions, they would be enforceable by EPA and by 
citizens. For example, if the alternate authority order specified a 
deadline for completion of specific interim measures, if such measures 
were not implemented by that deadline, EPA (or a citizen) could bring 
an action for enforcement of that requirement under RCRA.
    Unlike under the postponement approach, the permitting agency's 
deferral would not be conditioned on a review conducted at the end of 
the cleanup. Rather, it would be based on an analysis at the time of 
permitting, considering the recommended criteria, of the specific 
corrective action contemplated by the alternate cleanup program, or on 
a review of the alternate program itself, and demonstrating that the 
cleanup at the facility will be protective of human health and the 
environment. The review of the alternate program could include a 
general prior review (see discussion below) with a particular 
determination about deferral when issuing the permit. The basis for the 
agency's decision to defer would be part of the administrative record 
for the permit, and the public would have opportunity to comment on the 
decision prior to permit issuance. The final deferral decision would be 
subject to applicable administrative and judicial review.
    EPA solicits comment on whether it should, as a general matter, 
recommend the use of the deferral method and on situations where 
deferral may or may not be appropriate.
3. How Would EPA or the Authorized State Determine That Cleanups 
Conducted Under an Alternate Cleanup Program Would Satisfy the 
Requirements of Sec. 264.101?
    Upon issuing a permit at a facility where the Agency has determined 
that corrective action is necessary, EPA or the authorized State must 
make a determination that the provisions of the permit addressing 
corrective action satisfy the requirements of Sec. 264.101, i.e., that 
they require ``corrective action as necessary to protect human health 
and the environment * * *''(see Sec. 264.101(a)). This determination 
would be no different where the requirements of Sec. 264.101 are to be 
satisfied by a cleanup conducted through an alternate cleanup program 
at a RCRA permitted facility. In order to make the determination that 
the permit requires corrective action ``as necessary to protect human 
health and the environment,'' (or, in the case of postponement, that 
the alternate program cleanup is likely to be adequate, and it 
therefore is reasonable to set a schedule that postpones the 
determination of whether specific corrective action requirements are 
necessary to protect human health and the environment), the Agency or 
the authorized State would either: (1) Review the alternate program and 
make a determination that cleanups conducted under that program will, 
or likely will, satisfy the requirements of Sec. 264.101 \8\; or (2) 
review the provisions of an existing site-specific cleanup order (or 
equivalent) and find that it will satisfy the requirements of 
Sec. 264.101. Therefore, EPA believes that a policy supporting use of 
alternate authorities at permitted sites should include guidance for 
assessment of alternate cleanup programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ It should be noted that although the decision whether it is 
appropriate to postpone or defer in any particular instance will be 
informed by the results of prior program review (and EPA does not 
generally expect that additional review of a previously reviewed 
program will be necessary at the time of permit issuance), that 
decision will be made on a case-by-case basis in the course of 
permit issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting comment on: (1) What assessment factors should be 
recommended for assessing an alternate program (or site-specific 
cleanup); and (2) what role should EPA assume in reviewing and 
approving alternate State cleanup programs.
    Assessment Criteria. EPA believes that a policy addressing use of 
alternate State cleanup programs at RCRA

[[Page 52235]]

permitted facilities should recommend criteria for assessment and 
evaluation of those programs. EPA already has provided guidance on 
assessment and review of alternate programs on two occasions. In a 
memorandum dated November 14, 1996 from Elliot P. Laws and Steven A. 
Herman to Superfund National Policy Members entitled ``Interim 
Approaches for Regional Relations with State Voluntary Cleanup 
Programs,'' (the VCP guidance) EPA recommended six baseline criteria 
for evaluating the adequacy of State voluntary cleanup programs. (A 
copy of the VCP guidance is available in the docket for today's 
proposal.) In the October 22, 1998 final Post-Closure rule (see 63 FR 
56710 at 56792), EPA established criteria to evaluate the alternate 
authorities that would be used in lieu of a post-closure permit to 
address corrective action. The criteria from the VCP guidance and the 
Post-Closure rule are outlined below. EPA solicits comment on 
recommending the use of the VCP guidance criteria and/or the Post-
Closure rule criteria to evaluate alternate programs for use in RCRA 
permits. EPA also solicits comment on other criteria that might be 
appropriate.
    It should be noted that EPA would not necessarily deny the use of 
an alternate cleanup program at a RCRA permitted facility because it 
does not meet all of the criteria developed by the Agency. EPA believes 
that inadequacies of an alternate State program could be addressed by 
supplementing the program through conditions in the RCRA permit. For 
example, if the Agency determined that an alternate program did not 
provide for meaningful public involvement, the Agency could still use 
the approaches outlined above, but also include specific permit 
provisions requiring such public participation (or ask the alternate 
state program to enhance public participation at the specific site in 
question). EPA solicits comment on this approach.
    VCP Guidance Criteria. In the November 14, 1996 VCP guidance, EPA 
established the baseline criteria for evaluating adequacy of State 
voluntary cleanup programs. These criteria are used by the Agency in 
negotiating Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with States for purposes of 
dividing cleanup responsibilities between EPA's Superfund program and 
the States. By negotiating these MOAs, EPA seeks to develop 
partnerships with the States to encourage cleanups at non-NPL sites, 
including brownfields.
    Under the guidance, voluntary cleanup programs should be evaluated 
to assure they have the following:
     Opportunities for meaningful public involvement;
     Response actions that are protective of human health and 
the environment;
     Adequate resources to ensure that response actions are 
conducted in an appropriate and timely manner, and that both technical 
assistance and streamlined procedures, where appropriate, are 
available;
     Mechanisms for the written approval of response action 
plans and a certification or similar documentation indicating that 
response actions are complete;
     Adequate oversight to ensure that response actions are 
conducted in such a manner to assure protection of human health and the 
environment; and
     Capability, through enforcement or other authorities, of 
ensuring completion of response actions if the party conducing the 
response action fails or refuses to complete the necessary response 
actions, including operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring 
activities.
    Many of these listed criteria are the same as those used in the 
authorization process for state RCRA corrective action programs. 
However, it should be noted that the review of resources available to 
voluntary cleanup programs during the MOA process is typically 
significantly less detailed than the capability assessment associated 
with State authorization. Regardless of which criteria may ultimately 
be used, EPA does not believe the level of overall review of the 
alternate program would be the same level as an authorization review. 
Instead, the review would simply need to be sufficient to support a 
determination that the use of the alternate program will, or in the 
case of postponement likely will, result in protective cleanups, i.e., 
will satisfy the requirements of Sec. 264.101.
    EPA solicits comment on whether these factors are appropriate to 
consider in the context of reviewing alternate cleanup programs for use 
at permitted facilities. In particular, EPA solicits comment on to what 
extent the reviewing agency should consider the practices, resources, 
and oversight capability of the alternate program when determining 
whether cleanups conducted under the program will satisfy the 
requirements of Sec. 264.101. Finally, EPA solicits comment on whether 
other aspects of the alternate program, not listed above, also should 
be considered.
    Post-Closure Rule Criteria. In the final Post-Closure rule, the 
Agency established that an assessment of a cleanup program must 
demonstrate, at a minimum, that the authority is sufficiently broad to: 
(1) Require facility-wide assessments; (2) address all releases of 
hazardous wastes or constituents to all media for all SWMUs within the 
facility boundary as well as off-site releases to the extent required 
under RCRA section 3004(v) (to the extent that releases pose a threat 
to human health and the environment); and (3) impose remedies that are 
protective of human health and the environment. In promulgating that 
final rule, EPA determined that these criteria are appropriate for 
evaluation of alternate authorities that would be used in lieu of post-
closure permits to satisfy corrective action requirements. EPA solicits 
comments on whether these factors are appropriate for reviewing 
alternate programs for use at permitted facilities.
    Over the years, EPA has provided guidance on imposing remedies that 
are protective of human health and the environment, and that will 
achieve corrective action cleanup objectives. On May 1, 1996, EPA 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (see 61 FR 
19432), which serves as the primary guidance for the corrective action 
program. EPA expects that any policy issued on the use of alternate 
cleanup programs at RCRA permitted facilities would provide that, when 
evaluating a State's alternate cleanup program, EPA or the authorized 
State should consider whether cleanups conducted under the program are 
at least as protective as the EPA corrective action program or the 
equivalent State corrective action program authorized by EPA, as 
implemented under the ANPR guidelines.
    In addition to the criteria discussed above, the Post-Closure final 
rule required that a cleanup conducted under an alternate authority 
include meaningful opportunity for public involvement (see 
Sec. 265.121(b)). EPA believes that public involvement is a critical 
component of a corrective action process that assures that cleanups are 
protective of human health and the environment, and that any policy 
supporting use of alternate authorities at permitted facilities must 
include meaningful involvement of the public. The final Post-Closure 
rule established criteria for meaningful public involvement--at a 
minimum, public notice and opportunity for comment at three key stages 
of cleanup: (1) When EPA or the authorized State agency first becomes 
involved in the cleanup process as a regulatory or enforcement matter, 
(2) when EPA or the authorized State agency is ready to approve a 
remedy for the site (this opportunity

[[Page 52236]]

must include a chance to comment on the assumptions on which the remedy 
is based), and (3) when EPA or the authorized State is ready to decide 
that remedial action is complete at the facility. EPA solicits comment 
on whether these are the appropriate public involvement criteria to 
recommend for cleanups conducted under alternate authorities at 
permitted facilities.
    The final Post-Closure rule also discussed the need for the 
alternate authority to have adequate enforcement authority. EPA 
specifically stated in the preamble to that rule, that the alternate 
authorities ``must include the authority to sue in court, and to assess 
penalties, consistent with Sec. 271.16'' (see 62 FR 56710 at 56730). 
The referenced regulation specifically requires that the alternate 
program have the authority to enjoin any threatened or continuing 
violation of the requirements, and the authority to compel compliance 
with requirements for corrective action or other emergency response 
measures deemed necessary to protect human health and the environment. 
These provisions assure that program conducting the cleanup will be 
able to enforce the cleanup requirements imposed at the facility in a 
timely manner. As in the case of the Post-closure rule, EPA wants to 
assure that, where a cleanup is conducted through an alternate cleanup 
program at a RCRA permitted facility, the Agency or the authorized 
State will be able to enforce the cleanup requirements in a timely 
manner.
    General Process for Review of Alternate Cleanup Programs. EPA 
believes that, as a general matter, the Agency should review state 
alternate program in advance of relying on them at individual sites in 
the state. EPA believe such an up-front review would result in faster 
permit decisions overall, since it would provide, in advance, useful 
record support for a postponement of deferral decision at a specific 
site. In addition, any potential issues associated with alternate 
authority would be worked out in advance of individual permit 
decisions. EPA therefore solicits comment on two options for 
documenting the up-front review of an alternate program. EPA approves 
RCRA cleanup programs through the corrective action authorization 
process (and reviews alternate authorities as part of authorization for 
the Post-Closure rule). EPA also conducts less formal reviews as part 
of program oversight, and as part of Federal-State joint implementation 
efforts. These less formal reviews typically result in site-specific or 
program-wide agreements between EPA and States. Under the first option, 
EPA could use an authorization approach, where the State would submit, 
among other things, copies of the statutes and regulations for the 
alternate cleanup authority, to demonstrate that the program would 
result in protective cleanups. Under the second option, EPA and the 
State could enter into an MOU, or other agreement, regarding permit 
determinations and the use of a particular alternate authority for RCRA 
corrective action facilities (e.g., a VCP MOA for RCRA corrective 
action). EPA solicits comment on these two options, when they should be 
used, and whether other options should be considered. In either case, 
the purpose of this up-front review would be to make an early 
assessment of the fitness of an alternate cleanup program for use at 
permitted facilities in the State. Of course, although the decision 
whether it is appropriate to postpone or defer in any particular 
instance will be informed by the results of this prior program review 
(and EPA does not generally expect that additional review of a 
previously reviewed program will be necessary at the time of permit 
issuance) that decision will be made on a case-by-case basis in the 
course of permit issuance.
    In some cases, EPA may already have reviewed an alternate State 
cleanup authority for other purposes. For example, EPA may have 
reviewed and approved the authority during authorization of the State 
RCRA program for the Post-Closure Rule. In other cases, EPA may have 
reviewed the authority during the process of authorizing the State RCRA 
program for section 3004(u) corrective action. EPA solicits comment on 
whether alternate cleanup authorities that have been reviewed during 
the authorization process should be evaluated again. EPA also solicits 
comments on other situations where the Agency may have reviewed the 
alternate authority and where it might be unnecessary to conduct 
additional review.
    Process for Review of Alternate Cleanup Programs In States 
Authorized for RCRA Corrective Action. EPA solicits comment on what is 
an appropriate level of participation for the Agency in the review and 
assessment of an alternate program in a state authorized for RCRA 
corrective action. In particular, EPA solicits comment on whether it is 
necessary for EPA to review and approve an alternate program before a 
State authorized for corrective action defers to that program in a 
permit, or postpones corrective action under a permit pending a cleanup 
conducted under the alternate program. While a State authorized for 
corrective action is responsible for implementing the program, the 
Agency retains oversight responsibility in authorized States; EPA 
believes that review and assessment of alternate cleanup programs used 
in the ways outlined above, should be considered part of the Agency's 
oversight responsibility. EPA solicits comment on to what extent review 
and assessment of alternate programs should be considered part of the 
Agency's oversight responsibilities, and on what its role should be in 
evaluating alternate State cleanup programs.

B. Financial Assurance

    EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently issued an audit 
report on financial assurance for closure (RCRA Financial Assurance for 
Closure and Post-Closure, Audit Report No. 2001-P-007, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General, March 30, 
2001. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/audit/list301/finalreport330.pdf, and in the docket to today's proposed rulemaking). 
The report raised several issues regarding the use of pure captive 
insurance for closure. The report states:

    We believe that insurance policies issued by a ``captive'' 
insurance company do not provide an adequate level of assurance 
because we found no independence between facility failure and the 
failure of the mechanism.

In addition, the report concluded that the sampled captive insurance 
policies did not allow assignment to a new owner or operator as 
required by the regulations. EPA has sent a letter to the Vermont 
Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care 
Administration requesting information on the assignment of captive 
insurance policies issued by insurers domiciled there. The docket to 
this rulemaking includes copies of EPA's letter and Vermont's response. 
The audit report also recommends that the Agency investigate complex 
insurance issues with the States to determine the States' need for 
guidance. EPA requests comments on the conclusions in the OIG report. 
EPA also requests information from States, the insurance industry, and 
the regulated community on the need for the guidance suggested by OIG, 
appropriate topics, and information that should be included.
    The OIG report considers captive insurance to be a form of ``self 
insurance,'' and in that sense is similar to the financial test. For 
the financial test, EPA has information on the probability that a 
company which passes the financial test could enter bankruptcy and so 
be unable financially

[[Page 52237]]

to fulfill its closure obligations. This information comes from data on 
bankruptcy rates, and default rates on bonds of various ratings. For 
captive insurance, we have no specific information, and therefore would 
like States, organizations, companies, or individuals to provide us 
with any information they may have on the risks associated with captive 
insurers, and experience with their payment of claims for closure, 
post-closure care, or third party liability under RCRA.
    The financial status of the parent company and the pure captive 
insurer is potentially important because regulatory agencies might be 
forced to perform closure at a facility if the parent were to enter 
bankruptcy without having closed the facility and if the captive 
insurance company could not afford to close the facility promptly or 
properly. While the proposed financial test requires a company have a 
tangible net worth of at least $10 million more than the amount of 
obligations covered, the capitalization requirements for captive 
insurers can be much smaller. Vermont, for example, has a minimum 
capitalization requirement for a pure captive insurance company of 
$250,000. The cost of a RCRA closure could surpass that amount.
    In addition, we are not aware of any state that covers captive 
insurance with State insurance funds that pay off claims in the event 
of the failure of the insurer. Because the captive insurer is providing 
insurance for its parent company, a State that would provide such 
coverage for claims might be creating a disincentive for prudent risk 
management. However, this means that in the event of bankruptcy by the 
company and the default of the captive insurer, EPA or the State might 
not have the funds available for closure. Therefore, we request 
comments on the use of captive insurance as a financial assurance 
mechanism for closure.
    We also request comments on any additional requirements for 
insurers in general, such as minimum ratings (and appropriate rating 
agencies), beyond the current requirement to ``be licensed to transact 
the business of insurance or eligible to provide insurance as an excess 
or surplus lines insurer, in one or more States.'' (See 
Sec. 264.143(e)(1)). We are interested in this information not only for 
potential users of the standardized permit, but also for other 
facilities that demonstrate financial assurance for environmental 
obligations through the use of insurance. Insurance is currently an 
allowable mechanism for demonstrating financial assurance for closure 
in Secs. 258.74, 264.143, 265.143 as well as 761.65. Insurance is also 
an allowable mechanism for demonstrating financial assurance for the 
costs of plugging and abandonment of Class I hazardous waste injection 
wells under Sec. 144.63.
    Specifically, EPA is considering a requirement that an insurer, in 
addition to being ``licensed to transact the business of insurance or 
eligible to provide insurance as an excess or surplus lines insurer, in 
one or more States,'' meet at least one of the following requirements: 
a rating of Aaa, Aa or A by Moody's, or a rating of AAA, AA or A by 
Standard & Poor's, or a rating of A++, A+, A or A- from A.M. Best 
Company.
    EPA recognizes that these ratings may appear to be more stringent 
than the requirements it has established for companies that qualify on 
the basis of a bond rating to self-insure under the financial test in, 
for example, subpart H of parts 264 and 265. This is appropriate 
because a company that previously qualified to use the financial test 
and then becomes ineligible because of a reduced bond rating is still 
likely to qualify for a third party instrument such as a surety bond or 
a letter of credit. However, third party providers of financial 
assurance generally service a group of owners and operators that are 
financially weaker than those qualifying for the financial test 
(otherwise they would have used the less expensive financial test as a 
mechanism to comply with the financial assurance requirements). If a 
third party provider, such as an insurer, loses its qualification to 
provide assurance, its customers can find it very difficult to obtain 
another instrument within the 60 day period required by the 
regulations. Until the customers obtain a new instrument, the policy 
remains in force, but the certainty of payment is less than with a more 
qualified company. By imposing an additional requirement on the 
financial strength of the insurer, EPA expects to reduce the 
possibility that a permitting authority is faced with having a claim on 
a third party for closure which the third party cannot fund.

XI. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to 
administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. A State 
may receive authorization by following the approval process described 
under part 271. See 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and 
requirements for authorization. Following authorization, the State 
requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal 
requirements and become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. 
EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under 
RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized States also have 
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State law.
    After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal 
requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that 
State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent 
State requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006 (g)(42 U.S.C. 
6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to 
HSWA provisions take effect in authorized States at the same time they 
take effect in unauthorized States. As such, EPA carries out HSWA 
requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the 
issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA 
authorized the State to do so.
    Authorized States are required to modify their programs when EPA 
promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in 
scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows 
States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal 
program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States are not 
required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are 
considered equivalent or less stringent than existing Federal 
requirements.

B. Effect of State Authorizations

    Today's proposal, if finalized, will promulgate regulations that 
are not HSWA-related. Thus, the standards proposed today will be 
applicable on the effective date only in those States that do not have 
final authorization. In authorized States, the requirements would not 
be applicable until the State revises its program to adopt equivalent 
requirements under State law.
    Authorized States are required to modify their programs only when 
EPA promulgates Federal regulations that are more stringent or broader 
in scope than the authorized State regulations. For those changes that 
are less stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program, States 
are not required to modify their programs. This is a result of section 
3009 of RCRA, which allows States to impose more stringent regulations 
than the Federal program.

[[Page 52238]]

Today's rule however, is considered to be neither more nor less 
stringent than the current standards. Therefore, authorized States 
would not be required to modify their programs to adopt regulations 
consistent with and equivalent to today's proposed standards.
    As in the case of individual permit procedures, a state that 
chooses to adopt and request authorization for issuing standardized 
permits must adopt permitting procedures equivalent, but not identical 
to those promulgated by EPA. The authorization regulations in 40 CFR 
271.14 lists several provisions of the permitting regulations which EPA 
determined are necessary for an equivalent permitting program. States 
would need to adopt a similar scope of legal authorities for issuing 
standardized permits as for individual permits.

