Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Waste Minimization and Recycling)

Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Topic: Clarify on-site recycling of HW

Comment: More specific information needs to be provided in the generator rules section, addressing the onsite 

recycling of hazardous wastes. Specifically, this information should address the types of wastes that can be 

recycled, examples of situations where recycling is allowed, the types of recycling options that are allowable, and 

examples of those situations where recycling is not allowed. Regulations prohibiting accumulation of wastes prior to 

recycling should also be clarified. The SHWD is also concerned that in some cases, there are not adequate controls 

addressing the potential for spills/releases from non-hazardous solid wastes containing hazardous constituents.

Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Topic: Require compliance with certain waste minimization 

requirements

Comment: It is the SHWD opinion there needs to be regulations requiring compliance with certain waste 

minimization requirements since this would also greatly help to further decrease and in some cases, eliminate the 

amount of hazardous waste generated. 

Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Topic: Grant some type of amnesty from certain generator 

requirements for those generators making major waste 

minimization and pollution efforts

Comment: The SHWD is also in favor of the idea of granting some type of amnesty from certain generator 

requirements for those generators making major waste minimization and pollution efforts.

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Develop a process for state variances of innovation 

pollution prevention projects

Comment: Develop a process for state variances of innovation pollution prevention projects.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Conditional Exclusion from the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 

261.2 for materials if they are recycled. 

Comment. In order to foster a program improvement strategy with the goal of pollution prevention and reduced compliance costs, EPA should consider a 

Conditional Exclusion from the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2 for mterials if they are recycled. 

Discussion. 40 CFR 261.4(a) provides exclusions from the definition of solidwaste for specific recycled materials such as spent sulfuric acid used to 

produce virgin sulfuric acid, excluded scrap metal being recycled, shredded circuit boards being recycled, etc. Similar exemptions are contained in 40 CFR 

261.6(2) for lead acid batteries and used oil. The purpose of such exemptions is to facilitate known recycling processes.

In contrast, solid wastes that could be recycled, but that are not specifically exempted from RCRA regulations, are subject to onerous permitting, tracking, 

and reporting requirements. These RCRA hazardous waste requirements impede market forces that would otherwise prompt industryto seek suitable 

uses for used materials. RCRA regulations are a disincentive and are detrimental to the recycling of materials when regulated as hazardous waste.

Recommendation. EPA should devise a Conditional Exclusion under the definition of solid waste to exclude materials that will be recycled, thereby 
removing the disincentive to develop and pilot new recycling technologies.

Stakeholder: CBL Industrial Services Topic: Waste minimization certification on HW manifest

Comment: I have personally discussed this issue with a number of officials from various State DOT’s around the country. Based on those discussions, 

it appears that signing the generator certification on the Hazardous Waste Manifest has become a “token” guarantee. Their certification seems to mean 

that the generator has “ a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated...”. In truth, those programs have not evolved in 15 years. 

There appear to be few, if any proactive programs that serve to “raise the bar” or in some way encourage further hazardous waste minimization or 

complete prevention. In fact, one northeastern state DOT recently indicated that they could not use any other system than recyclable blasting systems 

because of this federal hazardous waste certification program. They either poorly understood what the certification meant, or simply used it as a 

justification to continue only using recyclable blasting systems for lead paint abatement projects. We are aware of two different state DOT’s in the 

northeast engaged in additional research to see if there is a better alternative available to hazardous waste generation. For one DOT, the incentive came 

from its environmental department who clearly understands the importance of hazardous waste prevention, but the issue only received serious 

consideration after the state quadrupled the Generator Hazardous Waste tax. Without the additional incentive, that generator would have simply 

continued the same program they put in place 15 years ago. The other DOT engaged in hazardous waste reduction after local, political pressure forced 

them to do so. Clearly, since the primary focus for the DOT’s is -and should be - on the construction and maintenance of the transportation infrastructure, 

it appears little is being done on hazardous waste management issues until an economic disincentive or political pressure arises. Since waste 

management issues can be secondary for DOT projects, it is not surprising to find ourselves in today’s situation. The DOT’s are focused on issues of 

structure construction and maintenance. This is why it is important that EPA become involved, since one of the stated goals of this ANPR is “to foster ... a 

pollution prevention stewardship philosophy”.

b. Alternative Solution

It is probably reasonable to continue requiring generators to sign the certification on the Hazardous Waste Manifest. However, more “teeth” need to be 

included within the certification program. This might include:

Proof that the generator has a waste minimization program in place;

A reporting requirement showing a net change in unit hazardous waste generation rates year to year (Data already being collected in the Biennial 

Reports). EPA could simply measure and compare the amount of hazardous waste being produced each year. The EPA Biennial report captures this 

information, so data is already available for EPA to measure. Decreases of reported hazardous waste quantities may suggest that an effective program is in 

place and would give EPA a measurement tool. The EPA penalize generators who don’t embrace new technologies, but reward those that continually 

move towards the elimination of the generation of hazardous waste.

