DATE SUBMITTED:
09/14/2007
SHORT TITLE: Expansion of
RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: James W.
Spiller, Jr.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ comments to EPA will: recommend changes to conform to RCRA
definitions to clarify applicability; provide comments on benchmark
for comparable emissions; recommend alternative approaches to
proposed firing rates of ECF and blending limits; recommend
corrections and clarifications for the text of the rules; recommend
a reduction in the proposed complexity for the self-implementing
rule; and, recommend clarifications to recordkeeping and
documentation of compliance.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/25/2007
SHORT TITLE: Revisions to
the Definition of Solid Waste
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Lynn
Bell
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The TCEQ has several comments regarding the revisions to the
definition of solid waste proposed by EPA. Comments address the
need for additional regulatory oversight for the management of
hazardous secondary materials in land-based units. Another comment
requests EPA to consider requiring reclamation facilities to make
available for review a Closure Plan, or similar documentation, to
justify the amount of financial assurance the company posts for
closure. The TCEQ also submits comments averring that by employing
all four factors used in determining legitimate recycling,
flexibility can still be maintained. Another comment addresses the
possible generation of wastes that could contain hazardous
constituents being classified and managed as non-hazardous waste
because those wastes do not demonstrate the characteristics of
hazardous waste. The TCEQ requests that EPA reevaluate implementing
a formal procedure for the evaluation of petitions of non-waste
determination.
DATE SUBMITTED:
05/15/2007
SHORT TITLE: Draft
Operator Training Grant Guidelines for States
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Anton
Rozsypal
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) respectfully
provides the following comments with regard to the referenced draft
guidelines:
How Does A State Implement These Guidelines? (page 3): The
state must develop state-specific operator training requirements,
must establish a procedure to identify persons who are required to
be trained, and must ensure that all operators are trained. In
Texas, even if third party training providers are utilized and UST
owner/operators pay for their own training, existing databases must
be modified to track the new information and additional personnel
will be necessary to modify the databases and to address the added
ongoing information stream. It is currently estimated that the
additional burden on the TCEQ could require up to 9 additional
staff (6 full time and 3 temporary), and additional expenditures in
excess of $425,000 the first year and in excess of $305,000 per
year thereafter. TCEQs current FTE caps and budgetary constraints
will make meeting these requirements difficult.
Who is Subject to Operator Training Requirements and What are
the Requirements? (page 4, first paragraph): States must
establish a procedure to identify individuals who are required to
meet operator training requirements and suggests that states may
accomplish this by requiring that UST system owners identify at
least one name for each operator class for each UST system. A UST
system is each individual tank/line system. This requirement is
onerous and would be better stated if UST system were changed to
UST facility.
Who is Subject to Operator Training Requirements and What are
the Requirements? (page 4, second paragraph): The logistics of
designating and tracking the Class C operator or operators by the
owner/operators and the state may prove to be quite troublesome,
considering the normally high turnover rate of these employees.
TCEQ suggests that verification by Class B operators that all daily
on-site employees are regularly trained would be sufficient. When
Must Operators Be Trained? (page 7, last paragraph): States must
require Class A and Class B operators to repeat specific training
requirements following a non-compliance determination by the state.
TCEQ suggests that the language be changed to require only Class B
Operators to repeat training.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/20/2007
SHORT TITLE: Hazardous
Waste Management System: Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F019
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Scott
Green
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Regarding the feasibility of recycling F019 waste under current
market conditions, the TCEQ has information that recycling of F019
is occurring in Texas. While not specifically from automotive
manufacturers, Texas data indicates that F019 recycling is feasible
under today’s market conditions.
Concerning the different options for non-hazardous landfill
disposal of F019 waste, the TCEQ supports the second option
allowing for alternative disposal in a landfill equipped with a
liner system that meets minimum design criteria. The TCEQ
recommends that disposal in landfills with more rigorous liner
design criteria (or hazardous waste landfills), should remain
optional. Again, the TCEQ does not object to alternative landfill
disposal as discussed in the second option.
Considering recordkeeping requirements, it seems reasonable to the
TCEQ that they should be part of the exemption rather than a
separate requirement, further reinforcing the concept that
qualification of the waste as non-hazardous is conditioned on its
safe management. TCEQ concurs with the proposed regulatory language
in its entirety for prescriptive management standards prior to
disposal.
In addition, the TCEQ is also providing comments regarding F019
recycling. The proposal seems to state that the waste may be
excluded from hazardous waste regulations if disposed, but it
appears to remain designated as hazardous waste if recycled. The
TCEQ is concerned that this may have the effect of discouraging
recycling. Similarly, it is unclear, when a portion of a
generator’s F019 waste is recycled and the remainder is sent
for disposal, whether the generator is required to manage the
entire volume as hazardous waste or whether the recycled portion
may be treated as nonhazardous waste prior to removal. The TCEQ
requests that the EPA provide clarification in instances where an
automotive manufacturer recycles a portion or all of their F019
waste.