XII. Regulatory Assessments

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] we 
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined 
that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because 
it raises novel legal or policy issues. As such, we submitted this 
action to OMB for review before publishing it in the Federal Register. 
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are 
documented in the public record in support of this proposal.
1. Assessment of Potential Costs and Benefits
    For regulations that are projected to have significant economic 
impacts, Agencies are required to conduct a ``Regulatory Impact 
Assessment'' of potential costs and benefits of the regulation. 
Although OMB has not designated this proposed rule as economically 
significant, we have completed a preliminary economic analysis of the 
proposed rule, the results of which we summarize below and present for 
public review and comment.
    a. Description of entities to which this rule applies. This rule 
potentially applies to approximately 866 existing private sector 
facilities which non-thermally treat and/or store RCRA hazardous waste 
in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. The rule only applies 
to on-site treatment and storage of hazardous waste, not to off-site 
commercial treatment and storage facilities. Eligible facilities may 
voluntarily participate in the RCRA standardized permit program. We 
designed the proposed rule to reduce the information reporting 
requirements for eligible facilities, as well as to reduce EPA and 
state administrative review time for these permit activities. Eligible 
facilities are a mix of small, medium and large facilities.
    b. Description of potential benefits of this rule. The RCRA 
standardized permit proposal is an optional rule designed to streamline 
the regulatory burden to EPA/states as well as to private sector 
facilities covered by the rule, by reducing the amount of information 
collected, submitted and reviewed for RCRA permit actions (i.e., new 
RCRA permit applications, RCRA permit modifications, and RCRA permit 
renewals). Because the rule proposes to streamline existing RCRA 
regulation, rather than add new RCRA regulation, we expect 
implementation of the rule by the EPA and by states with EPA-authorized 
permitting programs to result in economic benefits in the form of 
national cost savings from reducing both government and private sector 
resources required for the RCRA permit process. The public is 
particularly encouraged to comment on desired permit streamlining 
benefits.
    Based on an economic analysis, we estimate that the potential 
average annual cost savings to eligible facilities resulting from 
implementation of this rule will range from approximately $100 to 
$5,800 per permit action (i.e., between two to 140 administrative 
burden hours reduction per permit action, which is equivalent to 4% to 
14% reduction in burden hours compared to the baseline (existing) RCRA 
permit program), depending on the type of individual permit they're 
converting from and the type of eligible treatment and storage 
equipment. We estimate that an average of 55% of annual permit actions 
will involve container systems, 43% will involve tank systems, and 2% 
containment buildings. Aggregated over an average annual 135 RCRA 
standardized permit actions (11% of which are expected to consist of 
conversion of existing permits, 61% of interim status and new facility 
permit applications, 18% modification permit applications, and 10% 
permit renewal applications upon expiration), produces an expected 
national cost savings benefit for RCRA permitting of between $0.36 to 
$0.53 million annually. This annual savings consists of 76% of benefits 
to the private sector eligible facilities, and 24% of benefits to EPA/
state permit authorities. Potential cost savings benefits are 
incremental to the average annual cost associated with the current RCRA 
permitting program.
    c. Description of potential costs of this rule. We believe that the 
costs to EPA and states of implementing the standardized permit option 
will be minimal, and therefore we did not estimate them in the economic 
analysis. Private sector costs associated with this rule have been 
included and netted-out in the incremental cost comparison of the 
preliminary economic analysis.
    d. Description of potential net benefits of the rule. Because 
implementation costs are relatively minimal or have otherwise been 
netted-out from the cost savings analysis as explained above, the $0.36 
to $0.56 million in average annual national cost savings benefits 
identified above, also represent the potential net benefits associated 
with implementation of this rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant adverse 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small

[[Page 52239]]

entities. The following discussion explains EPA's determination.
    The Agency has determined that today's proposed rule will not have 
a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, since the rule has direct effects only on state agencies. 
Otherwise, the proposal is expected to provide net annual benefits (in 
the form of administrative paperwork burden reduction cost savings) 
from the voluntary participation by eligible facilities in the private 
sector. Therefore, we did not prepare an RFA. Based on the foregoing 
discussion, I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant 
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of UMRA, we 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule which must have a written 
statement, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes an explanation with the final rule. Before we 
establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we 
must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Small governments are not authorized for the RCRA program 
and therefore will not be implementing these rules.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1935.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Section 270.275 requires that applicants for a standardized permit 
submit to the permitting agency information that will be used as the 
basis of the standardized permit application. This information 
includes:
     Part A permit information required by section 270.13;
     A summary of the pre-application public meeting and other 
materials required by section 124.31;
     Documentation of compliance with the location standards of 
sections 267.18 and 270.14(b)(11);
     Information that allows the Director to carry out his 
obligations under other Federal laws required in Sec. 270.3;
     Solid waste management unit information required by 
Sec. 270.14(d); and
     A signed certification of the facility's compliance with 
part 267, as specified at Sec. 270.280.
    EPA needs this information to comprehensively evaluate the 
potential risk posed by facilities seeking permits. This information 
aids EPA in meeting its goal of ascertaining and minimizing risks to 
human health and the environment from hazardous waste management 
facilities.
    In addition, facilities that store or treat hazardous waste under a 
standardized permit must keep at their facilities general types of 
information (Sec. 267.290), as well as unit-specific information for 
containers (Sec. 267.300), tanks (Sec. 267.305), equipment subject to 
part 264, subpart BB (Sec. 270.310), and tanks and containers subject 
to part 264, subpart CC (Sec. 270.315). EPA anticipates that the owner 
or operator will use this information to ensure that tanks, containers, 
and other equipment are in good condition and that operating 
requirements are being satisfied, and to prevent placing in proximity 
wastes that are incompatible with other wastes that are likely to 
ignite or explode. EPA needs this information to evaluate compliance of 
facilities with the permitting standards. These requirements contribute 
to EPA's goal of insuring that hazardous waste management facilities 
are operated in a manner fully protective of human health and the 
environment.
    Information collection requirements in the standardized permit 
proposal are authorized by sections 2002 and 3007 of RCRA, as amended. 
In particular, section 2002 gives the Administrator the authority to 
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out the functions 
of this subchapter. Section 3007 gives EPA the authority to compel 
anyone who generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes of or 
otherwise handles or has handled hazardous wastes to ``furnish 
information related to such wastes'' and make such information 
available to the government for ``the purposes of * * *enforcing the 
provisions of this chapter.'' EPA believes the information collection 
requirements in the proposal are consistent with the Agency's 
responsibility to protect human health and the environment.
    Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, which define 
EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain 
provisions for confidentiality. However, the Agency does not anticipate 
that businesses will assert a claim of confidentiality covering all or 
part of the information that would be requested pursuant to the 
proposed information collection requirements. If such a claim were 
asserted, EPA must and will treat the information in accordance with 
the regulations cited above. EPA also will assure that this information 
collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108. 
Further, no questions of a sensitive nature are included in the 
proposed information collection requirements.
    EPA estimates that a total of 175 (permitted, interim status, and 
new) captive TSDFs per year will apply for a

[[Page 52240]]

RCRA standardized permit in the initial few years after its 
implementation. EPA estimates that the annual respondent burden to be 
approximately 13,367 hours, at an annual cost of $1,307,512. Assuming 
each eligible TSDF responds once annually (i.e. process a RCRA permit 
action), the average burden per response would be 76 hours. (Note that 
this burden estimate does not net-out the baseline burden of the 
existing RCRA permit program, as was done in the economic analysis 
summarized a few sections above).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460; and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
and 60 days after October 12, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by November 13, 2001. The 
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health

    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) 
is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pubic Law No. 104-113, section 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, we 
are not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, ``Environmental 
Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda 
Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, we have 
initiated efforts to incorporate environmental justice into our 
policies and programs. We are committed to addressing environmental 
justice concerns and have assumed a leadership role in environmental 
justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents 
of the United States. Our goals are to ensure that no segment of the 
population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects as a result of our policies, programs, and activities, and that 
all people live in clean and sustainable communities. To address this 
goal, we considered the impacts of this rule on low-income populations 
and minority populations.
    We concluded that today's final rule will potentially advance 
environmental justice goals because the public involvement process set 
forth in today's rule improves the opportunity for all potentially 
affected segments of the population to participate in public hearings 
and/or to provide comment on health and environmental concerns that may 
arise pursuant to a proposed Agency action under this rule.

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
There is no impact to tribal governments as the result of the standard 
permit. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment

[[Page 52241]]

on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

I. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism 
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, 
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position 
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the 
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been 
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism 
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA 
must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official 
stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a 
meaningful and timely manner.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
Rather, it would provide more flexibility for States to implement 
already-existing requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
    Nevertheless, EPA worked closely with state governments in the 
development of this proposed rule. We distributed drafts of the 
proposed rule to California and Wisconsin for their review and comment. 
We also distributed copies of the proposed rule to the Association of 
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. These states 
and state organizations provided meaningful and timely input to the 
agency in the development of this proposal.

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
effects

XIII. List of References

1. The EPA Permit Improvement Team Final Draft of Concept Paper on 
Environmental Permitting and Task Force Recommendations. EPA, April 
1996.
2. The Nation's Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The 
RCRA Implementation Study. EPA/530-SW-90-069, Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, July 1990.
3. RCRA Part A Application. EPA/8700-23, October 1999.
4. RCRA Public Participation Manual. EPA/530-R-96-007, Office of Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, September 1996.
5. Summary of Standardized Permit Forum Meeting held in Arlington, 
Virginia. October 1997.
6. Closure Cost Estimates for Standard Permits, Background Document--
Option 5. EPA, December 1998.
7. Closure Cost Estimates for Standard Permits, Background Document--
Option 4. EPA, December 1998.
8. Economics Background Document: Estimate of Potential National Cost 
Savings for the Industrial Hazardous Waste ``Standardized'' RCRA Permit 
Proposal, EPA Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis 
Division, 03 May 2000, 73pp.
9. EPA Memorandum: Coordination between RCRA Corrective Action and 
Closure and CERCLA Site Activities, From: Steven A. Herman and Elliott 
P. Laws, To: RCRA/CERCLA National Policy Manages Region I-X, 24 
September 1996.
10. EPA Memorandum: Interim Approaches for Regional Relations with 
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs, From Elliot P. Laws and Steven A. 
Herman, To: Superfund National Policy Members, 14 November 1996.
11. Final Post Closure Rule, 63 FR 56710, October 22, 1998.
12. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on RCRA Corrective Action 
Program, 61 FR 19432, May 1, 1996.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 124

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, RCRA 
permits.

40 CFR Part 260

    Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 267

    Corrective action, Financial assurance, Hazardous waste, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Standardized permit requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Permit 
application and modification procedures, RCRA permits, Standardized 
permit requirements.

    Dated: September 20, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code 
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING

    1. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 
6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.; 
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and Clean Air Act, 42 
U.S.C. 1857 et seq.

    2. Section 124.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 124.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (b) This part 124 is organized into six subparts. Subpart A 
contains general procedural requirements applicable to all permit 
programs covered by these regulations. Subparts B through G supplement 
these general provisions

[[Page 52242]]

with requirements that apply to only one or more of the programs. 
Subpart A describes the steps EPA will follow in receiving permit 
applications, preparing draft permits, issuing public notice, inviting 
public comment and holding public hearings on draft permits. Subpart A 
also covers assembling an administrative record, responding to 
comments, issuing a final permit decision, and allowing for 
administrative appeal of the final permit decision. Subpart B contains 
public participation requirements applicable to all RCRA hazardous 
waste management facilities. Subpart C contains definitions and 
specific procedural requirements for PSD permits. Subpart D applies to 
NPDES permits until an evidentiary hearing begins, when subpart E 
procedures take over for EPA-issued NPDES permits and EPA-terminated 
RCRA permits. Subpart F, which is based on the ``initial licensing'' 
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), can be used 
instead of subparts A through E in appropriate cases. Subpart G 
contains specific procedural requirements for RCRA standardized 
permits, which, in some instances, change how the General Program 
Requirements of subpart A apply in the context of the RCRA standardized 
permit.
* * * * *
    3. Section 124.2 is amended by revising the definition of 
``permit'' in paragraph (a) and adding a definition for a standardized 
permit in alphabetical order as follows:


Sec. 124.2  Definitions.

    (a) * * *
    Permit means an authorization, license or equivalent control 
document issued by EPA or an ``approved State'' to implement the 
requirements of this part and parts 122, 123, 144, 145, 233, 270, and 
271 of this chapter. ``Permit'' includes RCRA ``permit by rule'' 
(Sec. 270.60), UIC area permit (Sec. 144.33), RCRA standardized permit 
(Sec. 270.67), NPDES or 404 ``general permit'' (Secs. 270.61, 144.34, 
and 233.38). Permit does not include RCRA interim status (Sec. 270.70), 
UIC authorization by rule (Sec. 144.21), or any permit which has not 
yet been the subject of final agency action, such as a ``draft permit'' 
or a ``proposed permit.''
* * * * *
    Standardized permit (RCRA) means a RCRA permit authorizing 
management of hazardous waste issued under subpart G of this part and 
40 part 270, subpart I. The standardized permit may have two parts: A 
uniform portion issued in all cases and a supplemental portion issued 
at the Director's discretion.
* * * * *
    4. Section 124.5(c) is amended by revising paragraph (c) heading 
and paragraph (c)(1) as follows:


Sec. 124.5  Modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination of 
permits.

* * * * *
    (c) (Applicable to State programs, see 40 CFR 123.25 (NPDES), 
145.11 (UIC), 233.26 (404), and 271.14 (RCRA)). (1) If the Director 
tentatively decides to modify or revoke and reissue a permit under 40 
CFR 122.62 (NPDES), 144.39 (UIC), 233.14 (404), or 270.41 (other than 
270.41(b)(3)) or 270.42(c) (RCRA), he or she shall prepare a draft 
permit under Sec. 124.6 incorporating the proposed changes. The 
Director may request additional information and, in the case of a 
modified permit, may require the submission of an updated application. 
In the case of revoked and reissued permits, other than under 40 CFR 
270.41(b)(3), the Director shall require the submission of a new 
application. In the case of revoked and reissued permits under 40 CFR 
270.41(b)(3), the Director and the permittee shall comply with the 
appropriate requirements in 40 CFR part 124, subpart G for RCRA 
standardized permits.
* * * * *
    5. Section 124.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) as follows:


Sec. 124.31  Pre-application public meeting and notice.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements of this section shall apply to 
all RCRA part B applications seeking initial permits for hazardous 
waste management units over which EPA has permit issuance authority. 
The requirements of this section shall also apply to RCRA part B 
applications seeking renewal of permits for such units, where the 
renewal application is proposing a significant change in facility 
operations. For the purposes of this section, a ``significant change'' 
is any change that would qualify as a class 3 permit modification under 
40 CFR 270.42. For the purposes of this section only, ``hazardous waste 
management units over which EPA has permit issuance authority'' refers 
to hazardous waste management units for which the State where the units 
are located has not been authorized to issue RCRA permits pursuant to 
40 CFR part 271. The requirements of this section shall also apply to 
hazardous waste management facilities for which facility owners or 
operators are seeking coverage under a RCRA standardized permit (see 40 
part 270, subpart I). The requirements of this section do not apply to 
permit modifications under 40 CFR 270.42 or to applications that are 
submitted for the sole purpose of conducting post-closure activities or 
post-closure activities and corrective action at a facility.
    (b) Prior to the submission of a part B RCRA permit application for 
a facility, or to the submission of a written notice of intent to be 
covered by a RCRA standardized permit (see 40 CFR part 270, subpart I), 
the applicant must hold at least one meeting with the public in order 
to solicit questions from the community and inform the community of 
proposed hazardous waste management activities. The applicant shall 
post a sign-in sheet or otherwise provide a voluntary opportunity for 
attendees to provide their names and addresses.
    (c) The applicant shall submit a summary of the meeting, along with 
the list of attendees and their addresses developed under paragraph (b) 
of this section, and copies of any written comments or materials 
submitted at the meeting, to the permitting agency as a part of the 
part B application, in accordance with 40 CFR 270.14(b), or with the 
written notice of intent to be covered by a RCRA standardized permit 
(see 40 CFR part 270, subpart I).
* * * * *
    6. Section 124.32 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:


Sec. 124.32  Public notice requirements at the application stage.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements of this section shall apply to 
all RCRA part B applications seeking initial permits for hazardous 
waste management units over which EPA has permit issuance authority. 
The requirements of this section shall also apply to RCRA part B 
applications seeking renewal of permits for such units under 40 CFR 
270.51. For the purposes of this section only, ``hazardous waste 
management units over which EPA has permit issuance authority'' refers 
to hazardous waste management units for which the State where the units 
are located has not been authorized to issue RCRA permits pursuant to 
40 CFR part 271. The requirements of this section do not apply to 
hazardous waste units for which facility owners or operators are 
seeking coverage under a RCRA standardized permit (see 40 CFR part 270, 
subpart I)). The requirements of this section do not apply to permit 
modifications under 40 CFR 270.42 or permit applications submitted for 
the sole purpose of conducting post-closure

[[Page 52243]]

activities or post-closure activities and corrective action at a 
facility.
* * * * *
    7. Subpart G is added to read as follows:

Subpart G--Procedures for RCRA Standardized Permit

Sec.

General Information About Standardized Permits

124.200  What is a RCRA standardized permit?
124.201  Who is eligible for a standardized permit?

Applying for a Standardized Permit

124.202  How do I as a facility owner or operator apply for a 
standardized permit?
124.203  How may I switch from my individual RCRA permit to a 
standardized permit?

Issuing a Standardized Permit

124.204  What must I do as the Director of the regulatory agency to 
prepare a draft standardized permit?
124.205   What must I do as the Director of the regulatory agency to 
prepare a final standardized permit?
124.206  In what situations may I require a facility owner or 
operator to apply for an individual permit?

Opportunities for Public Involvement in the Standardized Permit Process

124.207  What are the requirements for public notices?
124.208  What are the opportunities for public comments and hearings 
on draft permit decisions?
124.209  What are the requirements for responding to comments?
124.210  May I, as an interested party in the permit process, appeal 
a final standardized permit?

Maintaining a Standardized Permit

124.211  What types of changes may I make to my standardized permit?
124.212  What procedures must I follow to make routine changes?
124.213  What procedures must I follow to make significant changes?

Subpart G--Procedures for RCRA Standardized Permit

General Information About Standardized Permits


Sec. 124.200  What is a RCRA standardized permit?

    The standardized permit is a special form of RCRA permit, that may 
consist of two parts: A uniform portion that the Director issues in all 
cases, and a supplemental portion that the Director issues at his or 
her discretion. We formally define the term ``Standardized permit'' in 
Sec. 124.2.
    (a) What comprises the uniform portion? The uniform portion of a 
standardized permit consists of terms and conditions, relevant to the 
unit(s) you are operating at your facility, that EPA has promulgated in 
40 CFR part 267 (Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste 
Facilities Operating under a Standardized Permit). If you intend to 
operate under the standardized permit, you must comply with these 
nationally applicable terms and conditions.
    (b) What comprises the supplemental portion? The supplemental 
portion of a standardized permit consists of site-specific terms and 
conditions, beyond those of the uniform portion, that the Director may 
impose on your particular facility, as necessary to protect human 
health and the environment. If the Director issues you a supplemental 
portion, you must comply with the site-specific terms and conditions it 
imposes.
    (1) If the Director determines that it is necessary, he or she must 
include terms and conditions in your supplemental portion to institute 
corrective action under 40 CFR 267.101 (or State equivalent) or to 
otherwise protect human health and the environment.
    (2) Unless otherwise specified, these supplemental permit terms and 
conditions apply to your facility in addition to the terms and 
conditions of the uniform portion of the standardized permit and not in 
place of any of those terms and conditions.


Sec. 124.201  Who is eligible for a standardized permit?

    If you generate hazardous waste and then non-thermally treat or 
store the hazardous waste in tanks, containers, or containment 
buildings, you may be eligible for a standardized permit. We will 
inform you of your eligibility when we make a decision on your permit.

Applying for a Standardized Permit


Sec. 124.202  How do I as a facility owner or operator apply for a 
standardized permit?

    (a) You must follow the requirements in this subpart as well as 
those in Sec. 124.31, 40 CFR 270.10 and 40 CFR part 270, subpart I.
    (b) You must submit to the Director a written notice of your intent 
to operate under the standardized permit. You must also include the 
information and certifications required under 40 CFR part 270, subpart 
I.


Sec. 124.203  How may I switch from my individual RCRA permit to a 
standardized permit?

    You may request that your individual permit be revoked and reissued 
as a standardized permit, in accordance with Sec. 124.5.

Issuing a Standardized Permit


Sec. 124.204  What must I do as the Director of the regulatory agency 
to prepare a draft standardized permit?

    (a) You must review the notice of intent and supporting information 
submitted by the facility owner or operator.
    (b) You must determine whether the facility is or is not eligible 
to operate under the standardized permit.
    (1) If the facility is eligible for the standardized permit, you 
must propose terms and conditions, if any, to include in a supplemental 
portion. If you determine that these terms and conditions are necessary 
to protect human health and the environment but for some reason cannot 
be imposed, you must tentatively deny coverage under the standardized 
permit.
    (2) If the facility is not eligible for the standardized permit, 
you must tentatively deny coverage under the standardized permit.
    (c) You must prepare your draft permit decision within 120 days 
after receiving a notice of intent and supporting documents from a 
facility owner or operator. Your tentative determination under this 
section to deny or grant coverage under the standardized permit, 
including any proposed site-specific conditions in a supplemental 
portion, constitutes a draft permit decision.
    (d) Many requirements in subpart A of this part apply to processing 
the standardized permit application and preparing your draft permit 
decision. For example, your draft permit decision must be accompanied 
by a statement of basis or fact sheet and must be based on the 
administrative record. In preparing your draft permit decision, the 
following provisions of subpart A of this part apply (subject to the 
following modifications):
    (1) Section 124.1 Purpose and Scope. All paragraphs.
    (2) Section 124.2 Definitions. All paragraphs.
    (3) Section 124.3 Application for a permit. All paragraphs except 
paragraphs (c), (d), (f) and (g) of this section apply.
    (4) Section 124.4 Consolidation of permit processing. All 
paragraphs apply, however, in the context of the RCRA standardized 
permit use the reference to Sec. 124.208 instead of the reference to 
Sec. 124.10.
    (5) Section 124.6 Draft permits. This section does not apply to the 
RCRA standardized permit; procedures in this subpart apply instead.
    (6) Section 124.7 Statement of basis. The entire section applies.

[[Page 52244]]

    (7) Section 124.8 Fact sheet. All paragraphs apply, however, in the 
context of the RCRA standardized permit use the reference to 
Sec. 124.208 instead of the reference to Sec. 124.10.
    (8) Section 124.9 Administrative record for draft permits when EPA 
is the permitting authority. All paragraphs apply, however, in the 
context of the RCRA standardized permit use the reference to 
Sec. 124.204(c) instead of Sec. 124.6.
    (9) Section 124.10 Public notice of permit actions and public 
comment period. Only Secs. 124.10(c)(1)(ix) and (c)(1)(x)(A) apply to 
the RCRA standardized permit. Most of Sec. 124.10 does not apply to the 
RCRA standardized permit; Secs. 124.207, 124.208, and 124.209 apply 
instead.


Sec. 124.205  What must I do as the Director of the regulatory agency 
to prepare a final standardized permit?

