Through Evaluation

Promoting Environmental Results

United States Office of Policy April 2013

Environmental Protection (1807T) EPA-100-K-12-010 

Agency 

Hazardous Waste 

Determination Program 

Evaluation

Final Report
This report was prepared by Industrial Economics (IEc), under contract to EPA (contract EP-W-10-002). 

IEc conducted an independent evaluation and review of EPA’s hazardous waste determination program. 

The recommendations included in the report are IEc’s recommendations to EPA. They do not necessarily 

reflect EPA’s opinion. In this report, IEc summarizes facts and opinions that stakeholders conveyed to 

IEc over the course of the evaluation. In a few instances, EPA disagreed with or raised concerns 

regarding the accuracy of stakeholder statements. In those cases, EPA has asked IEc to include footnotes 

to provide clarification. Inclusion of a stakeholder’s opinion in this report does not constitute agreement 

or endorsement by EPA of the stakeholder’s opinion.

In the course of preparing this report IEc spoke to numerous stakeholders, including individual hazardous 

waste generators, trade associations, hazardous waste service providers, and state and Regional regulators. 

EPA is grateful to the many stakeholders for their time and generosity in allowing IEc to talk with them 

as part of this evaluation. EPA is particularly thankful to those stakeholders who opened their doors for 

facility tours and those who coordinated and facilitated meetings and site visits. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background ES -1

Evaluation of EPA’s Hazardous Waste Determination Regulatory Program ES -1

Summary of Findings ES -2

IEc’s Recommendations for EPA ES -5

INTRODUCTION

Background 1-1

Evaluation Purpose, Intended Uses, and Audience 1-4

Evaluation Questions and Connection to the Logic Model 1-4

METHODOLOGY

Data Sources 2-1

Data Analysis 2-6

Limitations of the Evaluation 2-9

FINDINGS

Evaluation Question 1: What is the national non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations? 

What is the non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations by sector?3-1

Evaluation Questions 2 and 3: What obstacles, challenges, and firm characteristics influence hazardous 

waste generators’ compliance with the hazardous waste determination regulations? 3-8

Evaluation Question 4: How do state program activities influence hazardous waste generators’ 

compliance with the hazardous waste determination regulations? 3-17

Evaluation Question 5: How do assistance providers/hazardous waste service providers/trade 

associations’ activities influence hazardous waste generators’ compliance with the hazardous waste

determination regulations? 3-30

Evaluation Question 6: What changes do stakeholders recommend to make the national hazardous waste

determination process more successful? 3-34

OVERARCHING THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overarching Themes 4-1

Recommendations 4-2
ES-1

Appendix A: Hazardous Waste Determination Non-Compliance by Sector

Appendix B: Theme Prevalence

Appendix C: Stakeholder Recommendations, Organized by Recommendation Type

Appendix D: Interview Guide for Industry/Trade Association Representatives

Appendix E: Interview Guide for Hazardous Waste Service Providers

Appendix F: Discussion Questions for Hazardous Waste Generators 

Appendix G: Discussion Questions for EPA Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators 

Appendix H: Discussion Questions for Small Business Assistance Providers

Appendix I: Discussion Questions for Sector-based Assistance Providers 

Appendix J: Discussion Questions for EPA Regional Enforcement Managers

Appendix K: Discussion Questions for State Associations

Appendix L: Discussion Questions for Case Study State
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations are designed as a cradle-to-grave 

system to prevent serious environmental damages that might occur, as well as mitigate damages that have 

occurred, as a result of improper hazardous waste management. The first and most important step in the 

regulations requires waste-generating entities to use specific regulatory requirements to determine if their 

waste is a hazardous waste (HW) (40 CFR 262.11). EPA developed these HW determination 

requirements in 1980 and has not changed them substantially since that time.