Monitoring waste reduction reports and assessing additional fees if waste reduction improvements are not met.

For steel structures maintenance industry lead abatement projects, there are several abrasive pre-treatment technologies that have been available for a 

number of years that prevent the generation of hazardous spent abrasive waste. At least one of these technologies was successfully tested under the US 

EPA CRADA Program (USEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 2000). Some DOT’s have been allowing and specifying use of these 

hazardous waste elimination technologies use for a few years, but a majority of the state DOT’s still require recyclable blast systems and dispose of the 

residues in Subtitle C landfills. The largest barrier to elimination of this hazardous waste generation practice appears to be an overall resistance to 

change by the structure owners (DOT’s) and contractors (both cogenerators of the waste) who already use the recycled grit systems. They believe the 

problem was solved by minimizing the volume of hazardous waste in the early 90’s and have been reluctant to make additional changes. As mentioned 

above, waste management issues are not central to preserving a large bridge structure, so waste management understandably can receive little, additional 

thought, particularly when the DOT’s believe they addressed the problem in the early 90’s.

Stakeholder: Linden Industrial Association Topic: Clarify purge solvent, rinse solvent or other cleaning agent is part of 
the manufacturing process until such agent is spent

Comment: RECYCLE STREAMS: By careful definition of recycle streams, the Agency has several opportunities to prevent pollution, enhance the 

competitive position required to preserve the U.S. manufacturing employment base and to minimize the administrative burden placed on EPA and its 

inspectors. In particular, the clear statement that a purge solvent, rinse solvent or other cleaning agent is part of the manufacturing process until such 

agent is spent would have tremendous impact.

By recognizing that such materials have ongoing beneficial reuse, the Agency would be making it clear to inspectors that such items are process materials 

until such a time as they no longer function in the clean or purge

role. This would remove burden on Part BB and Part CC tank/manifold operators, minimize recordkeeping and optimize the environmental benefits 

gained from reuse of materials. This policy would also benefit batch manufacturers who have changeovers between batches. By recognizing that the 

cleaning materials have beneficial reuse, the Agency would be helping to prevent pollution (as opposed to mandating the immediate disposal of such 

materials after first use).

Stakeholder: Linden Industrial Association Topic: Consider the impact on reuse of byproducts of reaction

Comment: Please consider the impact on reuse of byproducts of reaction. As an example, for companies 

manufacturing materials where water is generated as a byproduct of reaction, it can be helpful to save some or all of 

the water as starting material for subsequent batches, and some or all of the azeotropic solvent (if any) for use in 

subsequent batches. These are materials which, taken as stand-alone items, would be categorized as hazardous waste. 

By storing these materials for subsequent re-use, the company involved should not be considered as storing hazardous 

waste. These should be classified as raw material items. As another example, please consider the case of a run or a 

batch of material that does not meet specification as produced. The manufacturer reprocesses the material in an 

attempt to render it suitable for sale. The reprocessing fails. The manufacturer then declares the material to be waste. 

There is the (errant) potential for someone to consider that the manufacturer treated hazardous waste, when in fact it 

was simply an operating step that failed to produce saleable material. If operators of facilities are not given the 

incentive to find beneficial reuse for materials, they will cease to try and the result will be an increase in the generation

of hazardous waste. 

Stakeholder: Linden Industrial Association Topic: Consider the case of a material manufactured in a solvent or solvents 

that does not meet specification as produced. 

Comment: As a last example, please consider the case of a material manufactured in a solvent or solvents that does not meet specification as 

produced. If the manufacturer distills the product in order to reclaim the solvent for

beneficial reuse, this should not be considered as treatment of hazardous waste. This is waste minimization.

Stakeholder: Linden Industrial Association Topic: The economy and industry would benefit from the selection of the 

three-digit NAICS designation as the choice for allowing an exemption for 

reuse, recycling or reclamation.