    As Director of the regulatory agency you must consider all comments 
received during the public comment period (see Sec. 124.208) in making 
your final permit decision. In addition, many requirements in subpart A 
apply of this part to the public comment period, public hearings, and 
preparation of your final permit decision. In preparing a final permit 
decision, the following provisions of subpart A of this part apply 
(subject to the following modifications):
    (a) Section 124.1 Purpose and Scope. All paragraphs.
    (b) Section 124.2 Definitions. All paragraphs.
    (c) Section 124.11 Public comments and requests for public 
hearings. This section does not apply to the RCRA standardized permit; 
the procedures in Sec. 124.208 apply instead.
    (d) Section 124.12 Public hearings. Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 
apply.
    (e) Section 124.13 Obligation to raise issues and provide 
information during the public comment period. The entire section 
applies, however, in the context of the RCRA standardized permit use 
references to Sec. 124.208 instead of references to Sec. 124.10.
    (f) Section124.14 Reopening of the public comment period. All 
paragraphs apply, however, in the context of the RCRA standardized 
permit, use the following references: in Sec. 124.14(b)(1) use 
reference to Sec. 124.204 instead of Sec. 124.6; in Sec. 124.14(b)(3) 
use reference to Sec. 124.208 instead of Sec. 124.10; in Sec. 124.14(c) 
use references to Sec. 124.207 instead of Sec. 124.10.
    (g) Section 124.15 Issuance and effective date of permit. All 
paragraphs apply, however, in the context of the RCRA standardized 
permit use the reference to Sec. 124.208 instead of Sec. 124.10.
    (h) Section 124.16 Stays of contested permit conditions. All 
paragraphs apply.
    (i) Section 124.17 Response to comments. This section does not 
apply to the RCRA standardized permit; procedures in Sec. 124.209 apply 
instead.
    (j) Section 124.18 Administrative record for final permit when EPA 
is the permitting authority. All paragraphs apply, however, use 
references to Sec. 124.209 instead of Sec. 124.17.
    (k) Section 124.19 Appeal of RCRA, UIC, and PSD permits. All 
paragraphs apply.
    (l) Section 124.20 Computation of time. All paragraphs apply.


Sec. 124.206  In what situations may I require a facility owner or 
operator to apply for an individual permit?

    (a) If you determine that a facility is not eligible for the 
standardized permit, you must inform the facility owner or operator 
that they must apply for an individual permit.
    (b) You may require any facility that has a standardized permit to 
apply for and obtain an individual RCRA permit. Any interested person 
may petition you to take action under this paragraph. Cases where you 
may require an individual RCRA permit include, but are not limited to, 
the following:
    (1) The facility is not in compliance with the terms and conditions 
of the standardized RCRA permit.
    (2) Circumstances have changed since the time the facility owner or 
operator applied for the standardized permit, so that the facility's 
hazardous waste management practices are no longer appropriately 
controlled under the standardized permit.
    (c) You may require any facility authorized by a standardized 
permit to apply for an individual RCRA permit only if you have notified 
the facility owner or operator in writing that an individual permit 
application is required. You must include in this notice a brief 
statement of the reasons for your decision, a statement setting a 
deadline for the owner or operator to file the application, and a 
statement that on the effective date of the individual RCRA permit the 
standardized permit as it applies to their facility automatically 
terminates. You may grant additional time upon request from the 
facility owner or operator.
    (d) When you issue an individual RCRA permit to an owner or 
operator otherwise subject to a standardized RCRA permit, the 
standardized permit for their facility will automatically cease to 
apply on the effective date of the individual permit.

Opportunities for Public Involvement in the Standardized Permit 
Process


Sec. 124.207  What are the requirements for public notices?

    (a) You, as the Director, must provide public notice of your draft 
permit decision and must provide an opportunity for the public to 
submit comments and request a hearing on that decision. You must 
provide the public notice to:
    (1) The applicant;
    (2) Any other agency which you know has issued or is required to 
issue a RCRA permit for the same facility or activity (including EPA 
when the draft permit is prepared by the State);
    (3) Federal and State agencies with jurisdiction over fish, 
shellfish, and wildlife resources and over coastal zone management 
plans, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic 
Preservation Officers, including any affected States;
    (4) To everyone on the facility mailing list developed according to 
the requirements in Sec. 124.10(c)(1)(ix); and
    (5) To any units of local government having jurisdiction over the 
area where the facility is proposed to be located and to each State 
agency having any authority under State law with respect to the 
construction or operation of the facility.
    (b) You must issue the public notice according to the following 
methods:
    (1) Publication in a daily or weekly major local newspaper of 
general circulation and broadcast over local radio stations;
    (2) When the program is being administered by an approved State, in 
a manner constituting legal notice to the public under State law; and
    (3) Any other method reasonably calculated to give actual notice of 
the draft permit decision to the persons potentially affected by it, 
including press releases or any other forum or medium to elicit public 
participation.
    (c) You must include the following information in the public 
notice:
    (1) The name and telephone number of the contact person at the 
facility.
    (2) The name and telephone number of your contact office, and a 
mailing address to which people may direct comments, information, 
opinions, or inquiries.
    (3) An address to which people may write to be put on the facility 
mailing list.
    (4) The location where people may view and make copies of the draft 
standardized permit and the notice of intent and supporting documents.
    (5) A brief description of the facility and proposed operations, 
including the

[[Page 52245]]

address or a map (for example, a sketched or copied street map) of the 
facility location on the front page of the notice.
    (6) The date that the facility owner or operator submitted the 
notice of intent and supporting documents.
    (d) At the same time that you issue the public notice under this 
section, you must place the draft standardized permit (including both 
the uniform portion and the supplemental portion, if any), the notice 
of intent and supporting documents, and the statement of basis or fact 
sheet in a location accessible to the public in the vicinity of the 
facility or at your office.


Sec. 124.208  What are the opportunities for public comments and 
hearings on draft permit decisions?

    (a) The public notice that you issue under Sec. 124.207 must allow 
at least 45 days for people to submit written comments on your draft 
permit decision. This time is referred to as the public comment period. 
You must automatically extend the public comment period to the close of 
any public hearing under this section. The hearing officer may also 
extend the comment period by so stating at the hearing.
    (b) During the public comment period, any interested person may 
submit written comments on the draft permit and may request a public 
hearing. If someone wants to request a public hearing, they must submit 
their request in writing to you. Their request must state the nature of 
the issues they propose to raise during the hearing.
    (c) You must hold a public hearing whenever you receive a written 
notice of opposition to a standardized permit and a request for a 
hearing within the public comment period under paragraph (a) of this 
section. You may also hold a public hearing at your discretion, 
whenever, for instance, such a hearing might clarify one or more issues 
involved in the permit decision.
    (d) Whenever possible, you must schedule a hearing under this 
section at a location convenient to the nearest population center to 
the facility. You must give public notice of the hearing at least 30 
days before the date set for the hearing. (You may give the public 
notice of the hearing at the same time you provide public notices of 
the draft permit, and you may combine the two notices).
    (e) You must give public notice of the hearing according to the 
methods in Sec. 124.207(a) and (b). The hearing must be conducted 
according to the procedures in Sec. 124.12(b), (c), and (d).
    (f) In their written comments and during the public hearing, if 
held, interested parties may provide comments on the draft permit 
decision. These comments may include, but are not limited to, the 
facility's eligibility for the standardized permit, the tentative 
supplemental conditions you proposed, and the need for additional 
supplemental conditions.


Sec. 124.209  What are the requirements for responding to comments?

    (a) At the time you issue a final standardized permit, you must 
also respond to comments received during the public comment period on 
the draft permit. Your response must:
    (1) Specify which additional conditions (i.e., those in the 
supplemental portion), if any, you changed in the final permit, and the 
reasons for the change.
    (2) Briefly describe and respond to all significant comments on the 
facility's ability to meet the general requirements (i.e., those terms 
and conditions in the uniform portion) and on any additional conditions 
necessary to protect human health and the environment raised during the 
public comment period or during the hearing.
    (3) Be available to the public.
    (b) You may request additional information from the facility owner 
or operator or inspect the facility if you need additional information 
to adequately respond to significant comments or to make decisions 
about conditions you may need to add to the supplemental portion of the 
standardized permit.
    (c) If you are the Director of an EPA permitting agency, you must 
include in the administrative record for your final permit decision any 
documents cited in the response to comments. If new points are raised 
or new material supplied during the public comment period, you may 
document your response to those matters by adding new materials to the 
administrative record.


Sec. 124.210  May I, as an interested party in the permit process, 
appeal a final standardized permit?

    You may petition for administrative review of the Director's final 
permit decision, including his or her decision that the facility is 
eligible for the standardized permit, according to the procedures of 
Sec. 124.19. However, the terms and conditions of the uniform portion 
of the standardized permit are not subject to administrative review 
under this provision.

Maintaining a Standardized Permit


Sec. 124.211  What types of changes may I make to my standardized 
permit?

    You may make both routine and significant changes. For the purposes 
of this section:
    (a) ``Routine changes'' are any changes that qualify as a class 1 
or 2 permit modification under 40 CFR 270.42, Appendix I, and
    (b) ``Significant changes'' are any changes that
    (1) Qualify as a class 3 permit modification under 40 CFR 270.42, 
Appendix I,
    (2) Are not explicitly identified in 40 CFR 270.42, Appendix I, or
    (3) Amend any terms or conditions in the supplemental portion of 
your standardized permit.


Sec. 124.212  What procedures must I follow to make routine changes?

    (a) You can make routine changes without obtaining approval from 
the Director.
    (b) If the routine changes you make amend the information you 
submitted under 40 CFR 270.275 with your notice of intent to operate 
under the standardized permit, then before you make the routine changes 
you must:
    (1) Submit to the Director the revised information pursuant to 40 
CFR 270.275(a), and
    (2) Provide notice of the changes to the facility mailing list and 
to state and local governments in accordance with the procedures in 
Sec. 124.10(c)(1)(ix) and (x).


Sec. 124.213  What procedures must I follow to make significant 
changes?

    (a) You must first provide notice of and conduct a public meeting.
    (1) Public Meeting. You must hold a meeting with the public to 
solicit questions from the community and inform the community of your 
proposed modifications to your hazardous waste management activities. 
You must post a sign-in sheet or otherwise provide a voluntary 
opportunity for people attending the meeting to provide their names and 
addresses.
    (2) Public Notice. At least 30 days before you plan to hold the 
meeting you must issue a public notice in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 124.31(d).
    (b) After holding the public meeting, you must submit a 
modification request to the Director that:
    (1) Describes the exact change(s) you want and whether they are 
changes to information you provide under 40 CFR 270.275 or to terms and 
conditions in the supplemental portion of your standardized permit;

[[Page 52246]]

    (2) Explains why the modification is needed, and
    (3) Includes a summary of the public meeting under paragraph (a) of 
this section, along with the list of attendees and their addresses and 
copies of any written comments or materials they submitted at the 
meeting.
    (c) Once the Director receives your modification request, he or she 
must make a tentative determination within 120 days to approve or 
disapprove your request.
    (d) After the Director makes this tentative determination, the 
procedures in Sec. 124.205 and Secs. 124.207 through 124.210 for 
processing an initial request for coverage under the standardized 
permit apply to making the final determination on the modification 
request.

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

    8. The authority citation for Part 260 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 
6937, and 6974.

    9. In Sec. 260.10, the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the 
definition of ``facility'' is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 260.10  Definitions

* * * * *
    Facility * * *
    (2) For the purpose of implementing corrective action under 40 CFR 
264.101 or 267.101, all contiguous property under the control of the 
owner or operator seeking a permit under subtitle C of RCRA. * * *
* * * * *
    10. Part 267 is added to read as follows:

PART 267--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
FACILITIES OPERATING UNDER A STANDARDIZED PERMIT

Subpart A--General
Sec.
267.1  What are the purpose, scope and applicability of this part?
267.2  What is the relationship to interim status standards?
267.3  How does this part affect an imminent hazard action?
Subpart B--General Facility Standards
267.10  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.11  What must I do to comply with this subpart?
267.12  How do I obtain an identification number?
267.13  What are my waste analysis requirements?
267.14  What are my security requirements?
267.15  What are my general inspection requirements?
267.16  What training must my employees have?
267.17  What are the requirements for managing ignitable, reactive, 
or incompatible wastes?
267.18  What are the standards for selecting the location of my 
facility?
Subpart C--Preparedness and Prevention
267.30  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.31  What are the general design and operation standards?
267.32  What equipment am I required to have?
267.33  What are the testing and maintenance requirements for the 
equipment?
267.34  When must personnel have access to communication equipment 
or an alarm system?
267.35  How do I ensure access for personnel and equipment during 
emergencies?
267.36  What arrangements must I make with local authorities for 
emergencies?
Subpart D--Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
267.50  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.51  What is the purpose of the contingency plan and how do I use 
it?
267.52  What must be in the contingency plan?
267.53  Who must have copies of the contingency plan?
267.54  When must I amend the contingency plan?
267.55  What is the role of the emergency coordinator?
267.56  What are the required emergency procedures for the emergency 
coordinator?
267.57  What must the emergency coordinator do after an emergency?
267.58  What notification and recordkeeping must I do after an 
emergency?
Subpart E--Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Notifying
267.70  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.71  What information must I keep?
267.72  Who sees the records and how long do I keep them?
267.73  What reports must I prepare and to whom who do I send them?
267.74  What notifications must I make?
Subpart F--Releases from Solid Waste Management Units
267.90  Who must comply with this section?
267.91-267.100  [Reserved]
267.101  What must I do to address corrective action for solid waste 
management units?
Subpart G--Closure
267.110  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.111  What general standards must I meet when I stop operating 
the unit?
267.112  What procedures must I follow?
267.113  Will the public have the opportunity to comment on the 
plan?
267.114  What happens if the plan is not approved?
267.115  After I stop operating, how long until I must close?
267.116  What must I do with contaminated equipment, structure, and 
soils?
267.117  How do I certify closure?
Subpart H--Financial Requirements
267.140  Who must comply with this subpart, and briefly, what do 
they have to do?
267.141  Definitions of terms as used in this subpart.
267.142  Cost estimate for closure.
267.143  Financial assurance for closure.
267.144-267.146  [Reserved]
267.147  Liability requirements.
267.148  Incapacity of owners or operators, guarantors, or financial 
institutions.
267.149  [Reserved]
267.150  State assumption of responsibility.
Subpart I--Use and Management of Containers
267.170  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.171  What standards apply to the containers?
267.172  What are the inspection requirements?
267.173  What standards apply to the container storage areas?
267.174  What special requirements must I meet for ignitable or 
reactive waste?
267.175  What special requirements must I meet for incompatible 
wastes?
267.176  What must I do when I want to stop using the containers?
267.177  What air emission standards apply?
Subpart J--Tank Systems
267.190  Does this subpart apply to me?
267.191  What are the required design and construction standards for 
new tank systems or components?
267.192  What handling and inspection procedures must I follow 
during installation of new tank systems?
267.193  What testing must I do?
267.194  What installation requirements must I follow?
267.195   What are the secondary containment requirements?
267.196   What are the required devices for secondary containment 
and what are their design, operating and installation requirements?
267.197   What are the requirements for ancillary equipment?
267.198   What are the general operating requirements for my tank 
systems?
267.199   What inspection requirements must I meet?
267.200   What must I do in case of a leak or a spill?
267.201   What must I do when I stop operating the tank system?
267.202   What special requirements must I meet for ignitable or 
reactive wastes?
267.203   What special requirements must I meet for incompatible 
wastes?
267.204   What air emission standards apply?
Subparts K Through CC  [Reserved]
Subpart DD--Containment buildings
267.1100   Does this subpart apply to me?
267.1101   What design and operating standards must my containment 
building meet?

[[Page 52247]]

267.1102   What other requirements must I meet to prevent releases?
267.1103   What additional design and operating standards apply if 
liquids will be in my containment building?
267.1104   How may I obtain a waiver from secondary containment 
requirements?
267.1105   What do I do if my containment building contains areas 
both with and without secondary containment?
267.1106   What do I do if I detect a release?
267.1107   Can a containment building itself be considered secondary 
containment?
267.1108   What must I do when I stop operating the containment 
building?

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6902, 6912(a), 6924-6926, and 6930.

Subpart A--General


Sec. 267.1  What are the purpose, scope and applicability of this part?

    (a) The purpose of this part is to establish minimum national 
standards which define the acceptable management of hazardous waste 
under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I standardized permit.
    (b) This part applies to owners and operators of facilities who 
treat or store hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided otherwise in 40 CFR part 261, 
subpart A, or 40 CFR 264.1(f) and (g).


Sec. 267.2  What is the relationship to interim status standards?

    If you are a facility owner or operator who has fully complied with 
the requirements for interim status--as defined in section 3005(e) of 
RCRA and regulations under 40 CFR 270.70--you must comply with the 
regulations specified in 40 CFR part 265 instead of the regulations in 
this part, until final administrative disposition of the standardized 
permit application is made, except as provided under 40 CFR part 264, 
subpart S.


Sec. 267.3  How does this part affect an imminent hazard action?

    Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, enforcement 
actions may be brought pursuant to section 7003 of RCRA.

Subpart B--General Facility Standards


Sec. 267.10  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b).


Sec. 267.11  What must I do to comply with this subpart?

    To comply with this subpart, you must obtain an identification 
number, and follow the requirements below for waste analysis, security, 
inspections, training, special waste handling, and location standards.


Sec. 267.12  How do I obtain an identification number?

    You must apply to EPA for an EPA identification number following 
the EPA notification procedures and using EPA form 8700-12. You may 
obtain information and required forms from your state hazardous waste 
regulatory agency or from your EPA regional office.


Sec. 267.13  What are my waste analysis requirements?

    (a) Before you treat or store any hazardous wastes, you must obtain 
a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of 
the wastes. At a minimum, the analysis must contain all the information 
needed to treat or store the waste to comply with this part and 40 CFR 
part 268.
    (1) You may include data in the analysis that was developed under 
40 CFR part 261, and published or documented data on the hazardous 
waste or on hazardous waste generated from similar processes.
    (2) You must repeat the analysis as necessary to ensure that it is 
accurate and up to date. At a minimum, you must repeat the analysis if 
the process or operation generating the hazardous wastes has changed.
    (b) You must develop and follow a written waste analysis plan that 
describes the procedures you will follow to comply with paragraph (a) 
of this section. You must keep this plan at the facility. At a minimum, 
the plan must specify all of the following:
    (1) The hazardous waste parameters that you will analyze and the 
rationale for selecting these parameters (that is, how analysis for 
these parameters will provide sufficient information on the waste's 
properties to comply with paragraph (a) of this section).
    (2) The test methods you will use to test for these parameters.
    (3) The sampling method you will use to obtain a representative 
sample of the waste to be analyzed. You may obtain a representative 
sample using either:
    (i) One of the sampling methods described in appendix I of 40 CFR 
part 261; or
    (ii) An equivalent sampling method.
    (4) How frequently you will review or repeat the initial analysis 
of the waste to ensure that the analysis is accurate and up to date.
    (5) Where applicable, the methods you will use to meet the 
additional waste analysis requirements for specific waste management 
methods as specified in 40 CFR 264.17, 264.1034(d), 264.1063(d), and 
264.1083.


Sec. 267.14  What are my security requirements?

    (a) You must prevent, and minimize the possibility for, livestock 
and unauthorized people from entering the active portion of your 
facility, unless you are exempt from the requirements because:
    (1) Physical contact with the waste, structures, or equipment 
within the active portion of the facility will not injure people or 
livestock; and
    (2) Disturbing the waste or equipment will not cause a violation of 
the requirements of this part.
    (b) You must keep records at the facility justifying the reasons 
for your waiver under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (c) Unless you are exempt under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section, your facility must have:
    (1) A 24-hour surveillance system (for example, television 
monitoring or surveillance by guards or facility personnel) that 
continuously monitors and controls entry onto the active portion of the 
facility; or
    (2) An artificial or natural barrier (for example, a fence in good 
repair or a fence combined with a cliff) that completely surrounds the 
active portion of the facility; and
    (3) A means to control entry, at all times, through the gates or 
other entrances to the active portion of the facility (for example, an 
attendant, television monitors, locked entrance, or controlled roadway 
access to the facility).
    (d) Unless you are exempt under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section, you must post a sign at each entrance to the active portion of 
a facility, and at other prominent locations, in sufficient numbers to 
be seen from any approach to this active portion. The sign must bear 
the legend ``Danger--Unauthorized Personnel Keep Out.'' The legend must 
be in English and in any other language predominant in the area 
surrounding the facility (for example, facilities in counties bordering 
the Canadian province of Quebec must post signs in French, and 
facilities in counties bordering Mexico must post signs in Spanish), 
and must be legible from a distance of at least 25 feet. You may use 
existing signs with a legend other than ``Danger--Unauthorized 
Personnel Keep Out'' 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.

[[Page 52248]]

Sec. 267.15  What are my general inspection requirements?

    (a) You must inspect your facility for malfunctions and 
deterioration, operator errors, and discharges that may be causing, or 
may lead to:
    (1) Release of hazardous waste constituents to the environment; or
    (2) A threat to human health. You must conduct these inspections 
often enough to identify problems in time to correct them before they 
result in harm to human health or the environment.
    (b) You 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.
    (1) You must keep this schedule at the facility.
    (2) The schedule must identify the equipment and devices you will 
inspect and what problems you look for, such as malfunctions or 
deterioration of equipment (for example, inoperative sump pump, leaking 
fitting, etc.).
    (3) The frequency of your inspections may vary for the items on the 
schedule. However, the frequency should be based on the rate of 
deterioration of the equipment and the probability of an environmental 
or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or any 
operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject to 
spills, such as loading and unloading areas, must be inspected daily 
when in use. At a minimum, the inspection schedule must include the 
items and frequencies required in Secs. 267.174, 267.193, 267.195, 
267.1103, and 40 CFR 264.1033, 264.1052, 264.1053, 264.1058, and 
264.1083 through 264.1089, where applicable.
    (c) You must remedy any deterioration or malfunction of equipment 
or structures that the inspection reveals in time to prevent any 
environmental or human health hazard. Where a hazard is imminent or has 
already occurred, you must take remedial action immediately.
    (d) You must record all inspections. You must keep these records 
for at least three years from the date of inspection. At a minimum, you 
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.


