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 hospit als or provide contingency plans to local autho rities 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 requireme nt to ensure local authorities know evacuation routes and facility layouts. Our expe rience shows that for the large facilities where this might be beneficial, local authorities already know th is as part of their routine information gathering
. 40 CFR Part 268 : LO R rules are extremely complicated
. It seems these cou ld be simplified. 40 CFR Part 273: expand the types of wastes covered under the universal waste requi rements . Examples of such wastes include UW list are pai nts 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 ofthe State programs already maintains this information. The bie nnial 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 sho uld be allowed to resample for that specific constitu ent f irst to estab lish 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 ifthe LTU has a composite liner system . There is no need to conduct UZM monitoring at a lined LTU, as any re leases would be detec ted through the groundwater detection monitoring sys tem. 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 build i ng) 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 sto rage units to be "permitted-by- rule", would be less burdensome than submittal ofa standard permit application. 40 CFR Part 63.10(d)(S(i): requires that a start- up/shut down/ malfunction sem i-annual report be submitted. This coul d 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. 'Ifthe 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 industria l 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 requ irem ents. 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 complet e, top-tobottom review ofthe 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 offull CEis at inactive TSD facilities; and (3) imp lementing various flexibilities i n 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 requ irements of RCRA.

### Prospective Regulations Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs): ASTSWMO and the States have provided extensive comment on the excessively burdensome nature of EP A's proposal to manage CCRs under Subtitle C. Comments prepared by ASTSWMO, ECOS and States can be found on ASTSWMO's webs ite. CERCLA 108(b) : The CERCLA 108(b) fi nancia l assurance (FA) regulat ions be ing drafted by EPA could be excessively burdensome for States if EPA's int erpretation ofCERCLA 114 is that State FA programs w i ll be preempted by EPA's FA rules
. There are a number of unknowns that concern States such as who w ill implement the program (neithe r EPA nor States have the resources). There are a number of possible va ri ations for the FA rules, each of w h ich could adversely impact States such as: li m it i ng the types of F A that are acceptable; a self - impleme nting rule subject to review by EPA or States; and how t he amount of FA will be determi ned whether it be a fixed amount, case-by-case or a hyb rid.