RESPONSE: The Department has completed an evaluation of all the reporting requirements associated with the management of municipal, hazardous, residual and infectious & chemotherapeutic waste. The proposed changes include a multitude of deletions and modifications intended to streamline the reporting requirements. The Department worked with industry, advisory committees and the public to develop these recommendations. The Department will use these recommendations to develop a proposed regulatory package.

RESPONSE: The Departments Chapter 102 regulations (as authorized under the Clean Streams Law) require that erosion and sedimentation control plans be developed prior to earthmoving activities. Most solid waste management operations require significant earthmoving activities, and it is necessary to prepare detailed erosion and sedimentation plans prior to construction to prevent surface water problems at the site. The erosion and sedimentation control plans submitted with the permit application address all proposed operations at the site, thus eliminating submission of additional information or surface water problems at the site after permit issuance occurs.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that there is a need to clarify the term "clean fill". The Department has developed a clean fill policy that will allow materials that meet the definition of clean fill to be placed directly into the environment.

RESPONSE: The Department intends to retain this requirement. Although it is more stringent, it is consistent with our pollution prevention philosophy.

RESPONSE: The Department intends to retain the source reduction requirement. Although it is more stringent than federal requirements, it is consistent with our pollution prevention philosophy.

RESPONSE: Pennsylvania is currently in the process of adopting the federal universal waste rule.

RESPONSE: We are committed to revising the regulations, regulating used oil under one chapter and, to the extent allowed by statute, ensuring the regulations will be no more stringent than their federal counterparts. We will not seek to impose disproportionate compliance costs on Pennsylvania businesses. The federal rebuttable presumption is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: This comment is being addressed by PK-5. The state will modify its satellite accumulation requirements to be equivalent with the federal program.

RESPONSE: This comment is being addressed by PK-5. The Department will only require information required by the EPA. The Department currently uses the EPA biennial report form and therefore the information required will be consistent.

RESPONSE: All of the NE states use an eight-part manifest with the exception of Ohio. The Department will retain the eight part manifest for Tracking and Fee Collection purposes and will modify the record retention time to three years to match that of the federal language.

RESPONSE: The Department recognizes the difference between Federal retention times and our retention times. This is being addressed by PK-5.

Response:

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with this comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Department acknowledges its requirements are more stringent. However it is our belief that this requirement is needed for protection of the environment, specifically for the protection of groundwater.

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to allow conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste to be disposed of in a municipal waste landfill only with prior review and approval by the Department. Disposal in a municipal waste landfill will benefit both human health and the environment.

1. Municipal waste landfills in PA are designed and constructed to standards equivalent to those of hazardous waste facilities.

2. The landfills are double-lined, have leachate collection systems, water monitoring wells, surface and groundwater protection design criteria and security measures for unauthorized ingress and egress.

3. Waste would not be allowed to be disposed of at a municipal waste landfill without Department approval or without complete compliance with the regulations. A permit modification for the landfill requiring Department review of the waste and approval to accept the waste is mandatory.

Allowing the waste to be disposed of at a modern double-lined municipal waste facility will result in the proper disposal. Most other states and the federal government already allow for such disposal. Adopting this regulation as proposed in PK-5 will help keep PA regulations equivalent to the federal regulations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that PA regulations should deviate from the federal program only for significant, justifiable policy and legal reasons unique to the Commonwealth. The Department is still evaluating the merits of changes being contemplated by the federal "re-engineering RCRA for Recycling" and the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" initiatives. This is a substantial public policy question that should be open to all stakeholders and discussed in greater detail.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that PA regulations should deviate from the federal program only for significant, justifiable policy and legal reasons unique to the Commonwealth. The Department is still evaluating the merits of changes being contemplated by the federal "re-engineering RCRA for Recycling" and the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" initiatives. This is a substantial public policy question that should be open to all stakeholders and discussed in greater detail.

RESPONSE: Since the definition of "facility", which appears in 260.2 and is based on the Solid Waste Management Act definition, is linked to the land upon which hazardous waste is treated, stored or disposed, hazardous waste permits and permits-by-rule are site specific. With respect to mobile reclamation units, many of the reduced requirements of the 266.90 onsite reclamation permit-by-rule may be satisfied by standardized documentation prepared by the owner or operator of the recycling equipment (such as PPC plans and emergency procedures). Fulfillment of the basic requirements of Chapter 266, Subchapter H. (such as recordkeeping, reporting, inspecting, etc.) may also be made the responsibility of the owner or operator of the mobile equipment through a legally binding contract or agreement.

RESPONSE: Since language exists in the residual waste regulations for the Department to provide a written exemption to this requirement, it may be appropriate to make these regulations consistent by adding the same language to the hazardous waste regulations. However R&D facilities still need to carefully evaluate their options for source reduction and continue to look for new opportunities to reduce the quantity of waste produced.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The commentor is correct. The Department is currently evaluating the mixture rule and proposes to adopt the same regulations where appropriate.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the commentor and this will be deleted.

RESPONSE: Hazardous waste permit-by-rule provisions [265.432, 265.433, and Chapter 266, Subchapters F - I] were promulgated to provide a streamlined approach to satisfy the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) requirement for hazardous waste treatment to be conducted under a permit. Generally, permit-by-rule is provided for hazardous waste activities that are exempt from permitting under federal RCRA regulations. The Department agrees that there are several federal hazardous waste management exclusions or exemptions which are not mirrored in Pennsylvania's permit-by-rule regulations. Changes may be proposed to Pennsylvania's hazardous waste regulations which would bring Pennsylvania's program more in line with the Federal program, to the extent consistent with the SWMA.

RESPONSE: The financial regulations are currently under evaluation and are expected to mirror the federal regulations to the extent allowed by statute.

RESPONSE: The Department has proposed, under the Regulatory Basics Initiative, to modify the regulations covering treatibility studies and RD&D permits to be equivalent to the federal regulations. In addition, the proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations amendments (PK-5) would allow for Generators to be deemed to have a permit for on-site treatment of their own waste in containers, tanks and containment buildings.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and, therefore, will apply to EPA for regulatory authority to review and approve federal delistings. The Department will evaluate the reciprocity issue, so long as the other state has an approved Delisting Program.