Comment: NAICS CLASSIFICATION AS A BASIS FOR ALLOWING INTER/INTRAFACILITY REUSE, RECYCLING OR RECLAMATION OF MATERIALS: The 

Agency, the economy and industry would benefit from the selection of the three-digit NAICS designation as the choice for allowing an exemption for 

reuse, recycling or reclamation. This is due to the fact that so many operations qualify under a large number of four-digit sub-categories under NAICS. The 

chore of listing all applicable codes would be a huge burden on industry, an administrative challenge for the Agency and an unnecessary expense for all 

involved. By allowing the broader three-digit classification to hold sway this would facilitate the administration, effectiveness and pollution prevention 
potential of the program. The comments of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) are fully endorsed and supported with 

respect to a conditional exemption for “specialty batch chemical manufacturing facilities” within the NAICS code (325) associated with chemical products 

and processes.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Reporting of Waste Min activities in BR - re-institute

Comment: 40 CFR 262.41. 40 CFR 262.41(a)(4), (6), and (7) require that the name and EPA ID number of each transporter used during the reporting 

year, the efforts undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated, and a description of the changes in volume and toxicity 

of waste actually achieved during the year in comparison to previous years be included in the biennial report filed by the generator. On the 2003 report, 

this information was not included in Form 8700-13 A/B and therefore was not reported by generators. We recommend that the language in this section 

about the contents of the report be revised not to state what must be included on the form, but just to state that the contents of the form will be 

determined by EPA.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Reclamation of Lead-acid batteries and LDR 

requirements

Comment: 40 CFR 266.80(a).This section requires that lead-acid batteries being reclaimed that will be reclaimed other than through regeneration are 

subject to the land disposal restriction regulations. We suggest this requirement be removed. Please see the discussion under “40 CFR 268.7” below.

Stakeholder: National Pollution Prevention Roundtable 

(NPPR)

Topic: Investigate opportunities to measure performance and environmental 

results which recognize P2 efforts

Comment: EPA needs to investigate opportunities to measure performance and environmental results which recognize P2 efforts. These would 

include reductions in the amount of hazardous waste produced, (normalized for productivity), and reduced accidents (accounting for total amount of 

material/waste released). Also, facilities should be encouraged to report reductions in energy usage, water consumption and other environmentally 

beneficial activities which are not part of the routine RCRA reporting requirements.

EPA should be willing to provide the resources necessary to encourage generators to practice P2 and recycling. This can be done by increasing the existing 

P2 grants to state programs funding to the level authorized in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, which is $8 million. This would be an increase of $2 

million nationally. In addition, EPA should consider increasing the RCRA state grants by $20 million for P2 technical assistance to hazardous waste 

generators. This level of funding would be a good start in providing local assistance, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises. NPPR’s report, “An 

Ounce of Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion Pounds of Cure: A Decade of P2 Results 1990 –2000” (www.p2.org/p2results) indicates that for every 

dollar spent on P2 programs and activities, there have been five dollars in cost reductions for industry. That would mean a $100 million economic benefit. 

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Require the waste minimization certification on the annual or biennial 

report

Comment: The regulations should be re-written to require the waste minimization certification statement for large quantity generators to be on the 

annual or biennial report rather than on the manifest. Often the person signing the

uniform hazardous waste manifest, where the certification statement now resides, does not have control, connection with, or authority over waste 

generation or site chemical procurement.

Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: EPA should notify stakeholders that a waste minimization program is 
not a quota or quantity-based program, but rather one in which continuous 

improvement is sought and incentivized in an attempt to minimize the amount 

of waste generated

Comment: Waste Minimization. The major stumbling block to successful implementation of the waste minimization program is that, due to the lack 

of specific best-management-practices-type requirements for waste minimization, many inspectors are asking for complex, quota-driven waste 

minimization programs. In other words, inspectors are asking for companies to quantify the amount of waste generated each year and to achieve a certain 

percentage reduction in waste generation as compared to previous years. This is a very expensive, time consuming, and often impossible endeavor –

especially where other government agency regulations (e.g. FAA) mandate the use of specific processes and materials in production processes. EPA 

should notify stakeholders that a waste minimization program is not a quota or quantity-based program, but rather one in which continuous 

improvement is sought and incentivized in an attempt to minimize the amount of waste generated. In many ways, the waste minimization program could 

be patterned after the stormwater pollution prevention plans under the Clean Water Act. Such plans, in effect, require companies to evaluate their process 

and look for ways to better protect storm water, but do not necessarily require numeric goals to be met.

