Before treating, storing or disposing of any hazardous waste (or non-hazardous waste where 264.113(d) applies), the owner or operator must obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample containing everything needed to manage it under Part 264 and Part 268; the analysis may draw on Part 261 data and published or documented data for similar processes, and must be repeated as needed to stay accurate, at least when the generating process is known or believed to have changed and, at off-site facilities, when inspection shows a shipment does not match its manifest. Off-site facilities must inspect, and analyse if necessary, each shipment received to confirm it matches the manifest or shipping paper. A written waste analysis plan, kept at the facility and followed, must specify the parameters and their rationale, the test methods, the sampling methods (Part 261 Appendix I or equivalent), the frequency of review or repetition, for off-site facilities the analyses generators have agreed to supply, the methods for the additional analyses required by 264.17, 264.314, 264.341, 264.1034(d), 264.1063(d), 264.1083 and 268.7, the sampling, analysis and annual residue removal procedures for surface impoundments exempt under 268.4(a), and the basis for any Subpart CC exemption (direct measurement procedures or knowledge used). Off-site facilities' plans must also describe how each movement's identity is determined, the sampling method used, and, for landfills taking containerized waste, how the addition of biodegradable sorbents is detected.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.