DSHW-2024-005039

[Date]
U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency
EPA Docket Center, OLEM Docket
Mail Code 28221T
1200Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,DC 20460
RE:Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0278
Proposed Rule: Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find enclosed the State of Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control’s comments on the proposed rule regarding the addition of ninespecific per-and polyfluoroalkylsubstances
(PFAS), their salts, and theirstructural isomers, to the list of RCRA hazardous constituents.
If you have any questions, please call Gabrielle Marinick at 385-499-0172.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Hansen,Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
DJH/GEM/[???]
Enclosure: Division Comments on Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0278
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) Comments on
Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0278
Proposed Rule: Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents
The Division disagrees that this proposed rulemaking will not increase the financial burden on facilities and states.
The list of potentially affected entities (Table II-1) covers many of the industries here in Utah. If industries listed are subject to “additional corrective action requirements (pursuant
to RCRA section 3004(u) and (v)) to address releases not already subject to corrective action pursuant to EPA’s corrective action regulations”, this rulemaking will undoubtedly increase
financial burden on facilities and the state. Additional corrective action requirements may include sampling, preparation of management plans, and corrective measures, all of which bear
an associated cost. These requirements would not only increase facility costs but would also increase costs to the State for time spent on oversight activities such as reviewing submissions
or taking split samples. There are no labs certified for PFAS testing in Utah, so if the Division wishes to take split samples, they must be sent out of state for analysis at a higher
price. While larger companies may be able to easily absorb these costs, the Division is concerned about the smaller businesses in Utah and how well they were considered in the economic
assessment which determined there would be negligible economic impact.
The Division is concerned about how this rulemaking will affect sites that have already achieved closure. The FR states that any permitted TSDFs after November 8, 1984, are required
to take corrective action for all releases of hazardous waste or constituents at the facility.As there are a large number of sites at TSDFs in Utah that have achieved closure, the Division
requests the EPA submit specific criteria to determine sites that need to be reevaluated.
The Division requests clarification on what additional corrective action would be required to “address releases of specific PFAS listed as RCRA hazardous constituents”. Additionally,
the Division requests the EPA provide established universal cleanup standards and toxicity equivalence factors (TEFs) for these proposed PFAS to guide corrective measures.
The Division is concerned that the impact on other RCRA regulatory provisions unrelated to corrective action has not been fully investigated and will not be negligible as the FR currently
suggests. For example, there are several places in the Land Disposal Restrictions in 40 CFR 268 where “hazardous constituents” are mentioned (including several of the exemption clauses),
which may lead to confusion as to whether these PFAS are applicable to these parts.