If waste is determined to be hazardous, the HW generator must manage it in accordance with RCRA 

regulations, which include requirements for managing, tracking, recordkeeping, storage, transportation, 

treatment, and disposal. However, if a HW generator does not properly identify a waste as hazardous, the 

HW generator will not follow the relevant RCRA regulations, which may cause harm to human health 

and the environment. Given the importance of making accurate HW determinations, EPA is interested in 

determining the effectiveness of these regulations. 

EVALUATION OF EPA’S HW DETERMINATION REGULATORY PROGRAM

In order to determine the effectiveness of EPA’s HW determination regulatory program, EPA’s Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Compliance, and Office of Policy contracted with 

Industrial Economics (IEc) to conduct a third party program evaluation. EPA tasked IEc with developing 

recommendations for how EPA can improve its HW determination regulatory program and help 

generators improve compliance with HW determination regulations. However, it is important to note that 

although EPA can and should help facilitate compliance, the regulatory burden for making an accurate 

HW determination ultimately lies with the generator of the waste.

This evaluation seeks to answer the following six questions and, based on these findings, make

recommendations for improving EPA’s program:

1. What is the national non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations? What is the 

non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations by sector?

2. What obstacles or challenges do HW generators face in complying with the HW determination 

regulations? 

3. What firm characteristics influence HW generators’ compliance with the HW determination 

regulations? 

4. How do state program activities influence HW generators’ compliance with the HW 

determination regulations? 

5. How do assistance providers/HW service providers/trade associations’ activities influence HW 

generators’ compliance with the HW determination regulations? and 

6. What changes do stakeholders recommend to make the national HW program more successful?
ES-2

The evaluation uses a mixed-method approach that combines available non-compliance data regarding 

HW determination violations, interviews and discussions with various stakeholders, a survey of federal 

facilities who generate HW, and state HW program case studies to answer the evaluation questions. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following bullets provide a brief summary response for each evaluation question:

• Evaluation Question 1: The average non-compliance rate with RCRA HW determination 

regulations across the United States is 34 percent. This figure is based on an analysis of HW

determination violations identified during EPA- or EPA/contractor-led comprehensive evaluation 

investigations recorded in RCRAInfo over the last 10 years. HW determination violations are 

considered to be those recorded as violations under RCRA Part 262 Subpart A in RCRAInfo. 

Among the sectors with the greatest overall number of HW determination violations, the 

following five sectors have the highest HW determination non-compliance rates (i.e., the greatest 

number of violations per inspection conducted): 1.) printed circuit board manufacturing; 2.) 

copper foundries; 3.) hospitals; 4.) colleges, universities, and professional schools; and 5.) 

fabricated structural metal manufacturing. Uncertainties and limitations associated with these 

calculations (e.g., the inspections are not conducted at a representative sample of facilities) are 

detailed in Chapter 2 of the full report. 

• Evaluation Questions 2 and 3: Numerous challenges explain patterns of non-compliance with 

HW determination regulations. One of the most significant challenges generators cite is the

difficulty making waste determinations for listed wastes. 

Based on a review of 34 data sources that include information from numerous stakeholders (e.g., 

notes from stakeholder discussions and interviews), the evaluation identified 30 recurring themes 

that describe various obstacles, challenges, and factors that influence HW generators’ compliance 

with HW determination regulations. These 30 themes fall into three overarching categories: (1) 

challenges related to the regulations; (2) challenges related to generators; and (3) challenges 

related to regulatory agencies. Overall, stakeholders identified the following top ten challenges 

leading to inaccurate HW determination:

1. Difficulty making waste determinations for listed wastes

2. Reliance upon third parties (HW service providers, suppliers, disposers) for information 

used to make determinations 

3. Lack of training/staff turnover at generators

4. The need for industry specific guidance and outreach 

5. Lack of consistency of the regulations and how to interpret them at the different levels of 

government (federal, state, county)

6. Generally confusing and difficult to follow regulations (e.g., narrative interpretations, 

references to previous sections)

7. The need for more interpretation/guidance/definitive answers from EPA

8. Difficulty understanding the HW recycling regulations
ES-3

9. Lack of awareness on the part of generators that they are generating a HW at all and 

therefore are subject to RCRA

10. Cost constraints in making HW determinations (e.g., high cost associated with testing a 

waste sample)

• Evaluation Question 4: States have developed a range of approaches to implement the 

federal HW requirements. The three states profiled in this evaluation have different methods 

for providing generator assistance and conducting compliance monitoring. 

