Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Land Disposal Restrictions)

Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Topic: Clarify requirements

Comment: More clarification needs to be provided for hazardous waste generators concerning the 

LDR requirements and only those requirements addressing generators should be included.

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Reduced requirements for wastes treated 

prior to disposal

Comment: - LDRs need to be applied at the point where wastes are land disposed. Wastes directed 

for treatment, prior to land disposal, could have reduced requirements applied (40 CFR Part 268)

- The LDR for adding all applicable waste codes to the manifest should be eliminated

- LDR forms have served their usefulness and should be considered for modification or 

elimination

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Reduced requirements for wastes treated prior 

to disposal

Comment: 40 CFR 268.7. For generators that are not directly land disposing their wastes, 

the requirements of 40 CFR 268.7 are overly burdensome and provide little environmental 

benefit. Wastes not being sent directly for land disposal by the generator of the waste are sent to 

facilities such as incinerators, wastewater treatment facilities, and, most commonly, to transfer 

facilities. Typically for treatment facilities, such as incinerators and wastewater treatment 

facilities, the waste from many generators is treated in succession or mixed together prior to 

treatment. Prior to land disposing of the ash, an incinerator must ensure the land disposal 

regulations are complied with. Prior to land disposing of wastewater treatment sludge, such a 

facility must ensure the land disposal regulations are complied with. Transfer facilities may send 

wastes to treatment facilities such as those described above or to land disposal facilities. In many 

cases, new notifications for such transfers may be prepared. We believe that the paperwork 

burden can be reduced with no increase in the potential for harm to the environment if the 

requirement to prepare a land disposal notification is the responsibility of the company that 

is sending the waste directly for land disposal.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Waste analysis plan

Comment: 40 CFR 268.7(a)(5). This section requires generators treating hazardous waste in 

tanks and containers to meet treatment standards to prepare and implement a waste 

analysis plan. Many generators treat hazardous waste in tanks that are part of a wastewater 

treatment system and discharge the wastewater in compliance with wastewater discharge permits. 

Sludge from the systems is properly managed in accordance with applicable regulations. It would 

seem that such treatment requires the development and implementation of a waste analysis plan, 
however, since the discharge and management of the sludge is already regulated under other 

regulations, there does not seem to be an environmental benefit to the development and 

implementation of the waste analysis plan. We suggest that this requirement be removed. 

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Managing a restricted waste - one-time notice 

in the site’s files

Comment: 40 CFR 268.7(a)(7). Since the land disposal restrictions apply at the point of 

generation, 40 CFR 268.7 requires that if a generator is managing a restricted waste that is 

excluded from the definition of solid or hazardous waste or is exempted under 40 CFR 261.2 -

261.6 subsequent to the point of generation, the generator must place a one-time notice in the site’s 

files. There is no environmental benefit to this paperwork burden. We suggest that this 

requirement be removed.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Managing a restricted waste - one-time notice 

in the site’s files

Comment: 40 CFR 268.9(b). This requirement is confusing. Additional specific guidance for

typical wastes generated from industrial facilities should be provided.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Remove the reference to 268.7(a)(5) entirely

and rely on 268.1(b)

Comment: 262.34(a)(4) & 268 - The specific reference to 268.7(a)(5) contained in 262.34(a)(4), 

(d)(4), (g)(4)(v), & (j)(7) would make it appear that 268.7(a)(5) is the only provision of 268 that 

large and small quantity generators need to comply with, but 268.1(b) makes it clear that 

generators must comply with essentially all of part 268 unless otherwise noted. Referring only to 

268.7(a)(5) in 262.34 is somewhat misleading and could result in confusion. PhRMA 

recommends that EPA either remove the reference to 268.7(a)(5) entirely and rely on 268.1(b), or 

make it clearer in 262.34 that generators must also comply with part 268 unless otherwise noted.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: LDR regulations are especially difficult to 

understand

Comment: LDRS: Part 268. LDR regulations are especially difficult to understand, and include 

obsolete date references. Newly regulated wastes should be addressed in a separate section. FDEP 

requests an extension of time to submit specific suggestions for revising Part 268.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition 

(GAC)

Topic: Eliminate LDR form

Comment: There has been considerable change to the Land Disposal Restriction form 
requirements and clarification as to when they are needed and when are they not required. Since 

the land ban has been in effect for quite some time, the need to use the form has expired and GAC 

strongly recommends that EPA eliminate the need for it.

Stakeholder: Department of Energy Topic: LDR paperwork

Comment: 1. DOE laboratory facilities generate many different chemicals with many LDR 

treatment standard waste codes. A number of these waste streams consist of a pure, unused, 

excess chemical (not a manufactured product) that has been characterized and containerized 

properly for the applicable hazards. They are not bottles containing mixtures of waste chemicals, 

contaminated soil, or lab packs. For these latter waste streams, the LDR notification 

requirements in 40 CFR 268.7(a) allow generators to send a one-time notice with the initial 

shipment to a TSDF. In the case of pure chemicals, however, a notice must be sent with each 

shipment of a different chemical. by the EPA did not alleviate this paperwork burden. As a 

result, DOE laboratory facilities, as well as other research laboratories that generate small 

volumes of multiple waste types, incur a much greater LDR paperwork burden than 

industries generating uniform, large-volume waste streams. Furthermore, the LDR 

paperwork reductions already implemented

To address the continuing LDR paperwork burden experienced by laboratories, DOE 

requests that the EPA consider designating pure, unused, excess chemicals as a single 

“waste stream” for purposes of LDR notification requirements. This waste stream would 

consist of pure chemicals, potentially including those having waste codes D001 through 

D043, F027, and any P- or U-code. DOE further requests that a one-time, LDR notice to 

receiving TSDFs be allowed for the pure chemicals waste stream. This notice should 

identify waste codes for all of the pure chemicals that the generator expects to send to the 

TSDF as part of the pure chemicals waste stream. Thereafter, any pure chemical included 

in the original notice could be sent to the TSDF without forwarding an additional notice 

with each shipment. A subsequent notice should be required only if new pure chemicals 

are expected to be sent. It should be noted that this comment addresses only LDR 

notification requirements. DOE recognizes that a hazardous waste manifest would still be 

required to accompany each waste shipment.

7 commenters; 10 comments