RESPONSE: The Department does not interpret section 261.41 to mean that a generator must re-notify for each new hazardous waste stream generated. Re-notification is necessary when a generator ceases production of hazardous waste, changes his generator status, or there is a change of name or address. A clarification will be written in a future reg. package.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the commentor. The adoption of 40 CFR 265.17 and 265.176 will provide adequate protection, provide flexibility and will not be so prescriptive. The Department will propose the adoption of the above mentioned sections and the deletion of 25 Pa. Code 265.178(c)(1).

RESPONSE: This regulatory basics initiative is an effort to ensure that in instances where the PA program differs from the federal program, the difference is justifiable. The most recent rulemaking proposal by the Department concentrates on the areas where PA regulations differ significantly from the federal rule and changes most of those areas to conform with the federal rule. Pennsylvania statute makes certain requirements mandatory that the federal statute does not. The Department will continue to evaluate and implement restructuring of the hazardous waste management program.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Department acknowledges that, although very similar, there are some wording differences between the definition of "treatment" in Pennsylvania's hazardous waste regulations and the federal RCRA definition. Pennsylvania's regulatory definition is based on the Solid Waste Management Act.

RESPONSE: Through publication of the "Guidelines for Development and Implementation of Environmental Emergency Response Plans" (3600-BK-DEP1226 Rev. 6/95), the Department's objective is to consolidate the similarities of the State and Federal pollution incident prevention and emergency response programs into one overall program. The Department strongly recommends that facilities consolidate plans into one single document. The guidelines have proven to be very useful to facilities in preparing emergency response plans.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the PA hazardous waste regulations should deviate from the federal program only for significant, justifiable policy and legal reasons unique to the Commonwealth.

The Department is still evaluating the merits of changes being contemplated by the federal "Re-engineering RCRA for Recycling" and the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" initiatives. This is a substantial public policy question central to the Commonwealth and should be discussed in an open forum with all interested stakeholders.

RESPONSE: The Department does not require a person or municipality that generates a total of less than 1,000kg of hazardous waste in each month of the year to complete a source reduction strategy.

264.13(a)(7) requires a generator to submit a source reduction strategy regardless of how the waste was generated . A change in the definition of "generator" in the hazardous waste regulations would be necessary to exclude one-time events or spills.

RESPONSE: The Department will adopt the federal requirement for the 3 year record retention.

RESPONSE: The commentors are correct in stating that secondary containment requirements for containers are not found in Subpart I chapter 265 of the federal regulations. However, they are contained in Subpart I of chapter 264 , section 264.175-Containment, of the federal regulations. This is an existing requirement for generators, secondary containment for containers, which can be found in the State regulations 264.175 and 265.178. These requirements are necessary to protect human health and the environment.

RESPONSE: The Department intends to retain this requirement. Although it is more stringent, it is consistent with our pollution prevention philosophy.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the commentor and will modify the regulations to be consistent with the federal 3 year retention requirement.

RESPONSE: Pennsylvania's elementary neutralization and wastewater treatment unit permit-by-rule provisions are designed to satisfy the Solid Waste Management Act requirement for all hazardous waste treatment to be conducted under a permit issued by the Department. The Department is presently considering alternatives which may be available to satisfy the statutory permit requirement in cases where federal regulations exempt certain activities from permitting.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the PA hazardous waste regulations should deviate from the federal program only for significant, justifiable policy and legal reasons unique to the Commonwealth. The Department is still evaluating the merits of changes being contemplated by the federal "Re-engineering RCRA for Recycling" and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" initiatives. This is a substantial public policy question central to the Commonwealth's hazardous waste program which should be discussed in an open forum with all interested stakeholders.

RESPONSE: The Bond Requirement is statutory. The requirement is presently under appeal in Federal Court. The Department will not collect hazardous waste transporter to post bonds until a Final Ruling is made.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the PA hazardous waste regulations should deviate from the federal program only for significant, justifiable policy and legal reasons unique to the Commonwealth. The Department is still evaluating the merits of changes being contemplated by the federal "Re-engineering RCRA for Recycling" and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" initiatives. This is a substantial public policy question central to the Commonwealth's hazardous waste program which should be discussed in an open forum with all interested stakeholders.

RESPONSE: The Department is in the process of revising the process that refers environmental cases to the Office of Attorney General for criminal investigation. The revisions should provide a uniform screening process to assure that cases referred are the best candidates for criminal prosecution.

RESPONSE: The Department is proposing revisions in PK-5 that will mirror the language in the federal regulation.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the PA hazardous waste regulations should deviate from the federal program only for significant, justifiable policy and legal reasons unique to the Commonwealth. The Department is still evaluating the merits of changes being contemplated by the federal "Re-engineering RCRA for Recycling" and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" initiatives. This is a substantial public policy question central to the Commonwealth's hazardous waste program which should be discussed in an open forum with all interested stakeholders.

RESPONSE: Hazardous waste permit-by-rule provisions [265.432, 265.433, and Chapter 266, Subchapters F - I] were promulgated to provide a streamlined approach to satisfy the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) requirement for hazardous waste treatment to be conducted under a permit. Generally, permit-by-rule is provided for hazardous waste activities that are exempt from permitting under federal RCRA regulations. The Department agrees that there are several federal hazardous waste management exclusions or exemptions which are not mirrored in Pennsylvania's permit-by-rule regulations. Changes may be proposed to Pennsylvania's hazardous waste regulations which would bring Pennsylvania's program more in line with the Federal program, to the extent consistent with the SWMA.

RESPONSE: Pennsylvania's more stringent interim status BTU restriction, which is equivalent to that of wood or low grade coal, provides some assurance that wastes are actually being burned for energy recovery and not disposal.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and has proposed some changes to our waste oil regulations in the proposed PK-5 amendments. However, EPA has recently made significant changes to their used oil regulations. These changes included eliminating 40 CFR 266 Subpart E and replaced it with CFR Part 279, which is much more comprehensive. The Department is reviewing these changes and is considering adopting the new regulations in a future rulemaking.

RESPONSE: This comment pertains to the PA Source Reduction requirements. The Department intends to retain this requirement. Although it is more stringent, it is consistent with our pollution prevention philosophy.

RESPONSE: The Department intends to revise the Household Hazardous Waste exemption in 261.4(a)(6) and delete 262.10(e).