• In Minnesota, the state has an extensive online assistance presence. For example, the 

state lists over 140 fact sheets and resources on its webpage, which serve as a resource 

for the metropolitan counties as well as the state. This library of assistance materials is

coupled with an extensive compliance monitoring presence, particularly in the Twin 

Cities metropolitan area. The state has delegated authority for the HW program to seven 

metropolitan counties, and these counties have a significant inspection and assistance 

presence at the local level.

• Colorado’s self-certification program, modeled after the Environmental Results Program, 

allows the state to contact far more generators than would be possible otherwise. The 

self-certification program raises awareness of compliance requirements, offers assistance, 

and incorporates statistically-based measurement to assess overall compliance levels. 

The state also has an active compliance monitoring, enforcement, and assistance 

program. For example, the state supports a Generator Assistance Program that provides 

businesses with free on-site technical assistance and information on the state’s HW 

regulations. 

• Texas has implemented an audit program designed for a state with generators dispersed 

across a large geographic area. Under this program, generators in Texas are required to 

submit a profile of their individual waste streams; the state selects a random sample of 

these profiles to audit. The state also conducts on-site inspections and has a wellregarded small business assistance program. 

• Evaluation Question 5: Small business assistance providers, HW service providers, suppliers, 

and trade associations play an integral role in the HW determination process. Assistance 

providers are often the first to alert generators to their HW management responsibilities, 

including HW determination. They provide generators with various tools and materials to help 

them comply with the regulations. Similarly, trade associations provide HW determination 

assistance but also lobby for regulations more favorable to their industry sector. However, the 

influence of trade associations on generators is limited to some degree by the size of their 

membership. Many HW generators choose not to join their sectors’ trade association due to 

economic constraints and are not recipients of the services they provide. HW service providers 

and suppliers have a wide ranging influence on generators’ HW determination compliance. For 

example, some HW service providers will make accurate HW determinations on behalf of a HW 

generator in situations where the generator, unassisted, would likely fail to do so. On other 

occasions, HW determination violations result from HW service providers or suppliers giving

generators incomplete or incorrect information about a product or waste stream. 

• Evaluation Question 6: Stakeholders’ top recommendation for making the national HW 

program more successful is to provide, improve, and/or increase sector-specific HW 

determination guidance. Drawing on the comments provided by stakeholders during the 

interviews, discussions, and survey of federal partners, the evaluators identified 180 
ES-4

recommendations to improve the national HW determination process. The top five types of 

recommendations offered by stakeholders are to:

1. Provide, improve, and/or increase the guidance available for making HW determinations;

2. Simplify the regulations in general;

3. Define and clearly interpret specific sections of the regulations;

4. Address situations where applying the regulations is not practical; and

5. Increase collaboration with the regulated industries.

In addition to suggestions raised through the interviews and open discussions, EPA gathered 

recommendations through the federal facilities survey. Survey respondents were asked, “If you had an 

opportunity, what would you want EPA or your state to do to help facilities like yours make HW 

determinations more effectively?” The responses are shown in Exhibit ES-1.

EXHIBIT ES-1: Recommendations for EPA or States to Help Facilities Make HW

Determinations More Effectively

RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY

PERCENT RANKING 

RECOMMENDATION AS 

MOST IMPORTANT

Provide user-friendly guidance 34%

Improve the clarity of the regulations and guidance 23%

Improve the readability of the regulations and 

guidance 16%

Provide a hotline dedicated to helping generators 

make more accurate determinations 12%

Other 11%

Provide on-site technical assistance upon request 8%

Offer periodic webinar training 8%

Several overarching themes emerge from this evaluation:

• Many stakeholders would like EPA to simplify and improve the HW determination

regulations. Stakeholders indicated that the regulatory language sacrifices clarity in an attempt to 

cover all possible scenarios where the regulations apply. This degree of detail complicates the 

regulations, making them difficult for generators to interpret and apply. In addition, stakeholders 

expressed concern that listed wastes may not cover important types of waste that may be 

hazardous (e.g., chemotherapy drugs). Stakeholders also suggested that EPA reclassify some HW 

as universal waste.

