 Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration
September 20, 1999
RCRA Docket Information Center
Office of Solid Waste (5305G)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Docket Number F-1999-IBRA-FFFFF
The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI) is
pleased to submit comments on the "Office of Solid Waste Burden
Reduction Project: Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment"
as announced in the June 18, 1999, Federal Register. CRWI represents
fourteen companies with either captive or commercial hazardous waste
interests. These companies account for a significant portion of the
U.S. capacity for hazardous waste incineration. In addition, CRWI is
advised by a number of academic members with research interests in
hazardous waste incineration. Since its inception, CRWI has encouraged
its members to reduce the generation of hazardous waste. However, for
certain hazardous waste streams, CRWI believes that incineration is a
safe and effective method of treatment, reducing both the volume and
toxicity of the waste treated. CRWI seeks to help its member companies
both to improve their operations and to provide lawmakers and
regulators helpful data and comments.
In general, CRWI supports efforts to reduce the burden of
record keeping and reporting. As mentioned in the NODA, CRWI agrees
there are many cases where the same information is reported or required
under several state and federal regulations. One example is the federal
Biennial Reporting System (BRS) and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reporting system. In addition, several states also require TRI
submissions. These states may not use the data for a purpose apparent
to the reporting facility and may not have the capability of electronic
submission of the TRI database. An additional duplication of effort is
the TRI requirement to estimate the 313 chemicals sent off-site for
treatment or disposal and similar requirement for the BRS. A second
example is the training and certification requirements for OSHA and
EPA. The document "RCRA-OSHA Training Requirements Overlap" clearly
delineates that OSHA's requirements will meet or exceed the RCRA
requirements. Thus, requiring both does not appear to be justified.
EPA requested comments on specific questions. CRWI's
suggestions are below.
A. Should we allow facilities to submit all information and
keep all records of information electronically?
Monitoring to show compliance with a large number of
parameters is currently done electronically. Most control rooms use
sophisticated computer systems to control the processes and to ensure
that operations do not exceed permit parameters. Since most of the
compliance data is already collected and stored in an electronic
format, it appears to be an inefficient use of time and resources
(trees) to reduce that information to a paper format prior to sending
the data to the regulating agency(s). While there may be some initial
problems with compatibility between systems, these technical problems
can be solved. However, if there are circumstances where electronic
methods are more cumbersome or expensive than traditional methods, the
flexibility should remain to submit paper copies.
The electronic TRI submission is a good example of the
Agency's welcomed efforts toward electronic submission. The free
program provided by EPA allows a facility to ensure that no required
data is missing. The program's prompts, checks, and messages ensure a
complete submission. The data is then transferred to a disk in the
format preferred by EPA. This is easier and less costly to mail than a
paper copy. EPA can easily transfer the data and the chance for data
input error is greatly reduced. If there are input errors, it would
more likely be the reporting facility's instead of an error by EPA.
CRWI also supports storing electronic image files, such as
manifests. CRWI believes this reduces the amount of paper copies
needed, saving resources and reducing storage volume. The storage of
documents is essential to most industries. Since documents must be
stored in multiple locations to protect from destruction (e.g., fire,
flood, etc.), the use of electronic copies greatly reduces the
resources and space needed while satisfying the basic need to retain
data.
Due to the time savings, cost savings, resource savings, and
error reduction, CRWI supports the use of electronic reporting and
record keeping where appropriate.
B. Should EPA reduce reporting requirements for generators
and treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDF)?
The Agency document "RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting
Requirements" cited in the NODA includes over 325 possible requirements
for large quantity generators and/or TSDFs. Of these requirements over
80 Notifications may be required, over 75 reports, over 40
Certifications, over 60 variances/exemptions/demonstrations/extensions,
over 45 permits, and over 20 plans are listed. The document has a 19
page table listing requirements. Many of these requirements are
repeating certification and notifications. A reduction of the massive
amount of reporting is clearly supportable. Not only does the facility
use vast resources and time to comply with all these requirements, EPA
has to maintain these reports and certifications. CRWI urges EPA to
examine what effect on human health and the environment these
requirements actually impact and adjust their requirements as
appropriate.
CRWI also supports the concept of only requiring that
justifiable electronic records be maintained at the facility. While
records may be kept at other locations to guarantee safe retention of
data, the public and the regulators would be able to inspect the
records at the facility to ensuring that facility is meeting their
permit requirements.
C. Should we lengthen the period between facility
self-inspections?
CRWI believes that there are certain inspection schedules that
should continue on a periodic basis but there are others that can
flexible based on the results of the inspections. When RCRA was
enacted, an inspection schedule was developed based upon limited
information. Many facilities have been in existence for over 20 years
and that experience in protecting human health and the environment
should be used to develop more flexible inspection schedules. CRWI
supports the concept that where a series of inspections fail to show
any concerns, the inspection period should be lengthened. Should
problems occur, the schedule can be written in a manner that
appropriate adjustments to the frequency of inspections can be made.
In addition, technological advances in monitoring equipment
have made some daily inspections unnecessary. For example, inspecting
RCRA waste tanks daily for spills or leaks can be eliminated by
installing continuous LEL monitors which would indicate any spill or
leak of a volatile material. At this time, the incentive to install
monitors is minimal because of the daily inspection requirement. If a
simple procedure, such as noting the justification in the operating
record, were available, many facilities would consider using continuous
monitors instead of daily inspections.
D. Should we change RCRA personnel training requirements?
CRWI supports Alternate 1 where a one-time certification that
all personnel have been trained. CRWI also agrees with EPA that there
are certain areas where OSHA and RCRA training requirements overlap.
CRWI sees this as an inefficient use of time and resources. CRWI
suggests that EPA defer to OSHA for the training requirements. As
listed in the document "RCRA-OSHA Training Requirements Overlap", the
OSHA program meets or exceeds the RCRA requirements. This would exceed
the RCRA requirements and ensure the proper training. This would also
eliminate any duplication and would relieve the facility from possible
dual enforcement actions.
E. Should we streamline the LDR paperwork requirements?
Change 1: Eliminate 268.7(a)(1) Generator waste determinations
Change 2: Eliminate 268.7(b)(6) Recycler notifications and certification
Change 3: Eliminate 268.7(d) Hazardous debris notification
Change 4: Eliminate 268.9(a) Characteristic waste determination and
streamline 268.9(d) Notification procedures
CRWI supports streamlining the LDR paperwork requirements. As
reported in the NODA, the waste determinations under Part 262 and 264
would meet the obligations under Part 268. This is a duplicative
requirement that should be removed.
The notifications and certification under the LDR program are
extensive and numerous. CRWI supports eliminating the additional
certifications required. These certifications have no impact on human
health and the environment. The certification required to accompany the
manifested shipment should be adequate and can be review by inspectors
to ensure compliance and protection of the environment.
F.Should we reduce the amount of data collected by the
biennial report?
CRWI supports the two suggestions that EPA has made in the
NODA. In addition, CRWI would like to encourage the agency to also
eliminate all parts of the biennial report that are already covered
under TRI requirements. It makes no sense to duplicate efforts and
report the same information under two different mechanisms. If there
are slightly different requirements for the two reports, CRWI suggests
that the systems be modified to require only one report.
Thank you for considering these comments. If there are any
questions, please contact me (202-775-9869 or crwi@erols.com).
Sincerely yours,
Melvin E. Keener, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Return to Comments
Return to Main Page
|