Sec. 267.16  What training must my employees have?

    (a) Your facility personnel must successfully complete a program of 
classroom instruction or on-the-job training that teaches them to 
perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance 
with the requirements of this part. You must ensure that this program 
includes all the elements described in the documents that are required 
under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (1) A person trained in hazardous waste management procedures must 
direct this program, and must teach facility personnel hazardous waste 
management procedures (including contingency plan implementation) 
relevant to their employment positions.
    (2) At a minimum, the training program must be designed to ensure 
that facility personnel are able to respond effectively to emergencies 
by including instruction on emergency procedures, emergency equipment, 
and emergency systems, including all of the following, where 
applicable:
    (i) Procedures for using, inspecting, repairing, and replacing 
facility emergency and monitoring equipment.
    (ii) Key parameters for automatic waste feed cut-off systems.
    (iii) Communications or alarm systems.
    (iv) Response to fires or explosions.
    (v) Response to ground water contamination incidents.
    (vi) Shutdown of operations.
    (b) Facility personnel must successfully complete the program 
required in paragraph (a) of this section within six months after the 
date of their employment or assignment to a facility, or to a new 
position at a facility, whichever is later. Employees hired after the 
effective date of your standardized permit must not work in 
unsupervised positions until they have completed the training 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Facility personnel must take part in an annual review of the 
initial training required in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) You must maintain the following documents and records at your 
facility:
    (1) The job title for each position at the facility related to 
hazardous waste management, and the name of the employee filling each 
job;
    (2) A written job description for each position listed under 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. This description must include the 
requisite skill, education, or other qualifications, and duties of 
employees assigned to each position;
    (3) A written description of the type and amount of both 
introductory and continuing training that will be given to each person 
filling a position listed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
    (4) Records that document that facility personnel have received and 
completed the training or job experience required under paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (c) of this section.
    (e) You must keep training records on current personnel until your 
facility closes. You must keep training records on former employees for 
at least three years from the date the employee last worked at your 
facility. Personnel training records may accompany personnel 
transferred within your company.


Sec. 267.17  What are the requirements for managing ignitable, 
reactive, or incompatible wastes?

    (a) You must take precautions to prevent accidental ignition or 
reaction of ignitable or reactive waste by following these 
requirements:
    (1) You must separate these wastes and protect them from sources of 
ignition or reaction such as: open flames, smoking, cutting and 
welding, hot surfaces, frictional heat, sparks (static, electrical, or 
mechanical), spontaneous ignition (for example, from heat-producing 
chemical reactions), and radiant heat.
    (2) While ignitable or reactive waste is being handled, you must 
confine smoking and open flames to specially designated locations.
    (3) ``No Smoking'' signs must be conspicuously placed wherever 
there is a hazard from ignitable or reactive waste.
    (b) If you treat or store ignitable or reactive waste, or mix 
incompatible waste or incompatible wastes and other materials, you must 
take precautions to prevent reactions that:
    (1) Generate extreme heat or pressure, fire or explosions, or 
violent reactions.
    (2) Produce uncontrolled toxic mists, fumes, dusts, or gases in 
sufficient quantities to threaten human health or the environment.
    (3) Produce uncontrolled flammable fumes or gases in sufficient 
quantities to pose a risk of fire or explosions.
    (4) Damage the structural integrity of the device or facility.
    (5) Threaten human health or the environment in any similar way.
    (c) You must document compliance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this 
section. You may base this documentation on references to published 
scientific or engineering literature, data from trial tests (for 
example bench scale or pilot scale tests), waste analyses (as specified 
in Sec. 267.13), or the results of the treatment of similar wastes by 
similar

[[Page 52249]]

treatment processes and under similar operating conditions.


Sec. 267.18  What are the standards for selecting the location of my 
facility?

    (a) You may not locate portions of new facilities where hazardous 
waste will be treated or stored within 61 meters (200 feet) of a fault 
that has had displacement in Holocene time.
    (1) ``Fault'' means a fracture along which rocks on one side have 
been displaced with respect to those on the other side.
    (2) ``Displacement'' means the relative movement of any two sides 
of a fault measured in any direction.
    (3) ``Holocene'' means the most recent epoch of the Quaternary 
period, extending from the end of the Pleistocene to the present.

    Note to paragraph (a)(3):  Procedures for demonstrating 
compliance with this standard are specified in 40 CFR 270.14(b)(11). 
Facilities which are located in political jurisdictions other than 
those listed in appendix VI of 40 CFR part 264, are assumed to be in 
compliance with this requirement.

    (b) If your facility is located in a 100-year flood plain, it must 
be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent washout 
or any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood, unless you can demonstrate 
to the Director's satisfaction that you will safely remove the waste, 
before flood waters can reach the facility, to a location where the 
wastes will not be vulnerable to flood waters.
    (1) ``100-year flood plain'' means any land area that is subject to 
a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year from any 
source.
    (2) ``Washout'' means the movement of hazardous waste from the 
active portion of the facility as a result of flooding.
    (3) ``100-year flood'' means a flood that has a one percent chance 
of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

Subpart C--Preparedness and Prevention


Sec. 267.30  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b).


Sec. 267.31  What are the general design and operation standards?

    You must design, construct, maintain, and operate your facility to 
minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden 
or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste 
constituents to air, soil, or surface water that could threaten human 
health or the environment.


Sec. 267.32  What equipment am I required to have?

    Your facility must be equipped with all of the following, unless 
none of the hazards posed by waste handled at the facility could 
require a particular kind of equipment specified below:
    (a) An internal communications or alarm system capable of providing 
immediate emergency instruction (voice or signal) to facility 
personnel.
    (b) A device, such as a telephone (immediately available at the 
scene of operations) or a hand-held two-way radio, capable of summoning 
emergency assistance from local police departments, fire departments, 
or State or local emergency response teams.
    (c) Portable fire extinguishers, fire control equipment (including 
special extinguishing equipment, such as that using foam, inert gas, or 
dry chemicals), spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment.
    (d) Water at adequate volume and pressure to supply water hose 
streams, or foam-producing equipment, or automatic sprinklers, or water 
spray systems.


Sec. 267.33  What are the testing and maintenance requirements for the 
equipment?

    You must test and maintain all required facility communications or 
alarm systems, fire protection equipment, spill control equipment, and 
decontamination equipment, as necessary, to assure its proper operation 
in time of emergency.


Sec. 267.34  When must personnel have access to communication equipment 
or an alarm system?

    (a) Whenever hazardous waste is being poured, mixed, spread, or 
otherwise handled, all personnel involved in the operation must have 
immediate access to an internal alarm or emergency communication 
device, either directly or through visual or voice contact with another 
employee, unless the device is not required under Sec. 267.32.
    (b) If just one employee is on the premises while the facility is 
operating, that person must have immediate access to a device, such as 
a telephone (immediately available at the scene of operation) or a 
hand-held two-way radio, capable of summoning external emergency 
assistance, unless not required under Sec. 267.32.


Sec. 267.35  How do I ensure access for personnel and equipment during 
emergencies?

    You must maintain enough aisle space to allow the unobstructed 
movement of personnel, fire protection equipment, spill control 
equipment, and decontamination equipment to any area of facility 
operation in an emergency.


Sec. 267.36  What arrangements must I make with local authorities for 
emergencies?

    (a) You must attempt to make the following arrangements, as 
appropriate for the type of waste handled at your facility and the 
potential need for the services of these organizations:
    (1) Arrangements to familiarize police, fire departments, and 
emergency response teams with the layout of the facility, properties of 
hazardous waste handled at the facility and associated hazards, places 
where facility personnel would normally be working, entrances to and 
roads inside the facility, and possible evacuation routes.
    (2) Agreements designating primary emergency authority to a 
specific police and a specific fire department where more than one 
police and fire department might respond to an emergency, and 
agreements with any others to provide support to the primary emergency 
authority.
    (3) Agreements with State emergency response teams, emergency 
response contractors, and equipment suppliers.
    (4) Arrangements to familiarize local hospitals with the properties 
of hazardous waste handled at the facility and the types of injuries or 
illnesses that could result from fires, explosions, or releases at the 
facility.
    (b) If State or local authorities decline to enter into such 
arrangements, you must document the refusal in the operating record.

Subpart D--Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures


Sec. 267.50  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b).


Sec. 267.51  What is the purpose of the contingency plan and how do I 
use it?

    (a) You must have a contingency plan for your facility. You must 
design the plan to minimize hazards to human health or the environment 
from fires, explosions, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release 
of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or 
surface water.
    (b) You must implement the provisions of the plan immediately

[[Page 52250]]

whenever there is a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or 
hazardous waste constituents which could threaten human health or the 
environment.


Sec. 267.52  What must be in the contingency plan?

    (a) Your contingency plan must:
    (1) Describe the actions facility personnel will take to comply 
with Secs. 267.51 and 267.56 in response to fires, explosions, or any 
unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous 
waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water at the facility.
    (2) Describe all arrangements agreed upon under Sec. 267.36 by 
local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, contractors, and 
state and local emergency response teams to coordinate emergency 
services.
    (3) List names, addresses, and phone numbers (office and home) of 
all persons qualified to act as emergency coordinator (see 
Sec. 267.55), and you must keep the list up to date. Where more than 
one person is listed, one must be named as primary emergency 
coordinator and others must be listed in the order in which they will 
assume responsibility as alternates.
    (4) Include a current list of all emergency equipment at the 
facility (such as fire extinguishing systems, spill control equipment, 
communications and alarm systems (internal and external), and 
decontamination equipment), where this equipment is required. In 
addition, you must include the location and a physical description of 
each item on the list, and a brief outline of its capabilities.
    (5) Include an evacuation plan for facility personnel where there 
is a possibility that evacuation could be necessary. You must describe 
signal(s) to be used to begin evacuation, evacuation routes, and 
alternate evacuation routes (in cases where the primary routes could be 
blocked by releases of hazardous waste or fires).
    (b) If you have already prepared a Spill Prevention, Control, and 
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan under 40 CFR part 112, or some other 
emergency or contingency plan, you need only amend that plan to 
incorporate hazardous waste management provisions that will comply with 
the requirements of this part.


Sec. 267.53  Who must have copies of the contingency plan?

    (a) You must maintain a copy of the plan with all revisions at the 
facility; and
    (b) You must submit a copy with all revisions to all local police 
departments, fire departments, hospitals, and state and local emergency 
response teams that may be called upon to provide emergency services.


Sec. 267.54  When must I amend the contingency plan?

    You must review, and immediately amend the contingency plan, if 
necessary, whenever:
    (a) The facility permit is revised.
    (b) The plan fails in an emergency.
    (c) You change the facility (in its design, construction, 
operation, maintenance, or other circumstances) in a way that 
materially increases the potential for fires, explosions, or releases 
of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents, or changes the 
response necessary in an emergency.
    (d) You change the list of emergency coordinators.
    (e) You change the list of emergency equipment.


Sec. 267.55  What is the role of the emergency coordinator?

    At least one employee must be either on the facility premises or on 
call at all times (that is, available to respond to an emergency by 
reaching the facility within a short period of time) who has the 
responsibility for coordinating all emergency response measures. This 
emergency coordinator must be thoroughly familiar with all aspects of 
the facility's contingency plan, all operations and activities at the 
facility, the location and characteristics of waste handled, the 
location of all records within the facility, and the facility layout. 
In addition, this person must have the authority to commit the 
resources needed to carry out the contingency plan.


Sec. 267.56  What are the required emergency procedures for the 
emergency coordinator?

    (a) Whenever there is an imminent or actual emergency situation, 
the emergency coordinator (or his designee when the emergency 
coordinator is on call) must immediately:
    (1) Activate internal facility alarm or communication systems, 
where applicable, to notify all facility personnel, and
    (2) Notify appropriate State or local agencies with designated 
response roles if their help is needed.
    (b) Whenever there is a release, fire, or explosion, the emergency 
coordinator must:
    (1) Immediately identify the character, exact source, amount, and 
areal extent of any released materials. He may do this by observation 
or review of facility records or manifests, and, if necessary, by 
chemical analysis.
    (2) Assess possible hazards to human health or the environment that 
may result from the release, fire, or explosion. This assessment must 
consider both direct and indirect effects of the release, fire, or 
explosion. For example the assessment would consider the effects of any 
toxic, irritating, or asphyxiating gases that are generated, or the 
effects of any hazardous surface water run-off from water or chemical 
agents used to control fire and heat-induced explosions.
    (c) If the emergency coordinator determines that the facility has 
had a release, fire, or explosion which could threaten human health, or 
the environment, outside the facility, he must report his findings as 
follows:
    (1) If his assessment indicates that evacuation of local areas may 
be advisable, he must immediately notify appropriate local authorities. 
He must be available to help appropriate officials decide whether local 
areas should be evacuated; and
    (2) He must immediately notify either the government official 
designated as the on-scene coordinator for that geographical area, or 
the National Response Center (using their 24-hour toll-free number 800/
424-8802). The report must include:
    (i) Name and telephone number of the reporter.
    (ii) Name and address of facility.
    (iii) Time and type of incident (for example, a release or a fire).
    (iv) Name and quantity of material(s) involved, to the extent 
known.
    (v) The extent of injuries, if any.
    (vi) The possible hazards to human health or the environment 
outside the facility.
    (d) During an emergency, the emergency coordinator must take all 
reasonable measures necessary to ensure that fires, explosions, and 
releases do not occur, recur, or spread to other hazardous waste at the 
facility. These measures must include, where applicable, stopping 
processes and operations, collecting and containing release waste, and 
removing or isolating containers.
    (e) If the facility stops operations in response to a fire, 
explosion, or release, the emergency coordinator must monitor for 
leaks, pressure buildup, gas generation, or ruptures in valves, pipes, 
or other equipment, when appropriate.


Sec. 267.57  What must the emergency coordinator do after an emergency?

    (a) Immediately after an emergency, the emergency coordinator must 
provide for treating, storing, or disposing of recovered waste, 
contaminated soil or surface water, or any other material that

[[Page 52251]]

results from a release, fire, or explosion at the facility.
    (b) The emergency coordinator must ensure that, in the affected 
area(s) of the facility:
    (1) No waste that may be incompatible with the released material is 
treated, stored, or disposed of until cleanup procedures are completed.
    (2) All emergency equipment listed in the contingency plan is 
cleaned and fit for its intended use before operations are resumed.


Sec. 267.58  What notification and recordkeeping must I do after an 
emergency?

    (a) You must notify the Regional Administrator, and appropriate 
State and local authorities, that the facility is in compliance with 
Sec. 267.57 (b) before operations are resumed in the affected area(s) 
of the facility.
    (b) You must note the time, date, and details of any incident that 
requires implementing the contingency plan in the operating record. 
Within 15 days after the incident, you must submit a written report on 
the incident to the Regional Administrator. You must include the 
following in the report:
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator.
    (2) The name, address, and telephone number of the facility.
    (3) The date, time, and type of incident (e.g., fire, explosion).
    (4) The name and quantity of material(s) involved.
    (5) The extent of injuries, if any.
    (6) An assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health or 
the environment, where this is applicable.
    (7) The estimated quantity and disposition of recovered material 
that resulted from the incident.

Subpart E--Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Notifying


Sec. 267.70  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b). In addition, 
you must comply with the manifest requirements of 40 CFR part 262 
whenever a shipment of hazardous waste is initiated from your facility.


Sec. 267.71  What information must I keep?

    (a) You must keep a written operating record at your facility.
    (b) You must record the following information, as it becomes 
available, and maintain the operating record until you close the 
facility:
    (1) A description and the quantity of each type of hazardous waste 
generated, and the method(s) and date(s) of its storage and/or 
treatment at the facility as required by Appendix I of 40 CFR part 264;
    (2) The location of each hazardous waste within the facility and 
the quantity at each location;
    (3) Records and results of waste analyses and waste determinations 
you perform as specified in Secs. 267.13, 267.17, and 40 CFR 264.1034, 
264.1063, 264.1083, and 268.7;
    (4) Summary reports and details of all incidents that require you 
to implement the contingency plan as specified in Sec. 267.858(b));
    (5) Records and results of inspections as required by 
Sec. 267.15(d) (except you need to keep these data for only three 
years);
    (6) Monitoring, testing or analytical data, and corrective action 
when required by subpart F of this part and Secs. 267.191, 267.193, 
267.195, and 40 CFR 264.1034(c) through 264.1034(f), 264.1035, 
264.1063(d) through 264.1063(i), 264.1064, 264.1088, 264.1089, and 
264.1090;
    (7) All closure cost estimates under Sec. 267.142;
    (8) Your certification, at least annually, that you have a program 
in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous waste that you 
generate to the degree that you determine to be economically 
practicable; and that the proposed method of treatment or storage is 
that practicable method currently available to you that minimizes the 
present and future threat to human health and the environment;
    (9) For an on-site treatment facility, the information contained in 
the notice (except the manifest number), and the certification and 
demonstration if applicable, required by you under 40 CFR 268.7; and
    (10) For an on-site storage facility, the information in the notice 
(except the manifest number), and the certification and demonstration 
if applicable, required by you under 40 CFR 268.7.


Sec. 267.72  Who sees the records and how long do I keep them?

    (a) You must furnish all records, including plans, required under 
this part upon the request of any officer, employee, or representative 
of EPA who is duly designated by the Administrator, and make them 
available at all reasonable times for inspection.
    (b) The retention period for all records required under this part 
is extended automatically during the course of any unresolved 
enforcement action involving the facility or as requested by the 
Administrator.


Sec. 267.73  What reports must I prepare and to whom who do I send 
them?

    You must prepare a biennial report and other reports listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (a) Biennial report. You must prepare and submit a single copy of a 
biennial report to the Regional Administrator by March 1 of each even 
numbered year. The biennial report must be submitted on EPA form 8700-
13B. The report must cover facility activities during the previous 
calendar year and must include:
    (1) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the 
facility;
    (2) The calendar year covered by the report;
    (3) The method of treatment or storage for each hazardous waste;
    (4) The most recent closure cost estimate under Sec. 267.142; and,
    (5) A description of the efforts undertaken during the year to 
reduce the volume and toxicity of generated waste.
    (6) A description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste 
actually achieved during the year in comparison to previous years to 
the extent such information is available for the years prior to 1984.
    (7) The certification signed by you.
    (b) Additional reports. In addition to submitting the biennial 
reports, you must also report to the Regional Administrator:
    (1) Releases, fires, and explosions as specified in Sec. 267.58(b) 
;
    (2) Facility closures specified in Sec. 267.117; and,
    (3) As otherwise required by subparts I, J, and DD of this part and 
part 264, subparts AA, BB, CC.


Sec. 267.74  What notifications must I make?

    Before transferring ownership or operation of a facility during its 
operating life, you must notify the new owner or operator in writing of 
the requirements of this part and 40 CFR part 270, subpart I.

Subpart F--Releases from Solid Waste Management Units


Sec. 267.90  Who must comply with this section?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b), or unless 
your facility already has a permit that imposes requirements for 
corrective action under 40 CFR 264.101.

[[Page 52252]]

Secs. 267.91-267.100  [Reserved]


Sec. 267.101  What must I do to address corrective action for solid 
waste management units?

    (a) You must institute corrective action as necessary to protect 
human health and the environment for all releases of hazardous waste or 
constituents from any solid waste management unit at the facility, 
regardless of the time at which waste was placed in such unit.
    (b) The Regional Administrator will specify corrective action in 
the supplemental portion of your standardized permit in accordance with 
this section and 40 CFR part 264, subpart S. The Regional Administrator 
will include in the supplemental portion of your standardized permit 
schedules of compliance for corrective action (where corrective action 
cannot be completed prior to issuance of the permit) and assurances of 
financial responsibility for completing corrective action.
    (c) You must implement corrective action beyond the facility 
property boundary, where necessary to protect human health and the 
environment, unless you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional 
Administrator that, despite your best efforts, you were unable to 
obtain the necessary permission to undertake such actions. You are not 
relieved of all responsibility to clean up a release that has migrated 
beyond the facility boundary where off -site access is denied. On-site 
measures to address such releases will be determined on a case-by-case 
basis. You must provide assurances of financial responsibility for such 
corrective action.
    (d) You do not have to comply with this section if you are the 
owner or operator of a remediation waste site unless your site is part 
of a facility that is subject to a permit for treating, storing, or 
disposing of hazardous wastes that are not remediation wastes.

Subpart G--Closure


Sec. 267.110  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I 
standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b).


Sec. 267.111  What general standards must I meet when I stop operating 
the unit?

    You must close the storage and treatment units in a manner that:
    (a) Minimizes the need for further maintenance; and
    (b) Controls, minimizes, or eliminates, to the extent necessary to 
protect human health and the environment, post-closure escape of 
hazardous waste, hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated run-
off, or hazardous waste decomposition products to the ground or surface 
waters or to the atmosphere; and
    (c) Meets the closure requirements of this subpart and the 
requirements of Secs. 267.176, 267.201, and 267.1108.


Sec. 267.112  What procedures must I follow?