As indicated above, one significant problem that exists under the current standards is the fact that certain industries are under the purview of other 

Federal agencies. A good example is that all aerospace companies are regulated by the FAA, and are mandated to use certain chemicals, solvents, paints 

and processes specified by FAA. Because of this fact, the companies are not free to make changes in their processes to reduce waste generation and often 

cannot meet numeric requirements for the reduction of waste. As such, American recommends that the EPA work directly with the FAA and aircraft 

manufacturers to find means to reduce the required use of chemicals, solvents, and paints on aircraft.

Stakeholder: State of Georgia Topic: Undertake changes in the regulations to require large quantity 

generators to submit a hazardous waste reduction plan, with established 

minimum requirements, along with their BR

Comment: The manifest certification for generators to certify that they have a waste minimization program in place is not effective. Georgia has a 

requirement for all large quantity generators to submit a hazardous waste reduction plan to EPD every other year. EPD believes this state requirement for 

a formalized plan has resulted in significant waste reduction that would not have occurred otherwise. 

We would like to see EPA undertake changes in the regulations to require large quantity generators to submit a hazardous waste reduction plan, with 

established minimum requirements, along with their Biennial Report. Along the line of reporting, we believe EPA should consider a periodic 

re-notification requirement for all hazardous waste generators. This would reduce the amount of personnel resources expended inspecting facilities that 

have stopped generating hazardous waste or went out of business and did not notify EPD of such; and..........

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: : Question the value of certification that the company has a pollution 

prevention program on the manifest

Comment: 262.20(a): Question the value of certification that the company has a pollution prevention program on the manifest. In companies of size, 

certification of a manifest is performed by staff that may have little or no responsibility for policy development. While such staff may be aware of a 

pollution prevention program at their company, they may not be able or qualified to determine if it meets all of the requirements specified in

the certification. EPA has made several accommodations concerning this certification in the past.13 In the 20 years since Congress mandated this 

certification, pollution prevention has become broadly available and widely utilized. The value of the certification is no longer evident, and we encourage 

EPA to consider removing it. This change would require Congress to remove the statutory requirement for the certification

found at 42 USC 6922(b).
Stakeholder:Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Listing of F006 electroplating sludges

Comment: The Effluent from Treatment of Electroplating Wastewaters Reused On-site should be Exempt from the Potential to Generate F006.

Under 40 C.F.R. § 261.31, the listing of F006 applies to sludges generated from electroplating wastewaters. By definition, electroplating wastewaters, 

unless they exhibit a hazardous characteristic, are not hazardous waste. However, under the listing, any sludge generated from the wastewater is 

considered a hazardous waste, regardless of whether it actually exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic, or if it even contains any of the constituents for 

which the listing was made in the first place. This interpretation has created a great deal of confusion in the electronics industry and resulted in overly 

conservative management of electroplating wastewaters—to the point that many of these wastewaters are treated and directly discharged to POTWs 

rather than reused onsite because of their potential to generate F006.

This overly conservative management of electroplating wastewaters is due in part to inconsistent EPA guidance that makes reuse difficult. An example 

from the semiconductor industry highlights this inconsistency. In the proposed Metal Parts and Products rule, the EPA Office of Water Quality clarified 

that semiconductor operations do not involve “electroplating.” 66 Fed. Reg. 433-434 (January 3, 2001). Since the EPA Office of Solid Waste used the 

Office of Water Quality definition of “electroplating” when it created the F006 listing, it is reasonable to assume that wastewaters generated from 

semiconductor manufacturing cannot generate F006 because they do not come from “electroplating” operations. See EPA Interpretative Rule, 51 Fed. 

Reg. 43350 ( Dec. 2, 1986) (“As explained in the Listing Background Document for F006, the Agency identified the listing for “electroplating operations” 

to cover the same processes as was included under the Effluent Guidelines Division’s pretreatment standards for the electroplating point source 

category.”) However, shortly after the Office of Water Quality took the position that semiconductor operations do not engage in “electroplating,” EPA 

entered into an XL project with IBM at its Essex Junction site wherein EPA made statements suggesting that semiconductor manufacturing operations

do involve “electroplating” and do have the potential to generate a listed hazardous waste.1 65 Fed. Reg. 54955 (Sept. 12, 2000).