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/30/2006
SHORT TITLE: Standards
Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K - Standards
Applicable to Academic Laboratories
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Sheila
Meyers
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Under EPA's proposal regarding laboratory clean-outs, materials
from clean-outs may remain in the laboratory until the next
scheduled removal. TCEQ believes that unwanted materials should be
removed upon conclusion of a clean-out.
The Laboratory Management Plan (LMP) should also include standards
on the minimum amount of activity required by the regulations in
order to meet performance standards. Deviations from the LMP which
exceed the requirements should not be considered as violations
warranting enforcement action.
EPA's proposal excludes areas where the same hazardous wastes are
routinely generated from qualifying for the alternate standards
allowed by this rule. Certain laboratory operations that may be
considered to routinely generate the same hazardous wastes should
be allowed to meet the proposed alternate standards.
DATE SUBMITTED: 09/05/2006
SHORT TITLE: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Low Level Radioactive Waste Program
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Susan
Jablonski
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
There is a well-defined and developed regulatory system in Texas to
address LLW disposal sites. Although there are some complexities,
the current framework provides for the safe management and disposal
of waste. It is true that the existing regulatory framework has not
facilitated development of multiple regional disposal sites as was
originally envisioned; however, access to management and disposal
capacity has been maintained under the current system. The State of
Texas has spent many years pursuing successful siting of a LLW
disposal facility. Texas has used flexibility within the current
framework to develop approaches which have been acceptable to
policy makers and the public. A policy shift was initiated in Texas
in 2003 as a solution in the form of privatization of a proposed
LLW disposal facility. Texas is concerned about any proposed
changes in regulations, or even potentially in related guidance,
that may impact the LLW disposal site application process that is
currently underway. Texas is at a critical point in the processing
of a LLW application with set regulations and guidance that has
been identified and relied upon to move through the process.
Changing those in mid-stream could call into question the
approaches and rationale used in the Texas process prior to a final
determination on licensing being made.
For the long-term, the NRC and individual states need to move the
regulatory approach for the management of radioactive material away
from one based on waste generation origin to an approach based on
the relative radiological hazard associated with the waste stream.
The differences and inconsistencies continue to create problems and
confusion and negatively impact public perception on the safety of
radioactive material. The NRC could focus LLW efforts on
identifying unique and emerging waste streams and facilitating
management solutions under the current framework. Consideration
should be given to specific waste stream characteristics, waste
forms, waste packaging, and specific disposal site conditions. In
the context of LLW, decisions should be risk-informed and
performance-based, consistent with the performance criteria in
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§61.41 to
61.44 and 10 CFR §61.58, as appropriate. The NRC should
coordinate throughout the process with the state regulators who
will actually be implementing these decisions under their licensing
authority for disposal, recognizing that all United States
commercial disposal sites are regulated by state programs.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/19/2006
SHORT TITLE: Modification
of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System (E-Manifesting)
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Terri
Baca
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Required vs. voluntary use.
Access, queries and reports (e.g., monitoring/assessing compliance
issues and trends).
Logistics (e.g., while the waste is on the truck, can the manifest
be accessed via remote computers, carried on a chip, carried as a
PDF on a PDA, etc.; how will the new system meet Texas Department
of Transportation’s requirement to have a manifest on board;
etc.).
Double entry of information (e.g., E-Manifest System and STEERS
annual generator report/receiver report).
Use of data (e.g., supplement and/or replace annual, monthly and/or
biennial reports).
Purchase, building and long-term maintenance costs of technology,
database or infrastructure needs.