    To close a facility, you must have an approved closure plan and 
follow notification requirements.
    (a) Submit a written closure plan.
    (1) You must have a written closure plan. You must submit the plan 
at least 180 days prior to closure. The Director must approve the 
closure plan before closure work at the facility begins, and the plan 
will become a condition of any RCRA permit.
    (2) The Director's approval of the plan must ensure that the 
approved plan is consistent with Secs. 267.111 through 267.115, 
267.176, 267.201, and 267.1108.
    (b) Satisfy the requirements for content of closure plan. The 
closure plan must identify steps necessary to perform partial and/or 
final closure of the facility. The closure plan must include, at least:
    (1) A description of how each hazardous waste management unit at 
the facility subject to this subpart will be closed following 
Sec. 267.111.
    (2) A description of how final closure of the facility will be 
conducted in accordance with Sec. 267.111. The description must 
identify the maximum extent of the operations which will be unclosed 
during the active life of the facility.
    (3) An estimate of the maximum inventory of hazardous wastes ever 
on site during the active life of the facility and a detailed 
description of the methods you will use during partial and/or final 
closure, such as methods for removing, transporting, treating, storing, 
or disposing of all hazardous wastes, and identification of the type(s) 
of off-site hazardous waste management units to be used, if applicable.
    (4) A detailed description of the steps needed to remove or 
decontaminate all hazardous waste residues and contaminated containment 
system components, equipment, structures, and soils during partial or 
final closure. These might include procedures for cleaning equipment 
and removing contaminated soils, methods for sampling and testing 
surrounding soils, and criteria for determining the extent of 
decontamination required to satisfy the closure performance standard;
    (5) A detailed description of other activities necessary during the 
closure period to ensure that partial or final closure satisfies the 
closure performance standards.
    (6) A schedule for closure of each hazardous waste management unit, 
and for final closure of the facility. The schedule must include, at a 
minimum, the total time required to close each hazardous waste 
management unit and the time required for intervening closure 
activities that allow tracking of progress of partial or final closure.
    (c) You may submit a written request to the Director for a permit 
modification, following applicable procedures in 40 CFR 124.211 to 
amend the closure plan at any time before the notification of final 
closure of the facility. You must include a copy of the amended closure 
plan with the written request for review or approval by the Director. 
The Director will approve, disapprove, or modify this amended plan in 
accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 124.211 and 270.320.
    (d) Notification before final closure. (1) You must notify the 
Director in writing at least 45 days before the date that you expect to 
begin final closure of a treatment or storage tank, container storage, 
or containment building.
    (2) The date when you ``expect to begin closure'' must be no later 
than 30 days after the date that any hazardous waste management unit 
receives the known final volume of hazardous wastes.
    (3) If your facility's permit is terminated, or if you are 
otherwise ordered, by judicial decree or final order under Section 3008 
of RCRA, to cease receiving hazardous wastes or to close, then the 
requirements of this paragraph (d) do not apply. However, you must 
close the facility following the deadlines established in Sec. 267.115.


Sec. 267.113  Will the public have the opportunity to comment on the 
plan?

    (a) The Director will provide you and the public, through a 
newspaper notice, the opportunity to submit written comments on the 
plan and to request modifications to the plan no later than 30 days 
from the date of the notice. The Director will also, in response to a 
request or at his/her own discretion, hold a public hearing whenever 
such a hearing might clarify one or more issues concerning the closure 
plan.
    (b) The Director will give public notice of the hearing 30 days 
before it occurs. Public notice of the hearing may be given at the same 
time as notice of the opportunity for the public to submit written 
comments, and the two notices may be combined.

[[Page 52253]]

    (c) The Director will approve, modify, or disapprove the plan 
within 60 days of its receipt.


Sec. 267.114  What happens if the plan is not approved?

    (a) If the Director does not approve the plan, he must provide you 
with a detailed written statement of reasons for the refusal and you 
must then modify the plan or submit a new plan for approval within 30 
days after receiving this written statement. The Director will approve 
or modify this new plan in writing within 60 days.
    (b) If the Director modifies the plan, this modified plan becomes 
the approved closure plan. The Director must assure that the approved 
plan is consistent with Secs. 267.111 through 267.115, Secs. 267.176, 
267.201, and 267.1108. The Director must mail a copy of the modified 
plan with a detailed statement of reasons for the modifications to you.


Sec. 267.115  After I stop operating, how long until I must close?

    (a) Within 90 days after the final volume of hazardous waste is 
sent to a unit, you must treat or remove from the unit all hazardous 
wastes following the approved closure plan.
    (b) You must complete final closure activities following the 
approved closure plan within 180 days after the final volume of 
hazardous wastes is sent to the unit.
    (c) Nothing in this section precludes you from removing hazardous 
wastes and decontaminating or dismantling equipment in accordance with 
the approved final closure plan at any time before or after 
notification of final closure.


Sec. 267.116  What must I do with contaminated equipment, structure, 
and soils?

    You must properly dispose of or decontaminate all contaminated 
equipment, structures, and soils during the partial and final closure 
periods. By removing any hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents 
during partial and final closure, you may become a generator of 
hazardous waste and must handle that waste following all applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR part 262.


Sec. 267.117  How do I certify closure?

    Within 60 days of the completion of final closure of each unit 
under a part 270 subpart I standardized permit, you must submit to the 
Director, by registered mail, a certification that each hazardous waste 
management unit or facility, as applicable, has been closed following 
the specifications in the closure plan. Both you and an independent 
registered professional engineer must sign the certification. You must 
furnish documentation supporting the independent registered 
professional engineer's certification to the Director upon request 
until he releases you from the financial assurance requirements for 
closure under Sec. 267.143(i).

Subpart H--Financial Requirements


Sec. 267.140  Who must comply with this subpart, and briefly, what do 
they have to do?

    (a) The regulations in this subpart apply to owners and operators 
who treat or store hazardous waste under a standardized permit, except 
as provided in Sec. 267.1(b), or paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) The owner or operator must:
    (1) Prepare a closure cost estimate as required in Sec. 267.142,
    (2) Demonstrate financial assurance for closure as required in 
Sec. 267.143, and
    (3) Demonstrate financial assurance for liability as required in 
Sec. 267.147.
    (c) The owner or operator must notify the Regional Administrator if 
the owner or operator is named as a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding 
under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U. S. Code. (See also Sec. 267.148)
    (d) States and the Federal government are exempt from the 
requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 267.141  Definitions of terms as used in this subpart.

    (a) Closure plan means the plan for closure prepared in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec. 267.112.
    (b) Current closure cost estimate means the most recent of the 
estimates prepared in accordance with Sec. 267.142 (a), (b), and (c).
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Parent corporation means a corporation which directly owns at 
least 50 percent of the voting stock of the corporation which is the 
facility owner or operator; the latter corporation is deemed a 
``subsidiary'' of the parent corporation.
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) The following terms are used in the specifications for the 
financial tests for closure and liability coverage. The definitions are 
intended to assist in the understanding of these regulations and are 
not intended to limit the meanings of terms in a way that conflicts 
with generally accepted accounting practices:
    (1) Assets means all existing and all probable future economic 
benefits obtained or controlled by a particular entity.
    (2) Current plugging and abandonment cost estimate means the most 
recent of the estimates prepared in accordance with Sec. 144.62(a), 
(b), and (c) of this chapter.
    (3) Independently audited refers to an audit performed by an 
independent certified public accountant in accordance with generally 
accepted auditing standards.
    (4) Liabilities means probable future sacrifices of economic 
benefits arising from present obligations to transfer assets or provide 
services to other entities in the future as a result of past 
transactions or events.
    (5) Tangible net worth means the tangible assets that remain after 
deducting liabilities; such assets would not include intangibles such 
as goodwill and rights to patents or royalties.
    (g) In the liability insurance requirements the terms bodily injury 
and property damage shall have the meanings given these terms by 
applicable State law. However, these terms do not include those 
liabilities which, consistent with standard industry practices, are 
excluded from coverage in liability policies for bodily injury and 
property damage. The Agency intends the meanings of other terms used in 
the liability insurance requirements to be consistent with their common 
meanings within the insurance industry. The definitions given below of 
several of the terms are intended to assist in the understanding of 
this part and are not intended to limit their meanings in a way that 
conflicts with general insurance industry usage.
    (1) Accidental occurrence means an accident, including continuous 
or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or 
property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of 
the insured.
    (2) Legal defense costs means any expenses that an insurer incurs 
in defending against claims of third parties brought under the terms 
and conditions of an insurance policy.
    (3) Sudden accidental occurrence means an occurrence which is not 
continuous or repeated in nature.
    (h) Substantial business relationship means the extent of a 
business relationship necessary under applicable State law to make a 
guarantee contract issued incident to that relationship valid and 
enforceable. A ``substantial business relationship'' must arise from a 
pattern of recent or ongoing business transactions, in addition to the 
guarantee itself, such that a currently existing business relationship 
between the guarantor and the owner or operator is demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the applicable EPA Regional Administrator.

[[Page 52254]]

Sec. 267.142  Cost estimate for closure.

    (a) The owner or operator must have at the facility a detailed 
written estimate, in current dollars, of the cost of closing the 
facility in accordance with the requirements in Secs. 267.111 through 
267.115 and applicable closure requirements in Secs. 267.176, 267.201, 
267.1108.
    (1) The estimate must equal the cost of final closure at the point 
in the facility's active life when the extent and manner of its 
operation would make closure the most expensive; and
    (2) The closure cost estimate must be based on the costs to the 
owner or operator of hiring a third party to close the facility. A 
third party is a party who is neither a parent nor a subsidiary of the 
owner or operator. (See definition of parent corporation in 
Sec. 267.141(d).) The owner or operator may use costs for on-site 
disposal if he can demonstrate that on-site disposal capacity will 
exist at all times over the life of the facility.
    (3) The closure cost estimate may not incorporate any salvage value 
that may be realized with the sale of hazardous wastes, or non-
hazardous wastes, facility structures or equipment, land, or other 
assets associated with the facility at the time of partial or final 
closure.
    (4) The owner or operator may not incorporate a zero cost for 
hazardous wastes, or non-hazardous wastes that might have economic 
value.
    (5) Within 30 days after submitting a closure plan under 
Sec. 267.112, revise the closure cost estimate so that it is in 
accordance with the plan.
    (b) During the active life of the facility, the owner or operator 
must adjust the closure cost estimate for inflation within 60 days 
prior to the anniversary date of the establishment of the financial 
instrument(s) used to comply with Sec. 267.143. For owners and 
operators using the financial test or corporate guarantee, the closure 
cost estimate must be updated for inflation within 30 days after the 
close of the firm's fiscal year and before submission of updated 
information to the Regional Administrator as specified in 
Sec. 267.143(f)(2)(iii). The adjustment may be made by recalculating 
the maximum costs of closure in current dollars, or by using an 
inflation factor derived from the most recent Implicit Price Deflator 
for Gross Domestic Product published by the U.S. Department of Commerce 
in its Survey of Current Business, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section. The inflation factor is the result of dividing 
the latest published annual Deflator by the Deflator for the previous 
year.
    (1) The first adjustment is made by multiplying the closure cost 
estimate by the inflation factor. The result is the adjusted closure 
cost estimate.
    (2) Subsequent adjustments are made by multiplying the latest 
adjusted closure cost estimate by the latest inflation factor.
    (c) The owner or operator must keep the following at the facility 
during the operating life of the facility: The latest closure cost 
estimate prepared in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and, 
when this estimate has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph (b) 
of this section, the latest adjusted closure cost estimate.


Sec. 267.143  Financial assurance for closure.

    The owner or operator must establish financial assurance for 
closure of each storage or treatment unit that he owns or operates. In 
establishing financial assurance for closure, the owner or operator 
must choose from the financial assurance mechanisms in paragraphs (a), 
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this section. The owner or operator 
can also use a combination of mechanisms for a single facility if they 
meet the requirement in paragraph (h) of this section, or may use a 
single mechanism for multiple facilities as in paragraph (i) of this 
section. The Regional Administrator will release the owner or operator 
from the requirements of this section after the owner or operator meets 
the criteria under paragraph (j) of this section.
    (a) Closure Trust Fund. Owners and operators can use the ``closure 
trust fund,'' that is specified in 40 CFR 264.143(a)(1), (2),and (a)(6) 
through (11). For purposes of this paragraph, the following provisions 
also apply:
    (1) Payments into the trust fund for a new facility must be made 
annually by the owner or operator over the remaining operating life of 
the facility as estimated in the closure plan, or over 3 years, 
whichever period is shorter. This period of time is hereafter referred 
to as the ``pay-in period.''
    (2) For a new facility, the first payment into the closure trust 
fund must be made before the facility may accept the initial placement 
of waste. A receipt from the trustee must be submitted by the owner or 
operator to the Regional Administrator before this initial storage of 
waste. The first payment must be at least equal to the current closure 
cost estimate, divided by the number of years in the pay-in period, 
except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section for multiple 
mechanisms. Subsequent payments must be made no later than 30 days 
after each anniversary date of the first payment. The owner or operator 
determines the amount of each subsequent payment by subtracting the 
current value of the trust fund from the current closure cost estimate, 
and dividing this difference by the number of years remaining in the 
pay-in period. Mathematically, the formula is: 
Next Payment = (Current Closure Estimate--Current Value of the Trust 
Fund) Divided by Years Remaining in the Pay-In Period.
    (3) The owner or operator of a facility existing on the effective 
date of this paragraph can establish a trust fund to meet this 
paragraph's financial assurance requirements. If the value of the trust 
fund is less than the current closure cost estimate when a final 
approval of the permit is granted for the facility, the owner or 
operator must pay the difference into the trust fund within 60 days.
    (4) The owner or operator may accelerate payments into the trust 
fund or deposit the full amount of the closure cost estimate when 
establishing the trust fund. However, he must maintain the value of the 
fund at no less than the value that the fund would have if annual 
payments were made as specified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this 
section.
    (5) The owner or operator must submit a trust agreement with the 
wording specified in 40 CFR 264.151(a)(1).
    (b) Surety bond guaranteeing payment into a closure trust fund. 
Owners and operators can use the ``surety bond guaranteeing payment 
into a closure trust fund,'' as specified in 40 CFR 264.143(b), 
including the use of the surety bond instrument specified at 40 CFR 
264.151(b), and the standby trust specified at 40 CFR 264.143(b)(3).
    (c) Surety bond guaranteeing performance of closure. Owners and 
operators can use the ``surety bond guaranteeing performance of 
closure,'' as specified in 40 CFR 264.143(c), the submission and use of 
the surety bond instrument specified at 40 CFR 264.151(c), and the 
standby trust specified at 40 CFR 264.143(c)(3).
    (d) Closure letter of credit. Owners and operators can use the 
``closure letter of credit'' specified in 40 CFR 264.143(d), the 
submission and use of the irrevocable letter of credit instrument 
specified in 40 CFR 264.151(d), and the standby trust specified in 40 
CFR 264.143(d)(3).
    (e) Closure insurance. Owners and operators can use ``closure 
insurance,'' as specified in 40 CFR 264.143(e), utilizing the 
certificate of insurance for closure specified at 40 CFR 264.151(e).
    (f) Corporate financial test. An owner or operator that satisfies 
the requirements of this paragraph may

[[Page 52255]]

demonstrate financial assurance up to the amount specified in this 
paragraph:
    (1) Financial component. (i) The owner or operator must satisfy one 
of the following three conditions:
    (A) A current rating for its senior unsecured debt of AAA, AA, A, 
or BBB as issued by Standard and Poor's or Aaa, Aa, A or Baa as issued 
by Moody's; or
    (B) A ratio of less than 1.5 comparing total liabilities to net 
worth; or
    (C) A ratio of greater than 0.10 comparing the sum of net income 
plus depreciation, depletion and amortization, minus $10 million, to 
total liabilities.
    (ii) The tangible net worth of the owner or operator must be 
greater than:
    (A) The sum of the current environmental obligations (see paragraph 
(f)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section), including guarantees, covered by a 
financial test plus $10 million except as provided in paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (B) $10 million in tangible net worth plus the amount of any 
guarantees that have not been recognized as liabilities on the 
financial statements provided all of the environmental obligations (see 
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section) covered by a financial test 
are recognized as liabilities on the owner's or operator's audited 
financial statements, and subject to the approval of the Regional 
Administrator.
    (iii) The owner or operator must have assets located in the United 
States amounting to at least the sum of environmental obligations 
covered by a financial test as described in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A)(1) 
of this section.
    (2) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (i) The owner or 
operator must submit the following items to the Regional Administrator:
    (A) A letter signed by the owner's or operator's chief financial 
officer that:
    (1) Lists all the applicable current types, amounts, and sums of 
environmental obligations covered by a financial test. These 
obligations include both obligations in the programs which EPA directly 
operates and obligations where EPA has delegated authority to a State 
or approved a State's program. These obligations include, but are not 
limited to:
    (i) Liability, closure, post-closure and corrective action cost 
estimates required for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities under 40 CFR 264.101, 264.142, 264.144, 264.147, 265.142, 
265.144, and 265.147.;
    (ii) Cost estimates required for municipal solid waste management 
facilities under 40 CFR 258.71, 258.72, and 258.73;
    (iii) Current plugging cost estimates required for UIC facilities 
under 40 CFR 144.62;
    (iv) Cost estimates required for petroleum underground storage tank 
facilities under 40 CFR 280.93;
    (v) Cost estimates required for PCB storage facilities under 40 CFR 
761.65;
    (vi) Any financial assurance required under, or as part of an 
action undertaken under, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act; and
    (vii) Any other environmental obligations that are assured through 
a financial test.
    (2) Provides evidence demonstrating that the firm meets the 
conditions of either paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) or (f)(1)(i)(B) or 
(f)(1)(i)(C) of this section and paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)(iii) 
of this section.
    (B) A copy of the independent certified public accountant's 
unqualified opinion of the owner's or operator's financial statements 
for the latest completed fiscal year. To be eligible to use the 
financial test, the owner's or operator's financial statements must 
receive an unqualified opinion from the independent certified public 
accountant. An adverse opinion, disclaimer of opinion, or other 
qualified opinion will be cause for disallowance, with the potential 
exception for qualified opinions provided in the next sentence. The 
Regional Administrator may evaluate qualified opinions on a case-by-
case basis and allow use of the financial test in cases where the 
Regional Administrator deems that the matters which form the basis for 
the qualification are insufficient to warrant disallowance of the test. 
If the Regional Administrator does not allow use of the test, the owner 
or operator must provide alternate financial assurance that meets the 
requirements of this section within 30 days after the notification of 
disallowance.
    (C) If the chief financial officer's letter providing evidence of 
financial assurance includes financial data showing that owner or 
operator satisfies paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) or (f)(1)(i)(C) of this 
section that are different from data in the audited financial 
statements referred to in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section or any 
other audited financial statement or data filed with the SEC, then a 
special report from the owner's or operator's independent certified 
public accountant to the owner or operator is required. The special 
report shall be based upon an agreed upon procedures engagement in 
accordance with professional auditing standards and shall describe the 
procedures performed in comparing the data in the chief financial 
officer's letter derived from the independently audited, year-end 
financial statements for the latest fiscal year with the amounts in 
such financial statements, the findings of that comparison, and the 
reasons for any differences.
    (D) If the chief financial officer's letter provides a 
demonstration that the firm has assured for environmental obligations 
as provided in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, then the letter 
shall include a report from the independent certified public accountant 
that verifies that all of the environmental obligations covered by a 
financial test have been recognized as liabilities on the audited 
financial statements, how these obligations have been measured and 
reported, and that the tangible net worth of the firm is at least $10 
million plus the amount of any guarantees provided.
    (ii) The owner or operator of a new facility must submit the items 
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section to the Regional 
Administrator at least 60 days before placing waste in the facility.
    (iii) After the initial submission of items specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) of this section, the owner or operator must send updated 
information to the Regional Administrator within 90 days following the 
close of the owner or operator's fiscal year. The Regional 
Administrator may provide up to an additional 45 days for an owner or 
operator who can demonstrate that 90 days is insufficient time to 
acquire audited financial statements. The updated information must 
consist of all items specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iv) The owner or operator is no longer required to submit the 
items specified in this paragraph (f)(2) of this section or comply with 
the requirements of this paragraph (f) when:
    (A) The owner or operator substitutes alternate financial assurance 
as specified in this section that is not subject to these recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements; or
    (B) The Regional Administrator releases the owner or operator from 
the requirements of this section in accordance with paragraph (j) of 
this section.
    (v) An owner or operator who no longer meets the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section cannot use the financial test to 
demonstrate financial assurance. Instead an owner or operator who no 
longer meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)of this section, must:
    (A) Send notice to the Regional Administrator of intent to 
establish alternate financial assurance as

[[Page 52256]]

specified in this section. The owner or operator must send this notice 
by certified mail within 90 days following the close of the owner or 
operator's fiscal year for which the year-end financial data show that 
the owner or operator no longer meets the requirements of this section.
    (B) Provide alternative financial assurance within 120 days after 
the end of such fiscal year.
    (vi) The Regional Administrator may, based on a reasonable belief 
that the owner or operator may no longer meet the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, require at any time the owner or 
operator to provide reports of its financial condition in addition to 
or including current financial test documentation as specified in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. If the Regional Administrator finds 
that the owner or operator no longer meets the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must provide 
alternate financial assurance that meets the requirements of this 
section.
    (g) Corporate guarantee. (1) An owner or operator may meet the 
requirements of this section by obtaining a written guarantee. The 
guarantor must be the direct or higher-tier parent corporation of the 
owner or operator, a firm whose parent corporation is also the parent 
corporation of the owner or operator, or a firm with a ``substantial 
business relationship'' with the owner or operator. The guarantor must 
meet the requirements for owners or operators in paragraph (f) of this 
section and must comply with the terms of the guarantee. The wording of 
the guarantee must be identical to the wording in 40 CFR 264.151(h). 
The certified copy of the guarantee must accompany the letter from the 
guarantor's chief financial officer and accountants' opinions. If the 
guarantor's parent corporation is also the parent corporation of the 
owner or operator, the letter from the guarantor's chief financial 
officer must describe the value received in consideration of the 
guarantee. If the guarantor is a firm with a ``substantial business 
relationship'' with the owner or operator, this letter must describe 
this ``substantial business relationship'' and the value received in 
consideration of the guarantee.
    (2) For a new facility the guarantee must be effective and the 
guarantor must submit the items in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and 
the items specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section to the 
Regional Administrator at least 60 days before the owner or operator 
places waste in the facility.
    (3) The terms of the guarantee must provide that:
    (i) If the owner or operator fails to perform closure at a facility 
covered by the guarantee, the guarantor will:
    (A) Perform, or pay a third party to perform closure (performance 
guarantee); or
    (B) Establish a fully funded trust fund as specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section in the name of the owner or operator (payment 
guarantee).
    (ii) The guarantee will remain in force for as long as the owner or 
operator must comply with the applicable financial assurance 
requirements of this Subpart unless the guarantor sends prior notice of 
cancellation by certified mail to the owner or operator and to the 
Regional Administrator. Cancellation may not occur, however, during the 
120 days beginning on the date of receipt of the notice of cancellation 
by both the owner or operator and the Regional Administrator as 
evidenced by the return receipts.
    (iii) If notice of cancellation is given, the owner or operator 
must, within 90 days following receipt of the cancellation notice by 
the owner or operator and the Regional Administrator, obtain alternate 
financial assurance, and submit documentation for that alternate 
financial assurance to the Regional Administrator. If the owner or 
operator fails to provide alternate financial assurance and obtain the 
written approval of such alternative assurance from the Regional 
Administrator within the 90-day period, the guarantor must provide that 
alternate assurance in the name of the owner or operator and submit the 
necessary documentation for the alternative assurance to the Regional 
Administrator within 120 days of the cancellation notice.
    (4) If a corporate guarantor no longer meets the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must, within 90 
days, obtain alternative assurance, and submit the assurance to the 
Regional Administrator for approval. If the owner or operator fails to 
provide alternate financial assurance within the 90-day period, the 
guarantor must provide that alternate assurance within the next 30 
days, and submit it to the Regional Administrator for approval.
    (5) The guarantor is no longer required to meet the requirements of 
this paragraph (g) when:
    (i) The owner or operator substitutes alternate financial assurance 
as specified in this section; or
    (ii) The owner or operator is released from the requirements of 
this section in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section.
    (h) Use of Multiple Financial Mechanisms. An owner or operator may 
use more than one mechanism at a particular facility to satisfy the 
requirements of this section. The acceptable mechanisms are trust 
funds, surety bonds guaranteeing payment into a trust fund, letters of 
credit, insurance, the financial test, and the guarantee, except owners 
or operators cannot combine the financial test with the guarantee. The 
mechanisms must be as specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), 
and (g) of this section, except it is the combination of mechanisms 
rather than a single mechanism that must provide assurance for an 
amount at least equal to the cost estimate. If an owner or operator 
uses a trust fund in combination with a surety bond or letter of 
credit, he may use the trust fund as the standby trust for the other 
mechanisms. A single trust fund can be established for two or more 
mechanisms. The Regional Administrator may use any or all of the 
mechanisms to provide for closure of the facility.
    (i) Use of a financial mechanism for multiple facilities. An owner 
or operator may use a financial mechanism for multiple facilities, as 
specified in Sec. 264.143(h) of this chapter.
    (j) Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this 
section. Within 60 days after receiving certifications from the owner 
or operator and an independent registered professional engineer that 
final closure has been completed in accordance with the approved 
closure plan, the Regional Administrator will notify the owner or 
operator in writing that the owner or operator is no longer required by 
this section to maintain financial assurance for final closure of the 
facility, unless the Regional Administrator has reason to believe that 
final closure has not been completed in accordance with the approved 
closure plan. The Regional Administrator shall provide the owner or 
operator with a detailed written statement of any such reasons to 
believe that closure has not been conducted in accordance with the 
approved closure plan.