Moreover, prior EPA guidance suggests that regulated listed hazardous waste can be generated from the electroplating wastewaters no matter how 

much the wastewater has been treated. According to a memorandum from M. Straus to C. Jenkins, dated March 20, 1985, treatment may involve “several 

treatment steps for wastewaters, in series, without any indication in[sic] of the Agency’s belief that at some point, the wastewater is

‘treated’ where it no longer is capable of generating the wastewater treatment sludge described in the listing. It may even be that RCRA regulated 

sludges can be generated after the point of discharge (except for the current exemption of POTW sludges).” Such an interpretation is overly conservative 

and prevents the proper reuse of effluent. Legitimate reuse of electroplating wastewaters should be allowed without the burden of

having to manage any sludges generated as a listed hazardous waste. EIA requests that EPA clarify that treated electroplating wastewaters that are reused 

on-site in accordance with the legitimate recycling guidance are exempt from the definition of “solid waste.” Any residues from the reuse would be 

evaluated on their own merits, without regard to where they were derived from.

Stakeholder:State of New York Topic: RCRA Hazardous Waste Minimization Program Enhancements

Comment: RCRA Hazardous Waste Minimization Program Enhancements.Even though Congress required generators to establish a Waste 

Minimization Program in the 1984 amendments to RCRA, the only specific requirement for a facility for this program which has been implemented is 

that the generator must certify on its manifests that:

“(1) the generator of the hazardous waste has a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree determined by 

the generator to be economically practicable;” and “(2) the proposed method of treatment, storage, or disposal is that practicable method currently 

available to the generator which minimizes the present and future threat to human health and the environment” (42 USCA Section 6922 (b)).

These minimal requirements currently provide little, if any, real incentives for true waste minimization. In order to actually encourage more waste 

minimization USEPA should consider regulations that focus on large-quantity generators and, at a minimum, would provide a model facility’s waste 
minimization program (WMP). The regulations would require that the facility retain documentation of its program and, most importantly, data on actual

reductions of waste being achieved. This documentation should be available for review as part of a RCRA inspection.

Also, to be truly effective, there is a need for the WMP to be updated biannually. New York State’s Hazardous Waste Reduction Planning Program could 

help act as a model for such a system. In addition, an Environmental Management System such as that required in USEPA’s Performance Track Program 

could be considered an acceptable substitute for a WMP as long as performance data on waste reductions was still tracked. Generators that achieved 

certain reported levels of reductions could possibly qualify for USEPA Performance Track or State environmental leadership program benefits. This would 

help provide a positive incentive for them to reduce waste and track the data. While generators other than large-quantity generators may not be required 

to plan and report, doing so voluntarily could enable them to qualify for benefits as well. Facilities that do not have a WMP could be subject to 

enforcement. Facilities that have a WMP in place will benefit by realizing cost savings from reduced amounts of hazardous wastes generated through 

reduced fees, paperwork, handling, disposal and transportation costs. 

Stakeholder:State of Texas Topic: Allow NEPT members to consider by-products as co-products under 

specified conditions and when the management of the material can be shown to 

be as protective of the environment

Comment: The TCEQ suggests that EPA could encourage NEPT participation by allowing NEPT members to consider by-products as co-products under 

specified conditions and when the management of the material can be shown to be as protective of the environment. This incentive could encourage 

participation in NEPT and assure the highest use of materials. Many materials are currently disposed of or incinerated rather than reused since 

by-products are still defined as solid waste, thus “tainting” the material from many valid reuse options. As an example, 40 CFR 261.2(a), Table 1, classifies 

many by-product streams as solid waste and subjects them to RCRA requirements. Many organizations do not recover and reuse useful materials in 

"by-product" classified streams where the rules make it easier (less costly and less burdensome) to send by-product materials to off-site incineration. 

Incineration should be the last resort since it contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and wastes energy rather than removing contaminants and reusing 

the material for energy recovery or a higher use.

One concept is to provide an incentive to NEPT members that would allow them to consider material that was previously considered a by-product (e.g., 

solid waste) as co-products provided the new process can be demonstrated to be “as protective” of the environment.

Stakeholder:State of Texas Topic: Allow NEPT members to to burn material that was previously defined 

as by-products (e.g., solid waste) for beneficial heat recovery provided the heat 

recovery process can be demonstrated to be as protective of the environment

Comment: A second concept is to allow NEPT members the option to burn material that was previously defined as by-products (e.g., solid waste) 

for beneficial heat recovery provided the heat recovery process can be demonstrated to be as protective of the environment. Under this option the 

process would be regulated under the Clean Air Act, Title V, and not under RCRA since the material would no longer be considered a solid waste. This 

would remove these materials from the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rules and encourage higher reuse, and lower fuel usage. This would also be a 

very appealing incentive and may drive higher levels of NEPT membership (and associated performance) since the price of fuel is six times higher than 

when the RCRA rules were initially adopted.