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Solid Waste Management Act 97, (Section 6018.501 (b)) prohibits any person or municipality from transporting Hazardous Waste within the Commonwealth w/o first obtaining a license from the Department. Unless the statute is changed or pre-empted by another statute, the Department will require a license. The U.S. Department of Transportation does not license transportation.

RESPONSE: The Department intends to retain this requirement. Although it is more stringent, it is consistent with our pollution prevention philosophy.

RESPONSE: The Department is committed to defining pollution prevention as it is defined in the federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, where pollution prevention is source reduction and other practices (direct reuse or in-process recycling) that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants. It has been clearly demonstrated that a prevention approach, whenever possible, makes the most sense from both an environmental, public health and economic perspective. However, commitment to this definition does not mean the Department does not realize that other management approaches (out-of-process recycling, treatment and safe disposal) may also be needed for addressing environmental issues in instances where prevention is not feasible.

RESPONSE: The US DOT requires training for employees but has no safety equipment requirements. By requiring safety equipment, the public and the environment are afforded adequate protection in the event of an accident. While EPA requires transporters do take appropriate immediate action to protect human health and the environment, appropriate safety equipment is essential.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The Pennsylvania biennial report form is a shortened version of the federal form. Pennsylvania leaves out sections of the federal form that require information that Pennsylvania will not need or use. The form that Pennsylvania requires is identical to the corresponding sections of the federal form. The Pennsylvania form provides a substantial reduction in mailing costs and paper handling costs to the Commonwealth. The Department will accept the federal version of the form if the facility desires to use it. Either version of the form satisfies both state and federal reporting requirements.

RESPONSE: The Department acknowledges that, although very similar, there are some wording differences between the definition of "treatment" in Pennsylvania's hazardous waste regulations and the federal RCRA definition. Pennsylvania's regulatory definition is based on the Solid Waste Management Act. This is an option that may be considered under the universal waste rule.

RESPONSE: The requirement of evaluating the bond amount each year is for the purpose of assuring that the bond is sufficient to cover the cost of closure. Many factors are involved in maintaining adequate bond to assure proper closure, these factors vary from year to year. The best way to assure that the "true changes in closure costs on expenditures are needed" is to evaluate those costs in relation to available bond on a regular basis. Most operating companies perform these evaluations continuously and issue quarterly reports on financial conditions. An annual evaluation of costs and available financial resources is minimal based on sound business operations and normal accounting methods. Generally speaking there are no securities that are stable enough to rely on valuation once every three years. In fact, securities are valued daily by brokers and are published daily in financial publications such as the "Wall Street Journal" and daily newspapers.

(b) The provision for full payment of a surety bond in 267.13 (e) is based on forfeiture of a surety along with any requisite appeals which could be a very protracted period of time. The requirement for the Department to release funds from a pledge of government securities is based on an evaluation that the release is proper and justified. The 60 day period in 267.14(b) is a date certain based on a request which requires administrative review. The two requirements serve totally different purposes and are in no way related to one another.

RESPONSE: The evaluation of the documentation submitted for a bond release can be very complex. Bond releases are subject to public notification just like a major permit modification. The six month period is provided in the regulation is to allow enough time for a thorough and defensible final decision. There is nothing to prevent the release determination from occurring earlier if all notice requirements are met.

RESPONSE: The Insurance coverage requirements have been identified in the regulatory analysis process as an area that may be modified to the extent it is consistent with the statute.

RESPONSE: The Land Recycling program will provide the cleanup standards for Pennsylvania. These standards are being developed in a joint effort between the Department and the Science Advisory Board. These standards will provide the flexibility necessary to facilitate the cleanup of contaminated sites. The Land Recycling program cleanup standards provide more flexibility than the CERLCA site standards. The Land Recycling program cleanup standards will be proposed in July 1996.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with this comment and it is being addressed by PK-5.

RESPONSE: The access restrictions for the land application of Class B (pathogen reduction) biosolids (sewage sludge) identified in the Interim Guidelines for the Use of Sewage Sludge for Agricultural Utilization or Land Reclamation are taken from the Federal Part 503 regulations. These restrictions were necessary based upon the risk-based evaluation done by EPA during development of the Part 503 regulations. The Department has and will continue to provide training on the nitrogen loading requirements.

RESPONSE: The current regulations do not prevent the mining of landfills. However, a processing permit on a modification to an existing landfill permit is necessary prior to "mining" a landfill to clearly describe the procedures that will be implemented to address odor, dust, dangerous waste, or other problems that may be encountered during the mining activity.

RESPONSE: The current definition of leachate clearly identifies the distinction between leachate and surface water. The federal definition implies that testing may be required to determine the degree of contamination. This federal definition creates uncertainty and significant operational problems may occur while it is being determined whether the liquid is leachate or "uncontaminated" surface water. The Department has used its enforcement discretion to address unique circumstances where problems have occurred.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees in principal that exceptional quality biosolids can be marketed as a fertilizer, and has provided options in the proposed October 4, 1994, sewage sludge rulemaking to not treat these materials as waste. It is anticipated that the final regulations will provide options that will allow for exceptional quality biosolids to be applied under a general permit or permit by rule with no site restrictions.

Suggestions for beneficial use of sewage sludge.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The final sewage sludge regulations will be no more stringent than Part 503 except where technically justified, required by statute, or to address a situation unique to the Commonwealth.

RESPONSE: The current definition of principal shareholder includes persons who have enough control in the company to significantly affect decisions and operations. This regulation will be retained.

RESPONSE: The current definition of wetlands does not automatically designate identified wetland areas as wetlands unless the areas exhibit the soil and plant characteristics of a wetland. No regulatory changes are needed.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to modify the section to require the hydrogeologic information to be prepared by a PA registered hydrogeologist.

RESPONSE: The current requirements provide some flexibility when determining which major modifications trigger a new assessment. The requirements for a new assessment is normally limited to those operations that would effect the original assessment. The Department will propose to modify the regulations to allow this flexibility for all major permit modifications.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that certain field changes can be made without triggering a permit modification. The Department feels that de minimus changes can be and have been approved by the Regional staff without necessitating a major permit modification. The Regional Office has the discretion to make these determinations. The Department will take this into further consideration when proposing revisions to the regulations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. Some flexibility from permit modifications can be afforded for minor field changes during facility construction. The Department will consider proposing changes to allow for a notification process for making minor changes during construction. The Department does not agree that changes can be made without notification.