Sec. 267.144--267.146  [Reserved]


Sec. 267.147  Liability requirements.

    (a) Coverage for sudden accidental occurrences. An owner or 
operator of a hazardous waste treatment or storage facility, or a group 
of such facilities, must demonstrate financial responsibility for 
bodily injury and property damage to third parties caused by sudden 
accidental occurrences arising from operations of the facility or

[[Page 52257]]

group of facilities. The owner or operator must have and maintain 
liability coverage for sudden accidental occurrences in the amount of 
at least $1 million per occurrence with an annual aggregate of at least 
$2 million, exclusive of legal defense costs. This liability coverage 
may be demonstrated as specified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (a)(7) 
of this section:
    (1) Trust fund for liability coverage. An owner or operator may 
meet the requirements of this section by obtaining a trust fund for 
liability coverage as specified in 40 CFR 264.147(j).
    (2) Surety bond for liability coverage. An owner or operator may 
meet the requirements of this section by obtaining a surety bond for 
liability coverage as specified in 40 CFR 264.147(i).
    (3) Letter of credit for liability coverage. An owner or operator 
may meet the requirements of this section by obtaining a letter of 
credit for liability coverage as specified in 40 CFR 264.147(h).
    (4) Insurance for liability coverage. An owner or operator may meet 
the requirements of this section by obtaining liability insurance as 
specified in 40 CFR 264.147(a)(1).
    (5) Financial test for liability coverage. An owner or operator may 
meet the requirements of this section by passing a financial test as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (6) Guarantee for liability coverage. An owner or operator may meet 
the requirements of this section by obtaining a guarantee as specified 
in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (7) Combination of mechanisms. An owner or operator may demonstrate 
the required liability coverage through the use of combinations of 
mechanisms as allowed by 40 CFR 264.147(a)(6).
    (8) An owner or operator shall notify the Regional Administrator in 
writing within 30 days whenever:
    (i) A claim results in a reduction in the amount of financial 
assurance for liability coverage provided by a financial instrument 
authorized in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section; or
    (ii) A Certification of Valid Claim for bodily injury or property 
damages caused by a sudden accidental occurrence arising from the 
operation of a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility 
is entered between the owner or operator and third-party claimant for 
liability coverage under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this 
section; or
    (iii) A final court order establishing a judgment for bodily injury 
or property damage caused by a sudden accidental occurrence arising 
from the operation of a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal 
facility is issued against the owner or operator or an instrument that 
is providing financial assurance for liability coverage under 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.
    (b)--(d) [Reserved]
    (e) Period of coverage. Within 60 days after receiving 
certifications from the owner or operator and an independent registered 
professional engineer that final closure has been completed in 
accordance with the approved closure plan, the Regional Administrator 
will notify the owner or operator in writing that he is no longer 
required by this section to maintain liability coverage from that 
facility, unless the Regional Administrator has reason to believe that 
closure has not been in accordance with the approved closure plan.
    (f) Financial test for liability coverage. An owner or operator 
that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (f) may demonstrate 
financial assurance for liability up to the amount specified in this 
paragraph (f):
    (1) Financial component. (i) If using the financial test for only 
liability coverage, the owner or operator must have tangible net worth 
greater than the sum of the liability coverage to be demonstrated by 
this test plus $10 million.
    (ii) The owner or operator must have assets located in the United 
States amounting to at least the amount of liability covered by this 
financial test.
    (iii) An owner or operator who is demonstrating coverage for 
liability and any other environmental obligations, including closure 
under Sec. 267.143(f), through a financial test must meet the 
requirements of Sec. 267.143(f).
    (2) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (i) The owner or 
operator must submit the following items to the Regional Administrator:
    (A) A letter signed by the owner's or operator's chief financial 
officer that provides evidence demonstrating that the firm meets the 
conditions of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (B) A copy of the independent certified public accountant's 
unqualified opinion of the owner's or operator's financial statements 
for the latest completed fiscal year. To be eligible to use the 
financial test, the owner's or operator's financial statements must 
receive an unqualified opinion from the independent certified public 
accountant. An adverse opinion, disclaimer of opinion, or other 
qualified opinion will be cause for disallowance, with the potential 
exception for qualified opinions provided in the next sentence. The 
Regional Administrator may evaluate qualified opinions on a case-by-
case basis and allow use of the financial test in cases where the 
Regional Administrator deems that the matters which form the basis for 
the qualification are insufficient to warrant disallowance of the test. 
If the Regional Administrator does not allow use of the test, the owner 
or operator must provide alternate financial assurance that meets the 
requirements of this section within 30 days after the notification of 
disallowance.
    (C) If the chief financial officer's letter providing evidence of 
financial assurance includes financial data showing that owner or 
operator satisfies paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section that 
are different from data in the audited financial statements referred to 
in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section or any other audited 
financial statement or data filed with the SEC, then a special report 
from the owner's or operator's independent certified public accountant 
to the owner or operator is required. The special report shall be based 
upon an agreed upon procedures engagement in accordance with 
professional auditing standards and shall describe the procedures 
performed in comparing the data in the chief financial officer's letter 
derived from the independently audited, year-end financial statements 
for the latest fiscal year with the amounts in such financial 
statements, the findings of that comparison, and the reasons for any 
differences.
    (ii) The owner or operator of a new facility must submit the items 
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section to the Regional 
Administrator at least 60 days before placing waste in the facility.
    (iii) After the initial submission of items specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) of this section, the owner or operator must send updated 
information to the Regional Administrator within 90 days following the 
close of the owner or operator's fiscal year. The Regional 
Administrator may provide up to an additional 45 days for an owner or 
operator who can demonstrate that 90 days is insufficient time to 
acquire audited financial statements. The updated information must 
consist of all items specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iv) The owner or operator is no longer required to submit the 
items specified in this paragraph (f)(2) or comply with the 
requirements of this paragraph (f) when:
    (A) The owner or operator substitutes alternate financial assurance 
as specified in this section that is not

[[Page 52258]]

subject to these recordkeeping and reporting requirements; or
    (B) The Regional Administrator releases the owner or operator from 
the requirements of this section in accordance with paragraph (j) of 
this section.
    (v) An owner or operator who no longer meets the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section cannot use the financial test to 
demonstrate financial assurance. An owner or operator who no longer 
meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, must:
    (A) Send notice to the Regional Administrator of intent to 
establish alternate financial assurance as specified in this section. 
The owner or operator must send this notice by certified mail within 90 
days following the close the owner or operator's fiscal year for which 
the year-end financial data show that the owner or operator no longer 
meets the requirements of this section.
    (B) Provide alternative financial assurance within 120 days after 
the end of such fiscal year.
    (vi) The Regional Administrator may, based on a reasonable belief 
that the owner or operator may no longer meet the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, require at any time the owner or 
operator to provide reports of its financial condition in addition to 
or including current financial test documentation as specified in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. If the Regional Administrator finds 
that the owner or operator no longer meets the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must provide 
alternate financial assurance that meets the requirements of this 
section.
    (g) Guarantee for liability coverage. (1) Subject to paragraph 
(g)(2) of this section, an owner or operator may meet the requirements 
of this section by obtaining a written guarantee, hereinafter referred 
to as ``guarantee.'' The guarantor must be the direct or higher-tier 
parent corporation of the owner or operator, a firm whose parent 
corporation is also the parent corporation of the owner or operator, or 
a firm with a ``substantial business relationship'' with the owner or 
operator. The guarantor must meet the requirements for owners or 
operators in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section. The 
wording of the guarantee must be identical to the wording specified in 
40 CFR 264.151(h)(2). A certified copy of the guarantee must accompany 
the items sent to the Regional Administrator as specified in paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section. One of these items must be the letter from the 
guarantor's chief financial officer. If the guarantor's parent 
corporation is also the parent corporation of the owner or operator, 
this letter must describe the value received in consideration of the 
guarantee. If the guarantor is a firm with a ``substantial business 
relationship'' with the owner or operator, this letter must describe 
this ``substantial business relationship'' and the value received in 
consideration of the guarantee.
    (i) If the owner or operator fails to satisfy a judgment based on a 
determination of liability for bodily injury or property damage to 
third parties caused by sudden accidental occurrences arising from the 
operation of facilities covered by this corporate guarantee, or fails 
to pay an amount agreed to in settlement of claims arising from or 
alleged to arise from such injury or damage, the guarantor will do so 
up to the limits of coverage.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (2)(i) In the case of corporations incorporated in the United 
States, a guarantee may be used to satisfy the requirements of this 
section only if the Attorneys General or Insurance Commissioners of the 
State in which the guarantor is incorporated; and each State in which a 
facility covered by the guarantee is located have submitted a written 
statement to EPA that a guarantee executed as described in this section 
and 40 CFR 264.151(h)(2) is a legally valid and enforceable obligation 
in that State.
    (ii) In the case of corporations incorporated outside the United 
States, a guarantee may be used to satisfy the requirements of this 
section only if:
    (A) The non-U.S. corporation has identified a registered agent for 
service of process in each State in which a facility covered by the 
guarantee is located and in the State in which it has its principal 
place of business; and
    (B) The Attorney General or Insurance Commissioner of each State in 
which a facility covered by the guarantee is located and the State in 
which the guarantor corporation has its principal place of business, 
has submitted a written statement to EPA that a guarantee executed as 
described in this section and 40 CFR 264.151(h)(2) is a legally valid 
and enforceable obligation in that State.


Sec. 267.148  Incapacity of owners or operators, guarantors, or 
financial institutions.

    (a) An owner or operator must notify the Regional Administrator by 
certified mail of the commencement of a voluntary or involuntary 
proceeding under Title 11 (Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming the owner or 
operator as debtor, within 10 days after commencement of the 
proceeding. A guarantor of a corporate guarantee as specified in 
Secs. 267.143(g) and 267.147(g) must make such a notification if he is 
named as debtor, as required under the terms of the corporate guarantee 
(Sec. 264.151(h)).
    (b) An owner or operator who fulfills the requirements of 
Sec. 267.143 or Sec. 267.147 by obtaining a trust fund, surety bond, 
letter of credit, or insurance policy will be deemed to be without the 
required financial assurance or liability coverage in the event of 
bankruptcy of the trustee or issuing institution, or a suspension or 
revocation of the authority of the trustee institution to act as 
trustee or of the institution issuing the surety bond, letter of 
credit, or insurance policy to issue such instruments. The owner or 
operator must establish other financial assurance or liability coverage 
within 60 days after such an event.


Sec. 267.149  [Reserved]


Sec. 267.150  State assumption of responsibility.

    (a) If a State either assumes legal responsibility for an owner's 
or operator's compliance with the closure care or liability 
requirements of this part or assures that funds will be available from 
State sources to cover those requirements, the owner or operator will 
be in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 267.143 or Sec. 267.147 
if the Regional Administrator determines that the State's assumption of 
responsibility is at least equivalent to the financial mechanisms 
specified in this subpart. The Regional Administrator will evaluate the 
equivalency of State guarantees principally in terms of certainty of 
the availability of funds for the required closure care activities or 
liability coverage and the amount of funds that will be made available. 
The Regional Administrator may also consider other factors as he deems 
appropriate. The owner or operator must submit to the Regional 
Administrator a letter from the State describing the nature of the 
State's assumption of responsibility together with a letter from the 
owner or operator requesting that the State's assumption of 
responsibility be considered acceptable for meeting the requirements of 
this subpart. The letter from the State must include, or have attached 
to it, the following information: the facility's EPA Identification 
Number, name, and address, and the amount of funds for closure care or 
liability coverage that are guaranteed by the State. The Regional 
Administrator will notify the owner or

[[Page 52259]]

operator of his determination regarding the acceptability of the 
State's guarantee in lieu of financial mechanisms specified in this 
subpart. The Regional Administrator may require the owner or operator 
to submit additional information as is deemed necessary to make this 
determination. Pending this determination, the owner or operator will 
be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 267.143 or 
Sec. 267.147, as applicable.
    (b) If a State's assumption of responsibility is found acceptable 
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section except for the amount of 
funds available, the owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of 
this subpart by use of both the State's assurance and additional 
financial mechanisms as specified in this subpart. The amount of funds 
available through the State and Federal mechanisms must at least equal 
the amount required by this subpart.

Subpart I--Use and Management of Containers


Sec. 267.170  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operator a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste in containers under a 40 CFR part 270, 
subpart I standardized permit, except as provided in Sec. 267.1(b).


Sec. 267.171  What standards apply to the containers?

    Standards apply to the condition of the containers, to the 
compatibility of waste with the containers, and to the management of 
the containers.
    (a) Condition of containers. If a container holding hazardous waste 
is not in good condition( for example, it exhibits severe rusting or 
apparent structural defects) or if it begins to leak, you must either:
    (1) Transfer the hazardous waste from this container to a container 
that is in good condition; or
    (2) Manage the waste in some other way that complies with the 
requirements of this part.
    (b) Compatibility of waste with containers. To ensure that the 
ability of the container to contain the waste is not impaired, you must 
use a container made of or lined with materials that are compatible and 
will not react with the hazardous waste to be stored.
    (c) Management of containers. (1) You must always keep a container 
holding hazardous waste closed during storage, except when you add or 
remove waste.
    (2) You must never open, handle, or store a container holding 
hazardous waste in a manner that may rupture the container or cause it 
to leak.


Sec. 267.172  What are the inspection requirements?

    At least weekly, you must inspect areas where you store containers 
, looking for leaking containers and for deterioration of containers 
and the containment system caused by corrosion or other factors.


Sec. 267.173  What standards apply to the container storage areas?

    (a) You must design and operate a containment system for your 
container storage areas according to the requirements in paragraph (b) 
of this section, except as otherwise provided by paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (b) The design and operating requirements for a containment system 
are:
    (1) A base must underlie the containers that is free of cracks or 
gaps and is sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, spills, and 
accumulated precipitation until the collected material is detected and 
removed.
    (2) The base must be sloped or the containment system must be 
otherwise designed and operated to drain and remove liquids resulting 
from leaks, spills, or precipitation, unless the containers are 
elevated or are otherwise protected from contact with accumulated 
liquids.
    (3) The containment system must have sufficient capacity to contain 
10% of the volume of containers, or the volume of the largest 
container, whichever is greater. This requirement does not apply to 
containers that do not contain free liquids.
    (4) You must prevent run-on into the containment system unless the 
collection system has sufficient excess capacity, in addition to that 
required in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, to contain the liquid.
    (5) You must remove any spilled or leaked waste and accumulated 
precipitation rom the sump or collection area as promptly as is 
necessary to prevent overflow of the collection system.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you do not 
need a containment system as defined in paragraph (b) of this section 
for storage areas that store containers holding only wastes with no 
free liquids, if:
    (1) The storage area is sloped or is otherwise designed and 
operated to drain and remove liquid resulting from precipitation, or
    (2) The containers are elevated or are otherwise protected from 
contact with accumulated liquid.
    (d) You must have a containment system defined by paragraph (b) of 
this section for storage areas that store containers holding FO20, 
FO21, FO22, FO23, FO26, and FO27 wastes , even if the wastes do not 
contain free liquids.


Sec. 267.174  What special requirements must I meet for ignitable or 
reactive waste?

    You must locate containers holding ignitable or reactive waste at 
least 15 meters (50 feet) from your facility property line. You must 
also follow the general requirements for ignitable or reactive wastes 
that are specified in Sec. 267.17(a).


Sec. 267.175  What special requirements must I meet for incompatible 
wastes?

    (a) You must not place incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes 
and materials (see appendix V to 40 CFR part 264 for examples), in the 
same container, unless you comply with Sec. 267.17(b).
    (b) You must not place hazardous waste in an unwashed container 
that previously held an incompatible waste or material.
    (c) You must separate a storage container holding a hazardous waste 
that is incompatible with any waste or with other materials stored 
nearby in other containers, piles, open tanks, or surface impoundments 
from the other materials, or protect the containers by means of a dike, 
berm, wall, or other device.


Sec. 267.176  What must I do when I want to stop using the containers?

    You must remove all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues 
from the containment system. You must decontaminate or remove remaining 
containers, liners, bases, and soil containing, or contaminated with, 
hazardous waste or hazardous waste residues.


Sec. 267.177  What air emission standards apply?

    You must manage all hazardous waste placed in a container according 
to the requirements of subparts AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR part 264. 
Under a standardized permit, the following control devices are 
permissible: Thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, 
flame, boiler, process heater, condenser, and carbon absorption unit.

Subpart J--Tank Systems


Sec. 267.190  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste in above-ground or on-ground tanks 
under a 40 CFR part 270, subpart I standardized permit, except as 
provided in Sec. 267.1(b).
    (a) You do not have to meet the secondary containment requirements 
in

[[Page 52260]]

Sec. 267.195 if your tank systems do not contain free liquids and are 
situated inside a building with an impermeable floor. You must 
demonstrate the absence or presence of free liquids in the stored/
treated waste, using Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test) as 
described in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846, as incorporated by 
reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
    (b) You do not have to meet the secondary containment requirements 
of Sec. 267.195(a) if your tank system, including sumps, as defined in 
40 CFR 260.10, is part of a secondary containment system to collect or 
contain releases of hazardous wastes.


Sec. 267.191  What are the required design and construction standards 
for new tank systems or components?

    You must ensure that the foundation, structural support, seams, 
connections, and pressure controls (if applicable) are adequately 
designed and that the tank system has sufficient structural strength, 
compatibility with the waste(s) to be stored or treated, and corrosion 
protection to ensure that it will not collapse, rupture, or fail. You 
must obtain a written assessment, reviewed and certified by an 
independent, qualified registered professional engineer, following 40 
CFR 270.11(d), attesting that the tank system has sufficient structural 
integrity and is acceptable for the storing and treating of hazardous 
waste. This assessment must include, at a minimum, the following 
information:
    (a) Design standard(s) for the construction of tank(s) and/or the 
ancillary equipment.
    (b) Hazardous characteristics of the waste(s) to be handled.
    (c) For new tank systems or components in which the external shell 
of a metal tank or any external metal component of the tank system will 
be in contact with the soil or with water, a determination by a 
corrosion expert of:
    (1) Factors affecting the potential for corrosion, such as:
    (i) Soil moisture content.
    (ii) Soil pH.
    (iii) Soil sulfides level.
    (iv) Soil resistivity.
    (v) Structure to soil potential.
    (vi) Influence of nearby underground metal structures (for example, 
piping).
    (vii) Existence of stray electric current.
    (viii) Existing corrosion-protection measures (for example, 
coating, cathodic protection).
    (2) The type and degree of external corrosion protection needed to 
ensure the integrity of the tank system during the use of the tank 
system or component, consisting of one or more of the following:
    (i) Corrosion-resistant materials of construction such as special 
alloys, fiberglass reinforced plastic, etc.
    (ii) Corrosion-resistant coating (such as epoxy, fiberglass, etc.) 
with cathodic protection (for example, impressed current or sacrificial 
anodes) and
    (iii) Electrical isolation devices such as insulating joints, 
flanges, etc.
    (d) Design considerations to ensure that:
    (1) Tank foundations will maintain the load of a full tank.
    (2) Tank systems will be anchored to prevent flotation or 
dislodgment where the tank system is placed in a saturated zone, or is 
located within a seismic fault zone subject to the standards of 
Sec. 267.18(a).
    (3) Tank systems will withstand the effects of frost heave.