DATE SUBMITTED:
12/28/2004
SHORT TITLE: Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program Information Collection Request
(ICR)
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Waste Permits
STAFF CONTACT: Ben
Knape
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The scope
of the ICR includes not only the proposed reinstitution of the Form
7520 reporting system, but also institution of a newer system of
Excel-based reporting of UIC measures. Neither of these reporting
systems have been put in place by formal rulemaking, and both
impose regulatory burdens which exceed those of the federal
regulations for UIC Program reporting. At present, our UIC Program
would have difficulty implementing additional federal requirements
without an increase in resources. The proper use of the ICR process
should be to insure that reporting forms remain consistent with and
facilitate compliance with the requirements of existing
regulations. Detailed comments on the ICR and related documents,
addressing EPA's burden and cost estimates for UIC Program
reporting (information collection), are provided in attachment to
the draft comment letter.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/30/2004
SHORT TITLE: Ground Water
Task Force Discussion Papers
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Hector
Mendieta
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Consistency between our federal and non-federal programs regarding
basic approaches to remediation is desirable. In addition to eight
problems identified in the first discussion paper, staff discusses
three additional problems that should be addressed and recommends
solutions. In lieu of fact sheets and guidance documents proposed
in six of the eight options, the Task Force should compile and
rapidly disseminate current information through a comprehensive
DNAPL annotated bibliography (for internet access) of references,
research, organizations (e.g., academic, industry, and government)
and their respective web links/addresses. As the demand for surface
water and groundwater increases due to demographic shifts to more
arid parts of the nation and Texas specifically, the problems and
issues presented in the second discussion paper regarding
"reasonably expected" groundwater sources becomes more relevant and
urgent
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/21/2004
SHORT TITLE: Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to the Hazardous Waste
Generator Program Evaluation
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Waste Permits
STAFF CONTACT: Wade
Wheatley
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Waste
accumulation times should be extended for generators that exceed
performance standards. EPA should increase overall funding and/or
allow states to reallocate federal funds to build additional
capacity for pollution prevention and environmental assistance
programs. EPA should continue to build a national environmental
data network to facilitate the electronic exchange of data between
the regulated community, states, and EPA to eliminate duplication
of effort and provide for more efficient use of reported data.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/07/2004
SHORT TITLE: Comments on
40 CFR Parts 63, 264, et al. National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final
Replacement Standards and Phase II); Proposed Rule
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Waste Permits
STAFF CONTACT: Katherine
Nelson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Each state
should be afforded as much flexibility as possible to implement
this rule. States are charged with the responsibility of ensuring
that facilities meet the emission standards and with implementing
the associated programs. Thus each state should be given the
autonomy/authority to determine the best way to carry out its
charge and to allocate resources. The regulation should require
control technologies that reduce the emissions of HAPs source to a
level that is technically achievable for all sources in the
category. EPA should explain how establishing of thermal emissions
limits solely for hazardous waste meets the requirements of Section
112(d)(1) to establish limits for HAP emissions from sources based
on classes, types or sizes of the source.
DATE SUBMITTED:
6/22/2004
SHORT TITLE: Proposed
Development and Implementation of Electronic Manifests To Accompany
Hazardous Waste Shipments
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Hector
Mendieta
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Staff
recommends that TCEQ support the e-manifest system. Staff
recommends that "real time" tracking of wastes not be considered at
this time because the complicated issues involved would delay the
rulemaking. Staff recommends that Biennial Report data and
e-manifest data be consistent. Staff recommends that EPA provide
standards and criteria for software applications to be used for
e-manifesting.
DATE SUBMITTED:
5/20/2004
SHORT TITLE: Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Approaches to an Integrated
Framework for Management and Disposal of Low-Activity Radioactive
Waste: Request for Comment
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Hector
Mendieta
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: It should
be noted that it is difficult to provide comments to this ANPR due
to the broad diversity of waste issues discussed. Clear definitions
of waste streams under consideration should be provided by the EPA
in future discussions of alternative disposal options. A clear
EPA/NRC agreement on alternative disposal scenarios is important
for states with both RCRA authorization from the EPA and NRC
agreement state status for radioactive material and waste. For
states that are responsible for the permitting of RCRA facilities
as well as the licensing of radioactive material use and disposal,
any differences between approaches and interpretations by the EPA
and NRC remain difficult to resolve. The ANPR lacks discussion
addressing waste generator perspectives, including the federal
government. Waste generators' perspectives should be considered
more fully, including potential long-term liability issues
associated with disposal alternatives. Due to the increasing use of
commercial disposal by the federal government, it is imperative to
consider the impact of federal facility waste at alternative
disposal sites. Future EPA initiatives on alternative disposal
options could, by default, designate one or two national landfill
sites for LARW disposal, if no new RCRA sites are permitted in the
future. The potential for designation of national landfill sites
"by default" should not be overlooked due to the far-reaching
policy implications. This potential should be included in future
discussions so that the public has the opportunity to comment on
the policy implications. The State of Texas continues to move
forward to fulfill its obligation under the federal Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Acts and Amendment Acts in siting a
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Texas has recently
passed legislation and implemented rules to privatize low-level
radioactive waste disposal on an aggressive time line. The
statutory time line of licensing a Texas site would be complicated
if waste streams were re-defined by an EPA rule initiative in the
middle of the licensing process which is scheduled to begin in July
2004. The EPA should investigate the different compact implications
as part of any rulemaking initiative. The jurisdiction of the Texas
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission to control
import and export of waste in Texas is fundamental to the policy of
licensing a new site in Texas. Progress toward licensing a new
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Texas could be
profoundly impacted by disposal initiatives related to LARW.