RESPONSE: While the Department feels that some equivalencies beside the liner and cap issues may be considered major permit modifications, we are considering revisions to those activities that trigger major permit modifications. The Department will propose changes to the equivalency process that will allow common equivalencies to be minor modifications after the use or demonstration of the technology has been successfully completed.

RESPONSE: The equivalency review currently applies to critical design requirements, and to apply the process to the entire regulations would be unwieldy and unnecessary. However, to address your concerns on new technology, the Department is proposing to modify the demonstration facility provisions to significantly streamline and simplify the process.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that the current regulations allow the permittee to request reductions in the bond under Sections 271.332 (d) and 271.341 when design changes decrease the bond estimate.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that contracts for obtaining soil needed for cover or other construction purposes is not necessary. However, the narrative should identify the volume needed to construct and operate the facility so the bond can be calculated.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that the current map scale requirements provide the level of detail necessary to describe the proposed design and construction activities associated with landfills. However, to provide flexibility for describing some of the application requirements, prior approval from the Regional Office for a different scale will be proposed as a change to the existing regulations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to require identification of water sources within 1/4 mile or contiguous, whichever is greater.

RESPONSE: The Department will propose to modify this section to require information only on the depth to seasonal high water table. Soils used for other purposes can meet design and performance based standards, but contracts or specific off-site borrow areas do not need to be identified.

RESPONSE: The narrative in 273.132 is necessary for providing an overall description of details that are provided in other sections, and the option for a single narrative on the forms is possible simply by referencing where the appropriate information can be found.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that the current map scale requirements provide the level of detail necessary to describe the proposed design and construction activities associated with landfills. However, to provide flexibility for describing some of the application requirements, prior approval from the Regional Office for a different scale will be proposed.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to delete the requirement for identifying contracts of cover sources. However, the volume and specifications necessary to construct and operate the site must be identified and included in the bond calculations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to modify the regulations to allow alternative design standards for certain temporary erosion and sedimentation structures, if approved by the Department. The overall erosion and sedimentation control design will still be required to be based on a 25 year, 24 hour storm event. The alternative design standards must still comply with Chapter 102.

RESPONSE: The Department does not feel that another policy is necessary to address this issue. Measures have been taken to address this issue and will continue to be taken if further problems occur.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the liner installation plan can be part of the CQA plan, and if necessary will clarify the form to indicate this.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and has developed a policy on standardized leachate compatibility testing which allow the approval of equivalent materials without additional testing. The Department will propose to incorporate this policy into the regulations. The Department will also propose to include Table A (liner specifications) in guidance so that it can be easily modified to reflect modern technology.

RESPONSE: Based upon experience at existing facilities the Department feels that it is necessary to have 30 day storage capacity for leachate prior to treatment to minimize head on the liner. However, the Department will propose to modify or delete the 30 day post treatment storage requirement. The Department will also modify the volume of capacity that can be used for routine basis.

RESPONSE: This provision prevents the potential for reliance on unacceptable groundwater information. This section does not prevent investigative monitoring, but does require concurrence by the Department if the monitoring information will be used as part of the application.

RESPONSE: Act 97 requires the Department to determine whether applicants or permittees are in compliance with the law in Pennsylvania and in other states. DEP feels this subsection should be retained. This section could be amended based on court decisions or any federal action on planning/flow control/interstate waste.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with modifying the current airport restrictions, to be consistent with Subtitle D. The Department disagrees with reducing the isolation distance from important wetlands as this distance is necessary to avoid air, surface water and groundwater impacts. The floodplain and carbonate restrictions are necessary. It is impossible to guarantee that the liner system will not be effected even if the landfill is "protected" from the 100 year floodplain. The carbonate restrictions are necessary because of the degree of difficulty in evaluating the potential for subsidence, and in problem encountered in accurately monitoring groundwater. The Department will propose to modify the coal seam limitations to require protection from fires.

RESPONSE: The Department disagrees. It is necessary to certify each liner construction activity of the liner system so problems can be addressed as they occur and to assure quality installation of the liner. It is not possible to address problems with specific components after the entire liner is constructed.

RESPONSE: The grid coordinate system is necessary to track facility construction and operation. The permit area markers are necessary to prevent inadvertent disposal or operation on unauthorized areas.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the current language may require "construction" of natural barriers. This may not be necessary if natural barriers, which are an option, are used. The Department will propose to delete the requirements for "construction" of natural barriers. However, remoteness will not be considered a barrier.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to revise the 24 hour requirement.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to modify the regulations to require protection from coal seams that may create fire hazards.

RESPONSE: The Department believes that the landfill has the responsibility to control blowing litter and that the current language is acceptable.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the vegetation, textural, coarse fragment, coal content, and rock fragment information is unnecessary and will purpose to revise these design standards. However, it is necessary to maintain requirements for the soil depth and the capability to control fines to be consistent with the Federal regulations. Design alternatives are available for these requirements, and contaminated materials can also be approved through the equivalency process.

273.232 - Daily Cover - Subtitle D defines 6 inches of soil as the default daily cover, excluding test procedures.

RESPONSE: The Department disagrees because some daily cover may be on site for up to 6 months. But it may be acceptable to comply with this regulation through a site operation plan that does not take vehicles over the cover. In response to 273.232 (b) (4), the Department agrees and will propose a revision to be consistent with the Federal Subtitle D language.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to modify the design requirements specified in 273.233 (c), and to allow revegetation to be waived where it's not necessary for erosion and sedimentation control or to limit infiltration.

RESPONSE: The depth is based upon the volume of soil necessary to sustain vegetation and prevent frost change to the cap system.

RESPONSE: It is necessary to provide measurements that can be used to judge successful vegetation. These standards have been successfully used by other Department programs.

RESPONSE: Based upon the imprecision of the groundwater fluctuation, this depth provides a margin of safety to prevent groundwater from coming in contact with the liner system. An inward gradient design does not reflect best management practices.

RESPONSE: The Department will propose to modify the permeability requirement when a composite component is located beneath the secondary liner. The Department disagrees that the maximum slope for the liner should be increased to 50 percent. The Department will propose to raise the maximum slope to 33% which is standard industry practice. It is possible to design above 33% through the equivalency process.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the language "greatest degree that is technology possible" needs to be revised to "best available technology." A guidance document will be developed in lieu of Table I to keep the liner design requirements up to date with modern technology.