Sec. 267.192  What handling and inspection procedures must I follow 
during installation of new tank systems?

    (a) You must ensure that you follow proper handling procedures to 
prevent damage to a new tank system during installation. Before placing 
a new tank system or component in use, an independent, qualified 
installation inspector or an independent, qualified, registered 
professional engineer, either of whom is trained and experienced in the 
proper installation of tank systems or components, must inspect the 
system for the presence of any of the following items:
    (1) Weld breaks.
    (2) Punctures.
    (3) Scrapes of protective coatings.
    (4) Cracks.
    (5) Corrosion.
    (6) Other structural damage or inadequate construction/
installation.
    (b) You must remedy all discrepancies before the tank system is 
placed in use.


Sec. 267.193  What testing must I do?

    You must test all new tanks and ancillary equipment for tightness 
before you place them in use. If you find a tank system that is not 
tight, you must perform all repairs necessary to remedy the leak(s) in 
the system before you cover, enclose, or place the tank system into 
use.


Sec. 267.194  What installation requirements must I follow?

    (a) You must support and protect ancillary equipment against 
physical damage and excessive stress due to settlement, vibration, 
expansion, or contraction.
    (b) You must provide the type and degree of corrosion protection 
recommended by an independent corrosion expert, based on the 
information provided under Sec. 267.191(c), to ensure the integrity of 
the tank system during use of the tank system. An independent corrosion 
expert must supervise the installation of a corrosion protection system 
that is field fabricated to ensure proper installation.
    (c) You must obtain, and keep at the facility, written statements 
by those persons required to certify the design of the tank system and 
to supervise the installation of the tank system as required in 
Secs. 267.192, 267.193, and paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The 
written statement must attest that the tank system was properly 
designed and installed and that you made repairs under Sec. 267.192 and 
267.193. These written statements must also include the certification 
statement as required in 40 CFR 270.11(d).


Sec. 267.195  What are the secondary containment requirements?

    To prevent the release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents 
to the environment, you must provide secondary containment that meets 
the requirements of this section for all new and existing tank systems.
    (a) Secondary containment systems must be:
    (1) Designed, installed, and operated to prevent any migration of 
wastes or accumulated liquid out of the system to the soil, 
groundwater, or surface water at any time during the use of the tank 
system; and
    (2) Capable of detecting and collecting releases and accumulated 
liquids until the collected material is removed.
    (b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, 
secondary containment systems must be, at a minimum:
    (1) Constructed of or lined with materials that are compatible with 
the wastes(s) to be placed in the tank system and must have sufficient 
strength and thickness to prevent failure owing to pressure gradients 
(including static head and external hydrological forces), physical 
contact with the waste to which it is exposed, climatic conditions, and 
the stress of daily operation (including stresses from nearby vehicular 
traffic).
    (2) Placed on a foundation or base capable of providing support to 
the secondary containment system, resistance to pressure gradients 
above and below the system, and capable of preventing failure due to 
settlement, compression, or uplift.
    (3) Provided with a leak-detection system that is designed and 
operated so

[[Page 52261]]

that it will detect the failure of either the primary or secondary 
containment structure or the presence of any release of hazardous waste 
or accumulated liquid in the secondary containment system within 24 
hours, or at the earliest practicable time.
    (4) Sloped or otherwise designed or operated to drain and remove 
liquids resulting from leaks, spills, or precipitation. You must remove 
spilled or leaked waste and accumulated precipitation from the 
secondary containment system within 24 hours, or as promptly as 
possible to prevent harm to human health and the environment.


Sec. 267.196  What are the required devices for secondary containment 
and what are their design, operating and installation requirements?

    (a) Secondary containment for tanks must include one or more of the 
following:
    (1) A liner (external to the tank).
    (2) A vault.
    (3) A double-walled tank.
    (4) An equivalent device; you must maintain documentation of 
equivalency at the facility.
    (b) External liner systems must be:
    (1) Designed or operated to contain 100 percent of the capacity of 
the largest tank within its boundary.
    (2) Designed or operated to prevent run-on or infiltration of 
precipitation into the secondary containment system unless the 
collection system has sufficient excess capacity to contain run-on or 
infiltration. The additional capacity must be sufficient to contain 
precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
    (3) Free of cracks or gaps.
    (4) Designed and installed to surround the tank completely and to 
cover all surrounding earth likely to come into contact with the waste 
if the waste is released from the tank(s) (that is, capable of 
preventing lateral as well as vertical migration of the waste).
    (c) Vault systems must be:
    (1) Designed or operated to contain 100 percent of the capacity of 
the largest tank within its boundary.
    (2) Designed or operated to prevent run-on or infiltration of 
precipitation into the secondary containment system unless the 
collection system has sufficient excess capacity to contain run-on or 
infiltration. Such additional capacity must be sufficient to contain 
precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
    (3) Constructed with chemical-resistant water stops in place at all 
joints (if any).
    (4) Provided with an impermeable interior coating or lining that is 
compatible with the stored waste and that will prevent migration of 
waste into the concrete.
    (5) Provided with a means to protect against the formation of and 
ignition of vapors within the vault, if the waste being stored or 
treated:
    (i) Meets the definition of ignitable waste under 40 CFR 261.21.
    (ii) Meets the definition of reactive waste under 40 CFR 261.21, 
and may form an ignitable or explosive vapor.
    (6) Provided with an exterior moisture barrier or be otherwise 
designed or operated to prevent migration of moisture into the vault if 
the vault is subject to hydraulic pressure.
    (d) Double-walled tanks must be:
    (1) Designed as an integral structure (that is, an inner tank 
completely enveloped within an outer shell) so that any release from 
the inner tank is contained by the outer shell.
    (2) Protected, if constructed of metal, from both corrosion of the 
primary tank interior and of the external surface of the outer shell.
    (3) Provided with a built-in continuous leak detection system 
capable of detecting a release within 24 hours, or at the earliest 
practicable time.


Sec. 267.197  What are the requirements for ancillary equipment?

    You must provide ancillary equipment with secondary containment 
(for example, trench, jacketing, double-walled piping) that meets the 
requirements of Sec. 267.196 (a) and (b), except for:
    (a) Piping (exclusive of flanges, joints, valves, and other 
connections) that are visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis.
    (b) Welded flanges, welded joints, and welded connections, that are 
visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis.
    (c) Sealless or magnetic coupling pumps and sealless valves, that 
are visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis.
    (d) Pressurized aboveground piping systems with automatic shut-off 
devices (for example, excess flow check valves, flow metering shutdown 
devices, loss of pressure actuated shut-off devices) that are visually 
inspected for leaks on a daily basis.


Sec. 267.198  What are the general operating requirements for my tank 
systems?

    (a) You must not place hazardous wastes or treatment reagents in a 
tank system if they could cause the tank, its ancillary equipment, or 
the containment system to rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail.
    (b) You must use appropriate controls and practices to prevent 
spills and overflows from tank or containment systems. These include, 
at a minimum:
    (1) Spill prevention controls (for example, check valves, dry 
disconnect couplings).
    (2) Overfill prevention controls (for example, level sensing 
devices, high level alarms, automatic feed cutoff, or bypass to a 
standby tank).
    (3) Sufficient freeboard in uncovered tanks to prevent overtopping 
by wave or wind action or by precipitation.
    (c) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. 267.200 if a leak 
or spill occurs in the tank system.


Sec. 267.199  What inspection requirements must I meet?

    You must comply with the following requirements for scheduling, 
conducting, and documenting inspections.
    (a) Develop and follow a schedule and procedure for inspecting 
overfill controls.
    (b) Inspect at least once each operating day:
    (1) Aboveground portions of the tank system to detect corrosion or 
releases of waste.
    (2) Data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment (for 
example, pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure 
that the tank system is being operated according to its design.
    (3) The construction materials and the area immediately surrounding 
the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the 
secondary containment system (for example, dikes) to detect erosion or 
signs of releases of hazardous waste (for example, wet spots, dead 
vegetation).
    (c) Inspect cathodic protection systems, if present, according to, 
at a minimum, the following schedule to ensure that they are 
functioning properly:
    (1) Confirm that the cathodic protection system is operating 
properly within six months after initial installation and annually 
thereafter.
    (2) Inspect and/or test all sources of impressed current, as 
appropriate, at least every other month.
    (d) Document, in the operating record of the facility, an 
inspection of those items in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section.


Sec. 267.200  What must I do in case of a leak or a spill?

    If there has been a leak or a spill from a tank system or secondary 
containment system, or if either system is unfit for use, you must 
remove the system from service immediately, and you must satisfy the 
following requirements:

[[Page 52262]]

    (a) Immediately stop the flow of hazardous waste into the tank 
system or secondary containment system and inspect the system to 
determine the cause of the release.
    (b) Remove the waste from the tank system or secondary containment 
system.
    (1) If the release was from the tank system, you must, within 24 
hours after detecting the leak, remove as much of the waste as is 
necessary to prevent further release of hazardous waste to the 
environment and to allow inspection and repair of the tank system to be 
performed.
    (2) If the material released was to a secondary containment system, 
you must remove all released materials within 24 hours or as quickly as 
possible to prevent harm to human health and the environment.
    (c) Immediately conduct a visual inspection of the release and, 
based upon that inspection:
    (1) Prevent further migration of the leak or spill to soils or 
surface water.
    (2) Remove, and properly dispose of, any visible contamination of 
the soil or surface water.
    (d) Report any release to the environment, except as provided in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, to the Regional Administrator within 
24 hours of its detection. If you have reported the release pursuant to 
40 CFR part 302, that report will satisfy this requirement.
    (1) You need not report on a leak or spill of hazardous waste if it 
is:
    (i) Less than or equal to a quantity of one (1) pound, and
    (ii) Immediately contained and cleaned up.
    (2) Within 30 days of detection of a release to the environment, 
you must submit a report to the Regional Administrator containing the 
following information:
    (i) The likely route of migration of the release.
    (ii) The characteristics of the surrounding soil (soil composition, 
geology, hydrogeology, climate).
    (iii) The results of any monitoring or sampling conducted in 
connection with the release (if available). If sampling or monitoring 
data relating to the release are not available within 30 days, you must 
submit these data to the Regional Administrator as soon as they become 
available.
    (iv) The proximity to downgradient drinking water, surface water, 
and populated areas.
    (v) A description of response actions taken or planned.
    (e) Either close the system or make necessary repairs.
    (1) Unless you satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) and 
(3) of this section, you must close the tank system according to 
Sec. 267.201.
    (2) If the cause of the release was a spill that has not damaged 
the integrity of the system, you may return the system to service as 
soon as you remove the released waste and make any necessary repairs.
    (3) If the cause of the release was a leak from the primary tank 
system into the secondary containment system, you must repair the 
system before returning the tank system to service.
    (f) If you have made extensive repairs to a tank system in 
accordance with paragraph (e) of this section (for example, 
installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary 
containment or secondary containment vessel), you may not return the 
tank system to service unless the repair is certified by an 
independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer in accordance 
with 40 CFR 270.11(d).
    (1) The engineer must certify that the repaired system is capable 
of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended life of 
the system.
    (2) You must submit this certification to the Regional 
Administrator within seven days after returning the tank system to use.


Sec. 267.201  What must I do when I stop operating the tank system?

    When you close a tank system, you must remove or decontaminate all 
waste residues, contaminated containment system components (liners, 
etc.), contaminated soils, and structures and equipment contaminated 
with waste, and manage them as hazardous waste, unless 40 CFR 261.3(d) 
applies. The closure plan, closure activities, cost estimates for 
closure, and financial responsibility for tank systems must meet all of 
the requirements specified in subparts G and H of this part.


Sec. 267.202  What special requirements must I meet for ignitable or 
reactive wastes?

    (a) You may not place ignitable or reactive waste in tank systems, 
unless:
    (1) You treat, render, or mix the waste before or immediately after 
placement in the tank system so that:
    (i) You comply with Sec. 267.17(b), and
    (ii) The resulting waste, mixture, or dissolved material no longer 
meets the definition of ignitable or reactive waste under Secs. 261.21 
or 261.23 of this chapter, or
    (2) You store or treat the waste in such a way that it is protected 
from any material or conditions that may cause the waste to ignite or 
react; or
    (3) You use the tank system solely for emergencies.
    (b) If you store or treat ignitable or reactive waste in a tank, 
you must comply with the requirements for the maintenance of protective 
distances between the waste management area and any public ways, 
streets, alleys, or an adjoining property line that can be built upon 
as required in Tables 2-1 through 2-6 of the National Fire Protection 
Association's ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code,'' (1977 or 
1981), (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 260.11).


Sec. 267.203  What special requirements must I meet for incompatible 
wastes?

    (a) You may not place incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes 
and materials, in the same tank system, unless you comply with 
Sec. 267.17(b).
    (b) You may not place hazardous waste in a tank system that has not 
been decontaminated and that previously held an incompatible waste or 
material, unless you comply with Sec. 267.17(b).


Sec. 267.204  What air emission standards apply?

    You must manage all hazardous waste placed in a tank following the 
requirements of subparts AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR part 264. Under a 
standardized permit, the following control devices are permissible: 
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, flame, boiler, 
process heater, condenser, and carbon absorption unit.

Subparts K through CC  [Reserved]

Subpart DD--Containment buildings


Sec. 267.1100  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that 
treats or stores hazardous waste in containment buildings under a 40 
CFR part 270, subpart I standardized permit, except as provided in 
Sec. 267.1(b). Storage and/or treatment in your containment building is 
not land disposal as defined in 40 CFR 268.2 if your unit meets the 
requirements of Secs. 267.1101, 267.1102, and 267.1103.


Sec. 267.1101  What design and operating standards must my containment 
building meet?

    Your containment buildings must comply with the design and 
operating standards in this section. EPA will consider standards 
established by professional organizations generally recognized by the 
industry such as the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and the American 
Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) in judging the structural integrity 
requirements of this section.
    (a) The containment building must be completely enclosed with a 
floor, walls,

[[Page 52263]]

and a roof to prevent exposure to the elements, (e.g., precipitation, 
wind, run-on), and to assure containment of managed wastes.
    (b) The floor and containment walls of the unit, including the 
secondary containment system, if required under Sec. 267.1103, must be 
designed and constructed of manmade materials of sufficient strength 
and thickness to:
    (1) Support themselves, the waste contents, and any personnel and 
heavy equipment that operates within the unit.
    (2) Prevent failure due to:
    (i) Pressure gradients, settlement, compression, or uplift.
    (ii) Physical contact with the hazardous wastes to which they are 
exposed
    (iii) Climatic conditions.
    (iv) Stresses of daily operation, including the movement of heavy 
equipment within the unit and contact of such equipment with 
containment walls.
    (v) Collapse or other failure.
    (c) All surfaces to be in contact with hazardous wastes must be 
chemically compatible with those wastes.
    (d) You must not place incompatible hazardous wastes or treatment 
reagents in the unit or its secondary containment system if they could 
cause the unit or secondary containment system to leak, corrode, or 
otherwise fail.
    (e) A containment building must have a primary barrier designed to 
withstand the movement of personnel, waste, and handling equipment in 
the unit during the operating life of the unit and appropriate for the 
physical and chemical characteristics of the waste to be managed.
    (f) If appropriate to the nature of the waste management operation 
to take place in the unit, an exception to the structural strength 
requirement may be made for light-weight doors and windows that meet 
these criteria:
    (1) They provide an effective barrier against fugitive dust 
emissions under Sec. 267.1102(d).
    (2) The unit is designed and operated in a fashion that assures 
that wastes will not actually come in contact with these openings.
    (g) You must inspect and record in the facility's operating record, 
at least once every seven days, data gathered from monitoring equipment 
and leak detection equipment as well as the containment building and 
the area immediately surrounding the containment building to detect 
signs of releases of hazardous waste.
    (h) You must obtain certification by a qualified registered 
professional engineer that the containment building design meets the 
requirements of Secs. 267.1102, 267.1103, and paragraphs (a) through 
(f) of this section.


Sec. 267.1102  What other requirements must I meet to prevent releases?

    You must use controls and practices to ensure containment of the 
hazardous waste within the unit; and must, at a minimum:
    (a) Maintain the primary barrier to be free of significant cracks, 
gaps, corrosion, or other deterioration that could cause hazardous 
waste to be released from the primary barrier.
    (b) Maintain the level of the stored/treated hazardous waste within 
the containment walls of the unit so that the height of any containment 
wall is not exceeded.
    (c) Take measures to prevent personnel or by equipment used in 
handling the waste from tracking hazardous waste out of the unit. You 
must designate an area to decontaminate equipment, and you must collect 
and properly manage any rinsate.
    (d) Take measures to control fugitive dust emissions such that any 
openings (doors, windows, vents, cracks, etc.) exhibit no visible 
emissions (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 22--Visual 
Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke 
Emissions from Flares). In addition, you must operate and maintain all 
associated particulate collection devices (for example, fabric filter, 
electrostatic precipitator) with sound air pollution control practices. 
You must effectively maintain this state of no visible emissions at all 
times during routine operating and maintenance conditions, including 
when vehicles and personnel are entering and exiting the unit.


Sec. 267.1103  What additional design and operating standards apply if 
liquids will be in my containment building?

    If your containment building will be used to manage hazardous 
wastes containing free liquids or treated with free liquids, as 
determined by the paint filter test, by a visual examination, or by 
other appropriate means, you must include:
    (a) A primary barrier designed and constructed of materials to 
prevent the migration of hazardous constituents into the barrier (for 
example, a geomembrane covered by a concrete wear surface).
    (b) A liquid collection and removal system to minimize the 
accumulation of liquid on the primary barrier of the containment 
building.
    (1) The primary barrier must be sloped to drain liquids to the 
associated collection system; and
    (2) You must collect and remove liquids and waste to minimize 
hydraulic head on the containment system at the earliest practicable 
time.
    (c) A secondary containment system, including a secondary barrier 
designed and constructed to prevent migration of hazardous constituents 
into the barrier, and a leak detection system capable of detecting 
failure of the primary barrier and collecting accumulated hazardous 
wastes and liquids at the earliest practical time.
    (1) You may meet the requirements of the leak detection component 
of the secondary containment system by installing a system that is, at 
a minimum:
    (i) Constructed with a bottom slope of 1 percent or more; and
    (ii) Constructed of a granular drainage material with a hydraulic 
conductivity of 1  x 10-2 cm/sec or more and a thickness of 
12 inches (30.5 cm) or more, or constructed of synthetic or geonet 
drainage materials with a transmissivity of 3  x 10-5 
m2/sec or more.
    (2) If you will be conducting treatment in the building, you must 
design the area in which the treatment will be conducted to prevent the 
release of liquids, wet materials, or liquid aerosols to other portions 
of the building.
    (3) You must construct the secondary containment system using 
materials that are chemically resistant to the waste and liquids 
managed in the containment building and of sufficient strength and 
thickness to prevent collapse under the pressure exerted by overlaying 
materials and by any equipment used in the containment building.


Sec. 267.1104  How may I obtain a waiver from secondary containment 
requirements?

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart the Regional 
Administrator may waive requirements for secondary containment for a 
permitted containment building where you:
    (a) Demonstrate that the only free liquids in the unit are limited 
amounts of dust suppression liquids required to meet occupational 
health and safety requirements, and
    (b) Containment of managed wastes and dust suppression liquids can 
be assured without a secondary containment system.


Sec. 267.1105  What do I do if my containment building contains areas 
both with and without secondary containment?

    For these containment buildings, you must:
    (a) Design and operate each area in accordance with the 
requirements enumerated in Secs. 267.1101 through 267.1103.

[[Page 52264]]

    (b) Take measures to prevent the release of liquids or wet 
materials into areas without secondary containment.
    (c) Maintain in the facility's operating log a written description 
of the operating procedures used to maintain the integrity of areas 
without secondary containment.


Sec. 267.1106  What do I do if I detect a release?

    Throughout the active life of the containment building, if you 
detect a condition that could lead to or has caused a release of 
hazardous waste, you must repair the condition promptly, in accordance 
with the following procedures.
    (a) Upon detection of a condition that has lead to a release of 
hazardous waste (for example, upon detection of leakage from the 
primary barrier) you must:
    (1) Enter a record of the discovery in the facility operating 
record;
    (2) Immediately remove the portion of the containment building 
affected by the condition from service;
    (3) Determine what steps you must take to repair the containment 
building, to remove any leakage from the secondary collection system, 
and to establish a schedule for accomplishing the cleanup and repairs; 
and
    (4) Within 7 days after the discovery of the condition, notify the 
Regional Administrator of the condition, and within 14 working days, 
provide a written notice to the Regional Administrator with a 
description of the steps taken to repair the containment building, and 
the schedule for accomplishing the work.
    (b) The Regional Administrator will review the information 
submitted, make a determination regarding whether the containment 
building must be removed from service completely or partially until 
repairs and cleanup are complete, and notify you of the determination 
and the underlying rationale in writing.
    (c) Upon completing all repairs and cleanup, you must notify the 
Regional Administrator in writing and provide a verification, signed by 
a qualified, registered professional engineer, that the repairs and 
cleanup have been completed according to the written plan submitted in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section.


Sec. 267.1107  Can a containment building itself be considered 
secondary containment?

    Containment buildings can serve as secondary containment systems 
for tanks placed within the building under certain conditions.
    (a) A containment building can serve as an external liner system 
for a tank, provided it meets the requirements of Sec. 267.196(a).
    (b) The containment building must also meet the requirements of 
Sec. 267.195(a), (b)(1) and (2) to be considered an acceptable 
secondary containment system for a tank.