DATE SUBMITTED:
4/27/2004
SHORT TITLE: Commission
for Environmental Cooperation's Hazardous Waste Tracking in North
America Report
SUBMITTED TO: Commission on Environmental Cooperation
(CEC)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Border Affairs
STAFF CONTACT: Steve
Niemeyer
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Several
comments relate to factual corrections: treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) as opposed to generators provide the
certificates of destruction; some used oil in the U.S. could be
hazardous waste; on page 55 it appears that "generator" should be
replaced with "treatment, storage and disposal facilities"; waste
returned from Mexico to the U.S. could go to TSDFs in as many as 48
states. Electronic tracking could clarify current uncertainties
among some Mexican maquiladora generators regarding the signature
and handling requirements for manifests involving maquiladora waste
returned to the U.S. As each state requires the use of its own
manifest, it will be quite a task to develop a system that can
integrate electronic tracking. The pilot project should allow for
flexibility as well as both state and federal participation and
should be evaluated to see how well it performs. The report is
missing any analysis of the cost of electronic tracking of
hazardous waste. Costs could well be a limiting factor in
implementation of any trinational system of electronic tracking of
waste.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/18/04
SHORT TITLE: Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Commercial or Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
(CISWI) Units
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Phil
Harwell
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The
proposed definition of "solid waste" should be revised to include
specific references to the other definitions of solid wastes
adopted by EPA under the authority of the SWDA (42 U.S.C. 6903). It
is recommended that the CISWI definition be revised to clearly
define the unit (e.g., enclosed unit using controlled flame
combustion) instead of using the proposed commercial and industrial
waste definition. "Commercial or industrial facilities" should be
defined to clearly identify the universe of combustion units.
DATE SUBMITTED:
02/25/04
SHORT TITLE: Revisions to
the Definition of Solid Waste
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Hector
Mendieta
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: In
general, staff supports the proposed rule. Staff recommends that
"Option 1" on how to define "within one industry" be adopted as it
is less restrictive. Staff supports the provisions relating to
speculative accumulation and which codify the legitimacy criteria.
Staff supports EPA adding a provision to the proposal to clarify
that a material excluded by both the generating state and receiving
state would not be a solid waste for purposes of
transportation.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/05/2003
SHORT TITLE: Comments on
Petition to the Texas Railroad Commission for Rule Change to 16 TAC
Chapter 12 Regarding Coal Combustion Products
SUBMITTED TO: Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Susi
Ferguson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ
believes there is a benefit to Texas in resolving some of the
ongoing uncertainties regarding the regulation of CCP at mine
sites. TCEQ supports the RRC efforts to encourage the safe reuse
and recycling of coal combustion ash materials at mine sites. TCEQ
offers to work cooperatively with the RRC in areas of joint
jurisdiction pertaining to the inclusion of CCP disposal activities
within the RRC mine site permits.
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/02/03
SHORT TITLE: Renewal
Information and Proposed Changes to Part II of the Toxicity Release
Inventory Form R
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Dan
Burke
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ
generally supports the proposal and offers the following comments:
TCEQ agrees that changes to Form R could provide more clarity in
the organization of data that are collected, as well as enhancing
the quality and utility of the data. Texas is committed to
providing a complete characterization of TRI chemicals present in
our waste streams. TCEQ is concerned that the current method of
reporting does not accurately distinguish between contained
disposal and actual releases to the ambient environment. TCEQ
supports changes to Part II of Form R, such as the new
subcategories including total onsite contained releases, total
onsite contained disposal, total offsite contained releases, and
total offsite contained disposal. TCEQ is concerned that the
corresponding increased complexity in Part II, Section 5 may be
confusing to reporting industries and may lead to additional
inaccuracies in reported data.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/16/03
SHORT TITLE:EPA's Draft
Guidance; Institutional Controls: A Guide to Implementing,
Monitoring and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Superfund,
Brownfields, Federal Facility, UST and RCRA Corrective Action
Cleanups
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Remediation
STAFF CONTACT: Tim
Dobbs
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The
concepts presented are theoretically valid and covered a
comprehensive range of IC issues but contained practical
considerations to help the project managers and site attorneys. The
document does not address ICs at federal facilities which are also
under CERCLA or RCRA (which are no different from any other
remediation site with the same IC issues.) The issue of long-term
costs for ICs is a major issue for the State. The draft document
notes that funding is available for States and local governments to
implement ICs but EPA does not pay for operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs. It would be helpful for the document to define and
illustrate when an IC is eligible for federal funding and when an
activity is considered O&M by the Agency. In the document, the
phrase "unlimited use and unrestricted exposure" is interpreted by
some to mean the unlimited use and unrestricted exposure to the
maximally exposed individual. Some confusion lies in whether or not
there is a distinction between "unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure" and "residential use." Although the issue is discussed,
the problem with compensating a non-liable party for placing IC's
on their property isn't addressed in much detail in the
document.
