DRAFT- NOT FOR CIRCULATION 

Document has not been through ASTSWMO's review and approval process 

State Responses to EPA Regulatory review Request 

Specific Rules 

40 CFR 262.34(a)(4), which incorporates 265.37 and 265.53(b): requirement to notify hospitals or 

provide contingency plans to local authorities unless those interested parties specifically ask for them. 

We have rarely found any hospitals or local authorities who actually read these documents, much less 

keep them. Along the same lines, eliminate the requirement to ensure local authorities know evacuation 

routes and facility layouts. Our experience shows that for the large facilities where this might be 

beneficial, local authorities already know this as part of their routine information gathering. 

40 CFR Part 268: LOR rules are extremely complicated. It seems these could be simplified. 

40 CFR Part 273: expand the types of wastes covered under the universal waste requirements. Examples 

of such wastes include UW list are paints and over-the-counter medications. 

40 CRF 262.34(a)(4), which incorporates 265.32: eliminate the requirement to have phones/radios 

available in work areas. In this day of cell phones, almost everyone has a phone available. 

40 CFR 264.75: requires that a biennial report be submitted every two years. The waste summary that is 

reported through some of the State programs already maintains this information. The biennial report is 

redundant. A waste minimization certificate is also already required. 

40 CFR 264.98(g)(2): requires that if an SSI is determined, then re-sampling for Appendix IV constituents 

is required. Many times, the initial SSI is not confirmed and was due to error in sampling, lab analysis, 

etc. The facility should be allowed to resample for that specific constituent first to establish the SSI, 

then be required to do Appendix IV analysis. 

40 CFR Part 266: allows an exemption from RCRA permitting of onsite generated mixed waste. RCRA 

requires that for a commercial mixed-waste (radioactive and hazardous) facility, in addition to a NRC 

authorization, a RCRA authorization is also required. This is burdensome to the facility. This can be 

streamlined, by having requirements be addressed through one authorization (add this to the 266 

exemption). 

40 CFR 264.278: requires unsaturated zone monitoring (UZM) at all permitted land treatment units, 

even if the LTU has a composite liner system. There is no need to conduct UZM monitoring at a lined 

LTU, as any releases would be detected through the groundwater detection monitoring system. In 

addition, leachate collected from the Leachate Collection System (LCS) could be analyzed for 

constituents to determine if there is any risk. 
40 CFR Part 267: allows a storage unit (tank, container storage area or containment building) to be 

authorized by a standard permit (less stringent submittal requirements). Facilities aren't taking 

advantage of this option, possibly because it is too burdensome to submit a Part B permit application for 

land-based units and then a standard permit application for storage units. Requiring storage units to be 

"permitted-by-rule", would be less burdensome than submittal of a standard permit application. 

40 CFR Part 63.10(d)(S(i): requires that a start-up/shut down/ malfunction semi-annual report be 

submitted. This could be reduced to being required annually. 

40 CFR 261.3(c) & (d): the "derived from rule" is ineffective and burdensome. For example, under the F 

listings, rags that are contaminated with an F-listed solvent carry the listing by the derived from rule 

unless the F-listed Solvent was poured on the rag and then wiped the surface. 'If the F-listed solvent is 

poured onto a surface and the surface is wiped clean with the rag, the rag is becomes an F-listed waste. 

Additionally, often wastes that are listed because they are "derived from" a listed waste would pass the 

TCLP test as a class two industrial waste. But, under the derived from rule it must be unnecessarily 

managed as hazardous waste. 

General 

Implement best management practices at historically compliant facilities, rather than have rules that are 

so prescriptive. Prescriptive rules may have been needed in the early days of RCRA because of limited 

technologies and to help get everyone used to new hazardous waste management requirements. Now 

that the program is extremely mature, it seems BMPs may be a better regulatory scheme to take into 

consideration new technologies and techniques that could achieve the same goals, though they may not 

comply with the letter of the current rules. Such an effort would likely require a complete, top-tobottom review of the rules performed over many months with all the stakeholders involved in the 

process (EPA, states, and industry). 

The ASTSWMO Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (ECA) Task Forces has been participating in an EPA 

Headquarters effort to evaluate ways to implement flexibility into regulatory programs. The flexibilities 

being evaluated are: (1) use of Focused Compliance Inspections (which are targeted at a limited number 

of areas--less time-consuming for state inspectors and facility personnel) in lieu of full Compliance 

Evaluation Inspections at facilities that have a demonstrated track record for compliance; (2) use of 

groundwater monitoring evaluations or operations and maintenance inspections in lieu of full CEis at 

inactive TSD facilities; and (3) implementing various flexibilities in LQG requirements at t hose LQGs with 

demonstrated compliance histories. 

Efficiencies could be achieved by focusing more efforts and resources on reuse and recycling rather than 

relying so heavily on the permitting and enforcement requirements of RCRA. 
Prospective Regulations 

Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs): ASTSWMO and the States have provided extensive comment on the 

excessively burdensome nature of EPA's proposal to manage CCRs under Subtitle C. Comments prepared 

by ASTSWMO, ECOS and States can be found on ASTSWMO's website. 

CERCLA 108(b): The CERCLA 108(b) financial assurance (FA) regulations being drafted by EPA could be 

excessively burdensome for States if EPA's interpretation of CERCLA 114 is that State FA programs w ill 

be preempted by EPA's FA rules. There are a number of unknowns that concern States such as who w ill 

implement the program (neither EPA nor States have the resources). There are a number of possible 

variations for the FA rules, each of which could adversely impact States such as: limit ing the types of FA 

that are acceptable; a self-implementing rule subject to review by EPA or States; and how t he amount of 

FA will be determined whether it be a fixed amount, case-by-case or a hybrid.