RESPONSE: It is necessary to identify minimum design standards to judge alternative standards. It is possible to apply for an equivalency alternative under the current requirements.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to include Table I in guidance so that it can be easily modified to reflect modern technology.

RESPONSE: No such policy currently exists.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that a quarter inch stone is not commonly used and is unnecessary. However, a 1.5 inch stone may not be acceptable in some designs. The Department will propose to change the regulations to a 1/2 inch maximum particle size. This is commonly used for alternative designs and the equivalency process can be used for larger stone. The equivalency process can also be used for non-earthen materials proposed for protective cover.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to revise the regulations not to require the protective cover to be compacted.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the depth of leachate in the sumps can exceed 1 foot in certain instances for a limited period of time, and will propose regulations to address this issue and the leachate depth on the liner after storm events.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that the current language protects the liner system without providing a burden to the operator.

RESPONSE: The Department will propose to revise the regulations to allow the applicant to demonstrate that pretreatment is not necessary.

RESPONSE: Spray irrigation is not the preferred method of treatment due to potential design and operational problems. However, the Department agrees that spray irrigation of treated leachate can be used for dust control, and propagation and maintenance of vegetative cover within the lined area where no potential for surface runoff exists.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose regulations to allow leachate recirculation by alternative methods provided a composite liner is in-place.

273.275(b)(2) Delete 30-day storage criteria.

RESPONSE: Based upon experience at existing facilities the Department feels that it is necessary to have 30 day storage capacity for leachate prior to treatment to minimize head on the liner. However, the Department will propose to modify or delete the 30 day post treatment storage requirement.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose modifications that may allow constituents to be deleted from groundwater monitoring, if it is demonstrated that additional testing is not warranted.

RESPONSE: While the Department feels that the ASTM standard is generally acceptable, it does not account for some additional requirements necessary for monitoring at a landfill.

RESPONSE: The current 60-day time frame is not unrealistic, and makes sure that the information is received and can be evaluated in a timely manner in case problems develop. The opportunity for extending time frame will still exist.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to delete and clarify "adjacent areas" monitoring.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to delete 273.293 (b).

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to allow operators to have their own daily operational record if approved by the Department.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department has proposed to eliminate unnecessary information on the annual report firm.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. We will be modifying the regulations to delete this fee as it is redundant with existing statutory requirements.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to modify the section to allow sewage sludge disposal as long as the stability of the facility is not compromised.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that the entire section should not be deleted. However, the provisions will not apply to the marketing of exceptional quality biosolids and the isolation distances for other sludges will be no more stringent than the Federal Part 503 requirements, except where technically justified, required by statute, or to address a situation unique to the Commonwealth.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The final biosolids regulation will include provisions for the marketing of exceptional quality biosolids as a fertilizer under permit by rule, a general permit, or other mechanism.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that all of the isolation distance identified should not be deleted. However, the final regulations will be no more stringent than the Federal Part 503 regulations, unless technically justified, required by statute, or to address a situation unique to the Commonwealth.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to modify or delete this requirement.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the daily and annual reports should be consistent with the Federal requirements and will propose to modify the existing regulations. However, soil monitoring may be required depending on the type of biosolids land applied. The final regulations will not be more stringent than the Federal regulations, unless scientifically justified, required by statute, or to address a situation unique to the Commonwealth.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees provisions to allow exceptional quality biosolids to be marketed as fertilizer need to be incorporated into the regulations. This has been proposed in the October 4, 1994, rulemaking, but will be further expanded to allow marketing under permit by rule or other mechanism. Concerning the requirements for the land applications of biosolids not considered exceptional quality, the final regulations will be no more stringent than the Federal Part 503 requirements, unless technically justified, required by statute, or to address a situation unique to the Commonwealth.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that a transfer facility can be protected from the 100-year flood and will propose regulations to allow this flexibility. The isolation distance to an important wetland will be proposed to be deleted. The Department feels that we should not revise the setback distance from occupied dwellings. This distance is needed to prevent facilities from causing nuisances to surrounding homeowners. In addition, a homeowner written waiver is possible. The Department will also propose to include this type of waiver provision for the proposed property line setback.

RESPONSE: It is necessary to determine the possibility of removing recycled or salvageable materials, and to implement the plan if feasible. This may significantly reduce the waste to be disposed and create some cost savings.

RESPONSE: The current regulations provides the flexibility for transfer stations to receive Form U and Form S waste. Current policy further explains how these wastes are to be handled at transfer stations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to allow transfer facilities to store wastewater in tanks, and then to truck the wastewater for treatment or disposal, if discharge to public sewers or other treatment plant is not possible.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to remove end-of-the-day restriction and allow the storage of waste up to 72 hours provided operational problems are not created.

RESPONSE: This provision allows for flexibility in approving a wider range of transfer facilities in a variety of locations. The Department typically does not require monitoring of this type at processing facilities. However, circumstances may exist based on facility design and the pollution potential of the waste being handled that may require monitoring. Therefore the Department feels that it must maintain the flexibility provided by this Section.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to eliminate this requirement for a self- contained breathing apparatus to be located at the site.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to revise this section to allow the resumption of operation after approval from the Department. This will delete the requirement for inspection, if it is not necessary.

RESPONSE: The storage requirements are nearly exclusively performance based. Without significant design requirements it is necessary to require the design and construction to be best available technology and engineering practices.

RESPONSE: The Department will propose changes to make these requirements more performance-based. The proposed language will require containers that prevent leaking, odors, and vectors to the greatest possible extent. The Department does not feel that mesh tarps can adequately prevent odors, vectors, and other nuisances.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose regulations to allow the transportation vehicles to be moved to the unloading destination for up to 72 hours or, holidays and weekends, if the vehicle does not create odor, nuisances, or vectors.

RESPONSE: Municipal waste collection equipment should be leak proof. However, the Department will consider modifying this section to clarify the intent, if necessary.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose that the metal concentrations in the final sewage sludge guidelines mirror the EPA Part 503 requirements.

RESPONSE: The 2 foot maximum contour interval provides the Department with the detail of information necessary to review the application. However, we will revise the form to allow for a different scale to be approved by the Department if the 2 foot interval is unnecessary given the specific design.