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Allow more flexibility for recycling for NEPT 

members 

Comment: A third concept is to allow more flexibility for recycling for NEPT members. Specifically, currently a site 

that continuously recycles a material can exclude that material from the solid waste definition. An incentive would be 

to allow NEPT members to store materials that are recycled (on-site or offsite) for up to 90 days, and still take 
advantage of the exclusion from solid waste definition (currently restricted under § 261.2(c)(3) and associated Part 

264, 265 and 270 regulations.)

An additional incentive for NEPT members would be to exempt them from the requirement to certify a waste minimization program on manifests, since 

the NEPT program includes broader environmental improvement projects that are inclusive of waste minimization.

Stakeholder:State of Texas Topic: Increase overall funding and/or allow states to reallocate federal funds 

to build additional capacity for state pollution prevention and environmental 

assistance programs under the Performance Partnership Grants (PPG). 

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA increase overall funding and/or allow states to reallocate federal funds to build additional capacity for 

state pollution prevention and environmental assistance programs under the Performance Partnership Grants (PPG). The TCEQ recommends that EPA 

review existing state pollution prevention legislation as a potential model for EPA to require LQG pollution prevention planning to replace the existing 

“certification in place” requirement under RCRA. States have documented that hazardous waste generators which do not prepare pollution prevention 

plans often generate increased amounts of hazardous waste and increased environmental costs. 

Stakeholder:State of Texas Topic: Continue to develop performance-based metrics to report overall 

source reduction and waste minimization results reported by the regulated 

community

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA continue to develop performance-based metrics to report overall source reduction and waste minimization 

results reported by the regulated community. 

Stakeholder:State of Texas Topic: Prioritize pollution prevention programs to target reductions of 

persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxics (PBTs) to reduce impacts on human 

health and the environment

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA prioritize pollution prevention programs to target reductions of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxics 

(PBTs) to reduce impacts on human health and the environment.

The TCEQ recommends that EPA consider alignment of the existing and future Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) programs, such as the National 

Waste Minimization Partnership, with existing state programs to promote a more coordinated effort which provides recognition at the state and federal 

level. 

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Consider using RCC programs to serve as an “on 

ramp” to the NEPT

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA also consider using RCC programs to serve as an “on ramp” to the 

NEPT. Burden reductions and pollution prevention/recycling benefits could be achieved through additional By-Product Synergy education. The 

difficulty is in placing this effort into a reasonable and reliable performance measure.

Stakeholder: Department of Energy (DOE) Topic: Recommendations for encouraging generators to practice 

source reduction and recycling practices:
Comment: DOE suggests the following possible ways for the EPA to encourage generators to practice source reduction and recycling practices:

 Provide informational tools, such as public education and sustainability labeling.

 Adopt new regulatory strategies, such as extended product responsibility requirements. 

 Work with industry to provide more environmentally benign chemical substitutes. 

 Work with chemical manufacturers to review the shelf life limitation of chemicals, establish unbiased shelf-life data, and 

encourage generators to extend the shelf life of chemicals based on reliable scientific data. 

 Provide more pollution prevention literature targeted to specific industries, and consolidate the EPA websites that deal with 

pollution prevention into a central clearinghouse website.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: REMOVE WASTE MINIMIZATION CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 

FROM THE MANIFEST

Comment: EPA SHOULD REMOVE WASTE MINIMIZATION CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FROM THE MANIFEST. EPA should remove the 

generator’s waste minimization certification statement from the hazardous waste manifest. The Biennial Report requires:

• A description of the efforts taken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated. (40 CFR 262.41 (a)(6)), and

• A description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually achieved during the year in comparison to previous years to the extent such 

information is available foryears prior to 1984. (40 CFR 262.41(a)(7)).

Requiring a certification on the manifest does not reflect the reality of plant operations. Hazardous waste minimization programs are invariably 

plant-wide and often corporate in scope. Hazardous waste manifests, in contrast, relate to a single, discrete event involving a single, discrete waste. The 

person responsible for signing the manifest is almost never at a level where decisions regarding waste minimizations are made. Having such a person 

certify therefore is not reflective of actual practice. Rather, the certification required on the Biennial Report is a better guarantee that such programs are in 

place because the reports are generated by these who have responsibility for their content and the practices that flow from it.

16 commenters; 28 comments