Sec. 267.1108  What must I do when I stop operating the containment 
building?

    When you close a containment building, you must remove or 
decontaminate all waste residues, contaminated containment system 
components (liners, etc.) contaminated subsoils, and structures and 
equipment contaminated with waste and leachate, and manage them as 
hazardous waste unless 40 CFR 261.3(d) applies. The closure plan, 
closure activities, cost estimates for closure, and financial 
responsibility for containment buildings must meet all of the 
requirements specified in subparts G and H of this part.

PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PERMIT PROGRAM

    11. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 
6974.

Subpart A--General Information

    12. Section 270.1(b) is amended by adding a sentence after the 
second sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 270.1  Purpose and scope of these regulations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Facilities that generate hazardous waste and then non-
thermally treat or store the hazardous waste in tanks, containers, or 
containment buildings, may be eligible for a standardized permit under 
subpart I of this part. * * *
* * * * *
    13. Section 270.2 is amended by revising the definition for 
``Permit'' and adding a definition for ``Standardized permit'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 270.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Permit means an authorization, license, or equivalent control 
document issued by EPA or an approved State to implement the 
requirements of this part and parts 271 and 124 of this chapter. Permit 
includes permit by rule (Sec. 270.60), emergency permit (Sec. 270.61) 
and standardized permit (subpart I of this part). Permit does not 
include RCRA interim status (subpart G of this part), or any permit 
which has not been the subject of final agency action, such as a draft 
permit or a proposed permit.
* * * * *
    Standardized permit means a RCRA permit issued under part 124, 
subpart G of this chapter and subpart I of this part authorizing the 
facility owner or operator to manage hazardous waste. The standardized 
permit may have two parts: a uniform portion issued in all cases and a 
supplemental portion issued at the Director's discretion.
* * * * *

Subpart B--Permit Application

    14. Section 270.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 270.10  General application requirements.

    (a) Applying for a permit. Below is information on how to obtain a 
permit and where to find requirements for specific permits:
    (1) If you are covered by RCRA permits by rule (Sec. 270.60), you 
need not apply.
    (2) If you currently have interim status, you must apply for 
permits when required by the Director.
    (3) If you are required to have a permit (including new applicants 
and permittees with expiring permits) you must complete, sign, and 
submit an application to the Director as described in this section and 
Secs. 270.70 through 270.73.
    (4) If you are seeking an emergency permit, the procedures for 
application, issuance, and administration are found exclusively in 
Sec. 270.61.
    (5) If you are seeking a research, development, and demonstration 
permit, the procedures for application, issuance, and administration 
are found exclusively in Sec. 270.65.
    (6) If you are seeking a standardized permit, the procedures for 
application and issuance are found in part 124, subpart G of this 
chapter and subpart I of this part.
* * * * *
    (h) Reapplying for a permit. If you have an effective permit and 
you want to reapply for a new one, you have two options:
    (1) You may submit a new application at least 180 days before the 
expiration date of the effective permit, unless the Direction allows a 
later date; or
    (2) If you intend to be covered by a standardized permit, you may 
submit a Notice of Intent as described in Sec. 270.51(e)(1) at least 
180 days before the expiration date of the effective

[[Page 52265]]

permit, unless the Director allows a later date. (The Director may not 
allow you to submit applications or Notices of Intent later than the 
expiration date of the existing permit, except as allowed by 
Sec. 270.51(e)(2)).
* * * * *

Subpart D--Changes to Permits

    15. Section 270.40(b) is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 270.40  Transfer of permits.

* * * * *
    (b) Changes in the ownership or operational control of a facility 
may be made as a Class 1 modification with prior written approval of 
the Director in accordance with Sec. 270.42 or as a routine change 
under 40 CFR 124.212.
* * * * *
    16. Section 270.41 is amended by revising the next to last sentence 
of the introductory paragraph and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 270.41  Modification or revocation and reissuance of permits.

    * * * If a permit modification is requested by the permittee, the 
Director shall approve or deny the request according to the procedures 
of Sec. 270.42, or Sec. 270.320 and 40 CFR part 124, subpart G. * * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The Director has received notification under 40 CFR 124.202 (b) 
of a facility owner or operator's intent to be covered by a 
standardized permit.
* * * * *

Subpart E--Expiration and Continuation of Permits

    17. Section 270.51 is amended by adding paragraph (e) as follows:


Sec. 270.51  Continuation of expiring permits.

* * * * *
    (e) Standardized permits. (1) The conditions of your expired 
standardized permit continue until the effective date of your new 
permit (see 40 CFR 124.15) if all of the following are true:
    (i) If EPA is the permit-issuing authority.
    (ii) If you submit a timely and complete notice of intent under 40 
CFR 124.202(b) requesting coverage under a RCRA standardized permit; 
and
    (iii) If the Director, through no fault on your part, does not 
issue your permit before your previous permit expires (for example, 
where it is impractical to make the permit effective by that date 
because of time or resource constraints).
    (2) In some cases, the Director may notify you that you are not 
eligible for a standardized permit (see 40 CFR 124.206). In those 
cases, the conditions of your expired permit will continue if you 
submit the information specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
(that is, a complete application for a new permit) within 60 days after 
you receive our notification that you are not eligible for a 
standardized permit.

Subpart F--Special Forms of Permits

    18. Add Sec. 270.67 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec. 270.67  RCRA standardized permits for storage and treatment units.

    RCRA standardized permits are special forms of permits for facility 
owners or operators that generate hazardous waste and then non-
thermally treat or store the hazardous waste in tanks, containers, or 
containment buildings. Standardized permit facility owners or operators 
are regulated under subpart I of this part, part 124 subpart G of this 
chapter, and part 267 of this chapter.
    19. Subpart I is added to part 270 to read as follows:

Subpart I--RCRA Standardized Permits for Storage and Treatment 
Units

Sec.

General Information About Standardized Permits

270.250  What is a RCRA standardized permit?
270.255  Who is eligible for a standardized permit?
270.260  What requirements of Part 270 apply to a standardized 
permit?

Applying for a Standardized Permit

270.270  How do I apply for a standardized permit?
270.275  What information must I submit to the permitting agency to 
support my standardized permit application?
270.280  What are the certification requirements?
270.285  What happens if my facility is not in compliance with 40 
CFR part 267 requirements at the time I submit my notice of intent?

Information That Must Be Kept at Your Facility

270.290  What general types of information must I keep at my 
facility?
270.300  What container information must I keep at my facility?
270.305  What tank information must I keep at my facility?
270.310  What equipment information must I keep at my facility?
270.315  What air emissions control information must I keep at my 
facility?

Modifying a Standardized Permit

270.320  How do I modify my RCRA standardized permit?

Subpart I--RCRA Standardized Permits for Storage and Treatment 
Units

General Information About Standardized Permits


Sec. 270.250  What is a RCRA standardized permit?

    A RCRA standardized permit (RCRA) is a special type of permit that 
authorizes you to manage hazardous waste. It is issued under 40 CFR 
part 124, subpart G and subpart I of this part.


Sec. 270.255  Who is eligible for a standardized permit?

    If you generate hazardous waste and then non-thermally treat or 
store the hazardous waste in tanks, containers, or containment 
buildings, you may be eligible for a standardized permit. We will 
inform you of your eligibility when we make a decision on your permit 
application.


Sec. 270.260  What requirements of part 270 apply to a standardized 
permit?

    The following subparts and sections of this part 270 apply to a 
standardized permit:
    (a) Subpart A--General Information: all sections.
    (b) Subpart B--Permit Application: Secs. 270.10, 270.11, 270.12, 
270.13 and 270.29.
    (c) Subpart C--Permit Conditions : all sections.
    (d) Subpart D--Changes to Permit: Secs. 270.40, 270.41, and 270.43.
    (e) Subpart E--Expiration and Continuation of Permits: all 
sections.
    (f) Subpart F--Special Forms of Permits: Sec. 270.67.
    (g) Subpart G--Interim Status: all sections.
    (h) Subpart H--Remedial Action Plans: does not apply.
    (i) Subpart I--Standardized Permits: all sections.

Applying for a Standardized Permit


Sec. 270.270  How do I apply for a standardized permit?

    You apply for a standardized permit by following the procedures in 
40 CFR part 124, subpart G and this subpart.


Sec. 270.275  What information must I submit to the permitting agency 
to support my standardized permit application?

    The information in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section will 
be the basis of your standardized permit application. You must submit 
it to the Director when you submit your Notice

[[Page 52266]]

of Intent under 40 CFR 124.202(b) requesting coverage under a RCRA 
standardized permit:
    (a) The Part A information described in Sec. 270.13.
    (b) A meeting summary and other materials required by 40 CFR 
124.31.
    (c) Documentation of compliance with the location standards of 40 
CFR 267.18 and Sec. 270.14(b)(11).
    (d) Information that allows the Director to carry out our 
obligations under other Federal laws required in Sec. 270.3.
    (e) Solid waste management unit information required by 
Sec. 270.14(d).
    (f) A certification meeting the requirements of Sec. 270.280 and an 
audit of the facility's compliance status with 40 CFR part 267 as 
required by Sec. 270.280.


Sec. 270.280  What are the certification requirements?

    You must submit a signed certification based on your audit of your 
facility's compliance with 40 CFR part 267.
    (a) Your certification must read:
    I certify under penalty of law that:
    (1) My facility (include paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 
section, whichever applies):

    (i) Complies with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 267 
and will continue to comply until the expiration of the permit; or
    (ii) Will come into compliance before permit issuance with all 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 267 and will then continue to 
comply until expiration of the permit.
    (2) I will make all information that I am required to maintain 
at my facility by Secs. 270.290 through 277.315 readily available 
for review by the permitting agency and the public; and,
    (3) I will continue to make all information required by 
Secs. 270.290 through 277.315 available until the permit expires. I 
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false 
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for 
knowing violation.

    (b) You must sign this certification following the requirements of 
Sec. 270.11(a)(1) through (3).
    (c) This certification must be based upon an audit that you conduct 
of your facility's compliance status with 40 CFR part 267. You must 
submit this audit to the Director with the 40 CFR 124.202(b) notice of 
intent.


Sec. 270.285  What happens if my facility is not in compliance with 40 
CFR part 267 requirements at the time I submit my notice of intent?

    (a) If your facility is not in compliance with applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR part 267 at the time you submit your Notice of 
Intent, you must submit a compliance schedule to the Director. This 
schedule must include an enforceable sequence of actions with 
milestones, leading to compliance with the requirements for which your 
facility is in noncompliance at the time your Notice of Intent 
submittal.
    (b) Before the Director issues your permit, your facility must be 
in compliance with applicable 40 CFR part 267 requirements.

Information That Must Be Kept at Your Facility


Sec. 270.290  What general types of information must I keep at my 
facility?

    You must keep the following information at your facility:
    (a) A general description of the facility.
    (b) Chemical and physical analyses of the hazardous waste and 
hazardous debris handled at the facility. At a minimum, these analyses 
must contain all the information you must know to treat or store the 
wastes properly under the requirements of 40 CFR part 267.
    (c) A copy of the waste analysis plan required by 40 CFR 267.13(b).
    (d) A description of the security procedures and equipment required 
by 40 CFR 267.14, or a justification demonstrating the reasons for your 
waiver from these requirements.
    (e) A copy of the general inspection schedule required by 40 CFR 
267.15(b). You must include in the inspection schedule applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR 267.174, 267.193, 267.195, 264.1033, 264.1052, 
264.1053, 264.1058, and 264.1088.
    (f) A justification of any modification of the preparedness and 
prevention requirements of 40 CFR part 267, subpart C.
    (g) A copy of the contingency plan required by 40 CFR part 267, 
subpart D.
    (h) A description of procedures, structures, or equipment used at 
the facility to:
    (1) Prevent hazards in unloading operations (for example, use 
ramps, special forklifts),
    (2) Prevent runoff from hazardous waste handling areas to other 
areas of the facility or environment, or to prevent flooding (for 
example, with berms, dikes, trenches),
    (3) Prevent contamination of water supplies,
    (4) Mitigate effects of equipment failure and power outages,
    (5) Prevent undue exposure of personnel to hazardous waste (for 
example, requiring protective clothing), and
    (6) Prevent releases to atmosphere,
    (i) A description of precautions to prevent accidental ignition or 
reaction of ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes as required by 
40 CFR 267.17.
    (j) Traffic pattern, estimated volume (number, types of vehicles) 
and control (for example, show turns across traffic lanes, and stacking 
lanes; describe access road surfacing and load bearing capacity; show 
traffic control signals).
    (k) [Reserved]
    (l) An outline of both the introductory and continuing training 
programs you will use to prepare employees to operate or maintain your 
facility safely as required by 40 CFR 267.16. A brief description of 
how training will be designed to meet actual job tasks under 40 CFR 
267.16(a)(3) requirements.
    (m) A copy of the closure plan required by 40 CFR 267.112. Include, 
where applicable, as part of the plans, specific requirements in 40 CFR 
267.176, 267.201, and 267.1108.
    (n) [Reserved]
    (o) The most recent closure cost estimate for your facility 
prepared under 40 CFR 267.142 and a copy of the documentation required 
to demonstrate financial assurance under 40 CFR 267.143. For a new 
facility, you may gather the required documentation 60 days before the 
initial receipt of hazardous wastes.
    (p) [Reserved]
    (q) Where applicable, a copy of the insurance policy or other 
documentation that complies with the liability requirements of 40 CFR 
267.147. For a new facility, documentation showing the amount of 
insurance meeting the specification of 40 CFR 267.147(a) that you plan 
to have in effect before initial receipt of hazardous waste for 
treatment or storage.
    (r) Where appropriate, proof of coverage by a State financial 
mechanism as required by 40 CFR 267.149 or 267.150.
    (s) A topographic map showing a distance of 1000 feet around your 
facility at a scale of 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) equal to not more than 
61.0 meters (200 feet). The map must show elevation contours. The 
contour interval must show the pattern of surface water flow in the 
vicinity of and from each operational unit of the facility. For 
example, contours with an interval of 1.5 meters (5 feet), if relief is 
greater than 6.1 meters (20 feet), or an interval of 0.6 meters (2 
feet), if relief is less than 6.1 meters (20 feet). If your facility is 
in a mountainous area, you should use large contour intervals to 
adequately show topographic profiles of facilities. The map must 
clearly show the following:

[[Page 52267]]

    (1) Map scale and date.
    (2) 100-year floodplain area.
    (3) Surface waters including intermittent streams.
    (4) Surrounding land uses (residential, commercial, agricultural, 
recreational).
    (5) A wind rose (i.e., prevailing wind-speed and direction).
    (6) Orientation of the map (north arrow).
    (7) Legal boundaries of your facility site.
    (8) Access control (fences, gates).
    (9) Injection and withdrawal wells both on-site and off-site.
    (10) Buildings; treatment, storage, or disposal operations; or 
other structure (recreation areas, runoff control systems, access and 
internal roads, storm, sanitary, and process sewerage systems, loading 
and unloading areas, fire control facilities, etc.)
    (11) Barriers for drainage or flood control.
    (12) Location of operational units within your facility, where 
hazardous waste is (or will be) treated or stored. (Include equipment 
cleanup areas).


Sec. 270.300  What container information must I keep at my facility?

    If you store or treat hazardous waste in containers, you must keep 
the following information at your facility:
    (a) A description of the containment system to demonstrate 
compliance with container storage area provisions of 40 CFR 267.173. 
This description must show the following:
    (1) Basic design parameters, dimensions, and materials of 
construction.
    (2) How the design promotes drainage or how containers are kept 
from contact with standing liquids in the containment system.
    (3) Capacity of the containment system relative to the number and 
volume of containers to be stored.
    (4) Provisions for preventing or managing run-on.
    (5) How accumulated liquids can be analyzed and removed to prevent 
overflow.
    (b) For storage areas that store containers holding wastes that do 
not contain free liquids, a demonstration of compliance with 40 CFR 
267.173(c), including:
    (1) Test procedures and results or other documentation or 
information to show that the wastes do not contain free liquids.
    (2) A description of how the storage area is designed or operated 
to drain and remove liquids or how containers are kept from contact 
with standing liquids.
    (c) Sketches, drawings, or data demonstrating compliance with 40 
CFR 267.174 (location of buffer zone (15m or 50ft) and containers 
holding ignitable or reactive wastes) and 40 CFR 267.175(c) (location 
of incompatible wastes in relation to each other), where applicable.
    (d) Where incompatible wastes are stored or otherwise managed in 
containers, a description of the procedures used to ensure compliance 
with 40 CFR 267.175 (a) and (b), and 267.17 (b) and (c).
    (e) Information on air emission control equipment as required by 
Sec. 270.315.


Sec. 270.305  What tank information must I keep at my facility?

    If you use tanks to store or treat hazardous waste, you must keep 
the following information at your facility:
    (a) A written assessment that is reviewed and certified by an 
independent, qualified, registered professional engineer on the 
structural integrity and suitability for handling hazardous waste of 
each tank system, as required under 40 CFR 267.191 and 267.192.
    (b) Dimensions and capacity of each tank.
    (c) Description of feed systems, safety cutoff, bypass systems, and 
pressure controls (e.g., vents).
    (d) A diagram of piping, instrumentation, and process flow for each 
tank system.
    (e) A description of materials and equipment used to provide 
external corrosion protection, as required under 40 CFR 267.191.
    (f) For new tank systems, a detailed description of how the tank 
system(s) will be installed in compliance with 40 CFR 267.192 and 
267.194.
    (g) Detailed plans and description of how the secondary containment 
system for each tank system is or will be designed, constructed, and 
operated to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 267.195 and 267.196.
    (h) [Reserved].
    (i) Description of controls and practices to prevent spills and 
overflows, as required under 40 CFR 267.198.
    (j) For tank systems in which ignitable, reactive, or incompatible 
wastes are to be stored or treated, a description of how operating 
procedures and tank system and facility design will achieve compliance 
with the requirements of 40 CFR 267.202 and 267.203.
    (k) Information on air emission control equipment as required by 
Sec. 270.315.


Sec. 270.310  What equipment information must I keep at my facility?

    If your facility has equipment to which 40 CFR part 264, subpart BB 
applies, you must keep the following information at your facility:
    (a) For each piece of equipment to which 40 CFR part 264 subpart BB 
applies:
    (1) Equipment identification number and hazardous waste management 
unit identification.
    (2) Approximate locations within the facility (e.g., identify the 
hazardous waste management unit on a facility plot plan).
    (3) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump or a pipeline valve).
    (4) Percent by weight of total organics in the hazardous waste 
stream at the equipment.
    (5) Hazardous waste state at the equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or 
liquid).
    (6) Method of compliance with the standard (e.g., monthly leak 
detection and repair, or equipped with dual mechanical seals).
    (b) For facilities that cannot install a closed-vent system and 
control device to comply with 40 CFR Part 264, subpart BB on the 
effective date that the facility becomes subject to the subpart BB 
provisions, an implementation schedule as specified in 40 CFR 
264.1033(a)(2).
    (c) Documentation that demonstrates compliance with the equipment 
standards in 40 CFR 264.1052 and 264.1059. This documentation must 
contain the records required under 40 CFR 264.1064.
    (d) Documentation to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 264.1060 
must include the following information:
    (1) A list of all information references and sources used in 
preparing the documentation.
    (2) Records, including the dates, of each compliance test required 
by 40 CFR 264.1033(j).
    (3) A design analysis, specifications, drawings, schematics, and 
piping and instrumentation diagrams based on the appropriate sections 
of ``ATPI Course 415: Control of Gaseous Emissions'' (incorporated by 
reference as specified in 40 CFR 260.11) or other engineering texts 
acceptable to the Director that present basic control device design 
information. The design analysis must address the vent stream 
characteristics and control device operation parameters as specified in 
40 CFR 264.1035(b)(4)(iii).
    (4) A statement you signed and dated certifying that the operating 
parameters used in the design analysis reasonably represent the 
conditions that exist when the hazardous waste management unit is

[[Page 52268]]

operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonable expected to 
occur.
    (5) A statement you signed and dated certifying that the control 
device is designed to operate at an efficiency of 95 weight percent or 
greater.


Sec. 270.315  What air emissions control information must I keep at my 
facility?

    If you have air emission control equipment subject to 40 CFR part 
264, subpart CC, you must keep the following information at your 
facility:
    (a) Documentation for each floating roof cover installed on a tank 
subject to 40 CFR 264.1084(d)(1) or (d)(2) that includes information 
you prepared or the cover manufacturer/vendor provided describing the 
cover design, and your certification that the cover meets applicable 
design specifications listed in 40 CFR 264.1084(e)(1) or (f)(1).
    (b) Identification of each container area subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart CC and your certification that 
the requirements of this subpart are met.
    (c) Documentation for each enclosure used to control air pollutant 
emissions from tanks or containers under requirements of 40 CFR 
264.1084(d)(5) or 264.1086(e)(1)(ii). You must include records for the 
most recent set of calculations and measurements you performed to 
verify that the enclosure meets the criteria of a permanent total 
enclosure as specified in ``Procedure T--Criteria for and Verification 
of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure'' under 40 CFR 52.741, 
appendix B.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Documentation for each closed-vent system and control device 
installed under requirements of 40 CFR 264.1087 that includes design 
and performance information as specified in Sec. 270.24 (c) and (d).
    (f) An emission monitoring plan for both Method 21 in 40 CFR Part 
60, appendix A and control device monitoring methods. This plan must 
include the following information: monitoring point(s), monitoring 
methods for control devices, monitoring frequency, procedures for 
documenting exceedences, and procedures for mitigating noncompliances.

Modifying a Standardized Permit


Sec. 270.320  How do I modify my RCRA standardized permit?

    You can modify your RCRA standardized permit by following the 
procedures found in 40 CFR 124.211 through 124.213.

[FR Doc. 01-24204 Filed 10-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P