RESPONSE: There is no definition of coal seams in the municipal waste regulations. Defining "coal seam" may reduce the applicant's capability to demonstrate that the coal will not pose a problem to the design and operation of the facility. The Department would prefer to address this issue based on a performance standards. The Department will propose to address the commentor's concern with this section by allowing a demonstration that the coal seam does not pose a threat to the integrity of the landfill.

RESPONSE: The definition of aquifer contained in the Federal regulations is confusing in that it does not define "significant quantities." The definition of aquifer in the municipal waste regulations indicates the formation must be capable of yielding sufficient groundwater for monitoring purposes. The municipal waste aquifer definition is more specific and less restrictive when comparing it to current standards set for the term "significant quantities."

RESPONSE: The Department agrees.

RESPONSE: The current regulations may be more restrictive than the Federal requirements. The regulations will be revised to be consistent with the Federal requirements.

RESPONSE: In accordance with Section 503 of the Solid Waste Management Act, the activities of partners, contractors, subcontractors, and agents must be evaluated as part of the permit process.

RESPONSE: The Department will be modifying the definition of seasonal high water table in both the municipal and residual waste regulations to reflect current technology and the intended use of the term.

RESPONSE: There is nothing in the regulations that prohibits an applicant from obtaining a single integrated permit, and the Department has historically made every effort to provide permit coordination to all applicants. The Department is actively evaluating how the integrated permit process would work.

RESPONSE: The Department believes the current regulations provide a clear opportunity to initially extend the term of the permit beyond 10 years.

RESPONSE: With changes in technology evolving overnight, it is necessary to evaluate permits that may have been issued in the past where the facility was not constructed. An applicant can always apply for an extension or a permit modification to extend the 5 year limit.

RESPONSE: The Department is proposing to delete this entire section and replace the beneficial use requirements with general permits similar to those under Chapter 287 of the residual waste regulations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. This can be done upon approval from the Department or on an emergency basis.

RESPONSE: The Department believes that quarterly ADV is necessary, and will propose to modify the regulations to require this for all facilities. This is necessary for compliance purposes.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and suggests that the applicant or permittee identify the anticipated response times as part of the permit application.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will delete the reference to soil or earthen material. However, unless a composite component is located below the secondary liner, the Department believes that a low permeable material is necessary.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. Three counties that own facilities are already involved in landfill reclamation:

1. Lancaster was host to a "Landfill Mining" Conference sponsored by "Resource Recovery Report", which featured the process at Frey Farm Landfill.

2. York removed materials from the Hopewell landfill several years ago, and deposited them at other sites. During this process, it was noted that some recyclable materials could be recovered when this type of procedure is undertaken.

3. Lebanon is nearly finished with a study, funded with 901 grants, that will determine to what extent landfill mining would replace the need to expand their landfill.

RESPONSE: DEP is in the process of reevaluating the municipal waste planning process. This issue will be dealt with as part of that process. DEP has a concern that counties have a reasonable degree of certainty as to what facilities will be available to them. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP will be revising its "Needs Policy" and will revise the regulations accordingly. This is one of the issues we will be addressing. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP will be revising its "Needs Policy" and will revise the regulations accordingly. This is one of the issues we will be addressing. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP will be revising its "Needs Policy" and will revise the regulations accordingly. This is one of the issues we will be addressing. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP will be revising its "Needs Policy" and will revise the regulations accordingly. This is one of the issues we will be addressing. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: There are protections for existing facilities in both Act 101 and the municipal waste regulations. To the extent that this comment proposes a change, it will be considered as part of DEP's review of the entire planning process. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP feels that the existing regulations adequately protect the existing facilities under these circumstances.

RESPONSE: DEP understands that this requirement has been problematic and will include it in the review of the planning process. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP is willing to consider this proposal as part of the review of the planning process. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP agrees the addition or deletion of facilities should not be a major plan revision however, the Department believes that completely changing the plan's underlying approach, such as moving from flow control to free market should remain a major plan revision. This change will be considered as part of the review of the planning process. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP agrees that private enterprise should be utilized whenever practical. Act 101 already provides for consideration of such. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP agrees that this issue must be addressed. It will be considered as part of the review of the planning process. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: DEP agrees that this should be revised. We still feel, however, that source reduction is the preferred technique for managing waste.

RESPONSE: DEP agrees and will include this change in an upcoming draft regulation. In an effort to maintain environmental protection, eliminate duplicate data submission and reduce record keeping requirements, the Department has reviewed the report forms required by the municipal, residual and hazardous waste programs. Recommendations from this effort will be part of future proposed rulemakings in these program areas.

RESPONSE: This report is submitted with the quarterly fee payments required in 273.315 and must be retained to verify appropriate fee calculations.

RESPONSE: DEP is analyzing all reporting requirements. We intend to eliminate reporting requirements that are duplicated elsewhere. In an effort to maintain environmental protection, eliminate duplicate data submission and reduce record keeping requirements, the Department has reviewed the report forms required by the municipal, residual and hazardous waste programs. Recommendations from this effort will be part of future proposed rulemakings in these program areas.

RESPONSE: The fees are calculated in accordance with Act 101 and are based on volume of waste processed or disposed. However, a regulatory change is needed.

RESPONSE: The regulation requires recycling and salvaging to the extent that it is cost effective.

RESPONSE: The Department and is concerned that the public is not aware of the availability of recycling facilities. The regulations as currently written to allow flexibility in meeting the notice requirement.

RESPONSE: DEP does not feel this requirement is a burden on any facility and it serves a good public purpose. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: The recycling and salvaging requirement is only for cost effective recycling.

RESPONSE: The entire planning and permitting relationship is being reevaluated by DEP. This comment will be considered. The Department is in the process of reviewing and modifying the municipal waste planning program based upon the Municipal Waste Stakeholders Report to the Secretary (dated January 25, 1996), comments from advisory committees and other public input. These changes may involve revisions to Act 101, the municipal waste regulations and various DEP policies and includes the municipal waste planning process, the plan/permit relationship and the Needs Policy.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The PA Fertilizer, Soil Conditioner & Plant Growth Substance Law requires composted materials used as fertilizers soil conditioners or plant growth substances to be labeled for sale. The Department has worked with the Department of Agriculture to prevent duplicative requirements.

RESPONSE: Funding residual waste composting would require new or amended legislation.

RESPONSE: The Department will evaluate expanding the recycling options in the residual waste regulations to allow packaging and other materials to be recycled with similar municipal waste recyclables.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The record keeping and reporting requirements will be revised in the municipal and residual waste regulations to focus on the information that is relevant.

RESPONSE: The Solid Waste Management Act requires all applicable bonds be posted prior to permit issuance. The bond monies for closure/post closure care are necessary during the operation of the site in the event the operator defaults and the Department becomes responsible for taking the steps necessary to bring the landfill to final closure status.

RESPONSE: We feel that the current language in this section allows for the generator to certify the characteristics of the waste have not changed after the initial analysis has been completed.

RESPONSE: The source reduction strategy is an integral part of waste management and it describes the intent of reducing the toxicity or volume of the waste better than the term "waste minimization." However, the Department will continue to work with industry in updating the Source Reduction Strategy Manual to clarify the recycling or reuse options that may qualify as source reduction.

RESPONSE: It is important that erosion and sedimentation control plans be implemented throughout the landfill construction, operation, and closure/postclosure activities. These plans must be developed in detail prior to implementation, as they are integral parts of the facility operation.

RESPONSE: The best available technology for handling wastewater in an impoundment is at minimum a single liner with a witness zone. The Department is willing to consider expanding the types of liners based upon the risks posed by the specific waste. Groundwater monitoring is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the operation. The current requirements for groundwater monitoring provide flexibility to test the groundwater for indicator parameters and limit testing to those constituents found in the waste.

RESPONSE: By statutory definition, the storage of waste for more than one year is presumed to be disposal, unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. The Department typically approves the storage of waste for periods of longer than one year when the annual clean out frequency is unnecessary.

RESPONSE: Currently, the Federal government does not have regulations for the management of non-hazardous industrial (residual) waste. However, source reduction is an integral part of the management of residual waste. The Department will continue to work with the regulated community to revise the Source Reduction Strategy Manual to make the source reduction strategy as effective as possible.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that the term source reduction strategy correctly characterizes its intent. The term encompasses more than the term "waste minimization." However, the Department will continue to work with the regulated community to determine which activities should be covered under the Source Reduction Evaluation and Strategy Manual.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees and will propose to modify Section 289.212 (b) to delete the requirement for a specific minimum bearing capacity. The final design will be required to support the closure and post-closure activities, and ultimate end-uses planned for the facility.

RESPONSE: The Department feels that it is necessary to know where surrounding water supplies are located so that rapid response is possible in the event problems occur. However, we will propose to reduce the 1/2 mile distance to 1/4 mile to be consistent with other map requirements. The Department does not feel that this language should be extended to landfills and impoundments which have a greater potential to impact groundwater.

RESPONSE: Act 97 (1980) (6018.301), the Solid Waste Management Act, requires ownership prior to permit issuance.

RESPONSE: It is not possible to define the variety of potential impacts a processing facility may have on the wetlands. But it is necessary to evaluate the potential impacts. This performance standard is consistent with Chapter 105.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. The Department will propose to clarify or delete 297.231 (b) as it is addressed in other requirements identified in Section 297.231.

RESPONSE: This allows for flexibility in approving a wider range of processing facilities in a variety of locations. The Department typically does not require monitoring of this type at processing facilities. However, circumstances may exist based on facility design and the pollution potential of the waste being handled that may require monitoring. Therefore the Department feels that it must maintain the flexibility provided by this Section.

Do not change the definition of perennial stream to the language proposed 10/1/94 PAB.

RESPONSE: The Department is proposing to significantly reduce the transporter recordkeeping requirements, and will propose to amend this section to address the transportation of recyclable materials.

In regard to the second question: The proposed regulations revise the definition of perennial stream to be consistent with definitions used by other Department programs. The definition is also science-based.

RESPONSE: The Form U currently allows the Department and the disposal facility to determine if a particular waste stream is acceptable for disposal at that facility. However, the Department, where possible, has developed forms to deal with a specific group of waste streams. An example is the Form S for disposal of municipal-like residual waste where no chemical analysis is required.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the processing of General Permits is important to encourage the beneficial use and recycling of residual waste. We have recently added General Permits to the Money-Back Guarantee and will process General Permits for industry-wide applications in 200 days and individual applications in 160 days. Currently, the regulations provide for a 300-day permit application review period.

RESPONSE: Currently there are no federal regulations for non-hazardous industrial waste (residual waste). The Solid Waste Management Act of 1980, required the Department to develop regulations to manage municipal, residual, and hazardous waste. Residual waste is greater in volume than municipal and hazardous waste combined in the Commonwealth. The Department worked with industry to develop the existing residual waste regulations, and has continued to work with industry since the regulations were adopted in July 1992 to ensure a smooth implementation. The regulations are risk based, performance based and in many areas self-implementing. We have made every effort to address all areas of concern.

However, as with any regulatory package this large there are bound to be areas that need to be clarified. We recognize the need to modify the regulations to clarify specific areas of concern.

RESPONSE: The Commonwealth has a statutory definition of solid waste, (Act 97,1980). A statutory change would be necessary to exclude wastewater from the definition of solid waste. The Department has maintained throughout the development and implementation of the regulations that every effort will be made not to over-regulate or require two separate permits from the waste management and water quality programs to manage the same wastewater. For example, many facilities that process wastewater that are regulated under an NPDES permit are covered by permit by rule under Chapter 287.102.

Based on other comments on this subject, the Department will revisit the reporting requirements for those facilities covered under an NPDES permit.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees that BOP slag can be beneficially reused. The Department believes that residual waste regulations provide ample opportunities for the beneficial use and reuse of slag without a statutory change. Much of this material is currently being used as a coproduct for construction material, road way aggregate, and in mine reclamation. There are also General Permits available for using BOP slag.

RESPONSE: The Department believes that the statutory definition in Act 97 (1980) and the definition of waste in the residual waste regulations are more clear than the Federal definition, and importantly set specific standards for determining if a material is not a waste.

RESPONSE: The residual waste regulations were developed over a 10-year period with significant input from the regulated community and are risk-based and performance based. The Department agrees that we should continue to work with the regulated community to identify and address specific issues.

RESPONSE: The Department believes that the "waste" and "coproduct" definitions provide clear, self-implementing standards to determine whether a material must be managed as a waste or can be recycled or reused as a coproduct. The Department has made every effort to address issues with the definition of coproduct that have arisen since the regulations were adopted in 1992. With the cooperation of industry, we have developed two guidance documents to assist the regulated community in making coproduct determinations.

RESPONSE: Processing is a statutory definition under Act 97. The permit by rule language in Chapter 287.102 has allowed this activity to occur under permit by rule rather than obtain an individual permit under the regulations. The Department cannot modify a statutory definition through a regulation.

RESPONSE: The term residual waste is a statutory definition. The coproduct definition has and continues to be used by most generators or operators to successfully reuse or recycle their materials. For those that cannot meet the coproduct definition, the residual waste regulations provide opportunities through the general permit system to easily beneficially use the wastes.

RESPONSE: The Department included "used asphalt" in the residual waste regulations to provide greater flexibility for reuse and recycling of this material. Used asphalt is included in the definition of clean fill and can be reused or recycled to make new materials under a coproduct determination or under a general permit for beneficial use.

RESPONSE: The disposal requirements for friable asbestos is not specifically addressed in the Federal regulations. We regulate the material as a special handling waste to ensure the material is managed properly from point of origin until properly buried. Pennsylvania currently allows for the disposal of asbestos containing waste in most of its permitted landfills.

RESPONSE: By statutory definition, storage of waste for more than one year is presumed to be disposal, unless clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Section 299.113 provides an opportunity to store waste materials for a longer period of time.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. We are currently in the process of revising the regulations for beneficial use of coal ash to provide greater flexibility, while still providing adequate protection to the environment. These changes will provide more performance standards and less design standards.

RESPONSE: The Department believes that the current regulations provide opportunities to beneficially reuse and dispose of coal ash without destroying perennial streams. Much of the coal ash generated is being returned to active mines and the Department is currently working with the coal operators to remove barriers that may exist from the existing beneficial use regulations. If the coal ash cannot be beneficially used, it is possible to move the stream if approval from the Department is obtained.

RESPONSE: This issue needs to be further clarified and without further understanding we cannot support changes to the regulation at this time.

RESPONSE: While "grandfathering" of the siting criteria to those areas permitted prior to the effective date of the regulations is allowed, it cannot be automatically extended beyond the permit boundary without a new environmental assessment as significant revisions may be necessary.

"co-management" interpretation for Bevill wastes.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. These wastes can be adequately managed under our residual waste regulations.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. We will continue our efforts to clarify the permit-by-rule requirements.

RESPONSE: The Department agrees. We are currently making efforts to revise our reporting requirements.

RESPONSE: While this activity is generally prohibited under this section, the Department feels that it is more appropriately addressed under Chapter 283 of the municipal waste regulations due to the nature of the municipal wastes.

RESPONSE: Reporting requirements are being analyzed by DEP. Many of these requirements will be modified or eliminated in the future.

RESPONSE: DEP agrees that the waste characterization report should only be required when the waste changes. In an effort to maintain environmental protection, eliminate duplicate data submission and reduce record keeping requirements, the Department has reviewed the report forms required by the municipal, residual and hazardous waste programs. Recommendations from this effort will be part of future proposed rulemakings in these program areas.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: Owners and operators of regulated UST systems who wish to permanently close must comply with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart G -- "Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure". The principal objective of these federal closure requirements is to identify and contain existing contamination and to prevent future releases from UST systems no longer in service. These regulations became effective on December 22, 1988, and were adopted by the Department on September 21, 1991.

Since the effective date of the federal closure regulations for USTs and with the passage of the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act, there have been numerous inquiries regarding requirements and appropriate practices for the proper closure of USTs. Because the federal regulation is so nebulous, the Department, as most other states, developed a "Closure Requirements for Underground Storage Tank Systems" document to supplement the regulation. The Storage Tank Advisory Committee had the opportunity to review and comment on the document during its development and indicated that the final product was comprehensive and represented a very reasonable approach to closure.

The fact of the matter is, the closure process is very complex and involves a number of activities including soil excavation, classification of wastes, on-site storage of contaminated soil, tank cleaning, tank removal, waste transportation, waste disposal and treatment and release reporting. The closure document represents a compilation of all requirements and appropriate practices for the proper closure of USTs in Pennsylvania. The Department believes that adhering to this guidance will result in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

While the document is likely to apply in total to the vast majority of closures, the Department recognizes that the guidance cannot address every closure situation. Therefore, flexibility is provided for in that variations for site specific conditions may be discussed with the appropriate DEP regional office. This is clearly stated on page 1 of the closure document.

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: Sections 301(a)(5) and (6) of the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act authorize the Department to develop regulations which require responsible parties to undertake corrective action in response to a release from an AST. Since releases from AST and UST systems impact the environment in a similar fashion, and because the corrective action process and actions that should be undertaken are similar, the Department believes that AST and UST corrective actions could best be accommodated in one regulation, rather than two regulations that say the same thing. (BWQM also must respond)

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: Sections 301(a)(5) and (6) of the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act authorize the Department to develop regulations which require responsible parties to undertake corrective action in response to a release from an AST. Since releases from AST and UST systems impact the environment in a similar fashion, and because the corrective action process and actions that should be undertaken are similar, the Department believes that AST and UST corrective actions could best be accommodated in one regulation, rather than two regulations that say the same thing. (BWQM also must respond)

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: Subchapter 245.301-245.313 establishes release reporting, release confirmation and corrective action requirements for owners and operators of underground and aboveground storage tanks as authorized by the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act. This subchapter applies to those underground storage tanks regulated by EPA. While this subchapter is more stringent in some minor areas, it is also less stringent in others. Where the regulation is more stringent, the Department is recommending revisions, where thought appropriate. This subchapter was developed to provide for a more "streamlined" and flexible approach to corrective action than the feds had established in 40 CFR Part 280, Subparts E and F.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify Section 245.305(a) to 24 hours.

applies to all above ground facilities greater than 21,000 gallons, while federal requirements address on those tanks capable of discharging to navigable waters.

DEP requires copies of plans be submitted to county & municipal agencies an DEP annually; EPA requires submittal only when requested; and

DEP requires notification of users 20 miles downstream, no similar federal requirement.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department adopted the federal closure regulations at 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart G, on September 20, 1991. (BWQM also must respond)

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: The Department proposes to modify the definition of Reportable Release in Section 245.1 to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E, Section 280.53.

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks

RESPONSE: BWQM, Division of Storage Tanks