• Certain stakeholders expressed frustration with the non-intuitive, complex process of 

making HW determinations. Stakeholders suggested that if people without experience or 

training in making HW determinations perceive the regulations to be overly complicated, not 
ES-5

logical, or overly time consuming, they may become discouraged and give up on their efforts to 

ensure proper waste determination. Stakeholders who are well trained and have years of 

experience with waste determinations are not as likely to raise this concern, though they also seek 

improvements to the regulations. 

• Generators seek greater clarity about how to apply the existing regulations to their 

operations. Stakeholders said that it would be very helpful to have sector-specific guidance for 

typical waste streams, paired with an opportunity to ask detailed questions and get prompt 

feedback from EPA for non-typical waste streams. While EPA cannot make HW determinations 

for generators and requirements vary depending on state regulations, there appears to be an 

opportunity for EPA to share assistance materials and tools to supplement state resources.

• In practice many generators have essentially “outsourced” the HW determination process 

(even though by law generators themselves must make HW determinations). For a number of 

reasons including financial constraints, time constraints, and the complexity of the regulations, 

many generators hire HW service providers to manage their HW or rely on information from other

third parties (e.g., suppliers) to make their determinations. Some HW service providers make HW 

determinations on behalf of their clients, while others simply offer information as to whether a 

waste stream is hazardous or not. HW service providers often have particular expertise and 

resources that enable them to make accurate HW determinations. However, if they are relying on 

incomplete or incorrect information from generators, or if they are motivated by financial 

incentives to under- or over-classify waste as hazardous, service providers may contribute to 

inaccurate HW determinations.

• Stakeholders report that a combination of compliance monitoring and enforcement and

compliance assistance is an effective approach to improving compliance with HW 

determination regulations. This evaluation finds that many HW generators do not recognize 

their HW determination regulatory obligations until they have been contacted by EPA, the state, or 

an assistance provider. However, reduced funding at the state and federal level has prevented 

regulating agencies from expanding their compliance monitoring efforts and assistance providers 

from expanding their outreach and guidance efforts. 

• Current compliance data do not facilitate calculation of non-compliance rates pertaining to

HW determination regulations. Inspections tracked in RCRAInfo do not reflect representative 

samples of facilities, and may therefore provide inaccurate indications of compliance rates. 

Moreover, inspectors apparently may use 262.11 as a default violation during an inspection of a 

facility with numerous violations. Use of this code does not reflect the severity of the violation. 

IEC’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EPA

Overall, IEc suggests changes to the HW determination process to address the interrelated challenges that 

lead to non-compliance with the HW determination regulations. For example, in addition to providing 

regulatory interpretations that clarify sections of the regulations, EPA should also disseminate the new 

information to the generators, ideally through assistance providers, HW service providers, and/or trade 

associations who already have relationships with generators.
ES-6

Based on the lessons gathered during this evaluation, IEc suggests nine recommendations for EPA in two 

groups: changes EPA can make directly and opportunities to work with other stakeholders.

Changes EPA Can Make Directly

1. To the Extent Possible, Simplify and Improve the Regulations, and Provide SectorSpecific Guidance

The evaluators suggest EPA look for opportunities to simplify the regulatory language and revise it to 

include fewer references to previous sections and more focus on addressing the majority of applicable 

situations. Where it is not possible to simplify the regulations, IEc suggests that EPA provide more 

sector-specific plain language guidance, to help generators and stakeholders interpret the regulatory 

language.

The evaluators suggest that EPA also consider whether the listed wastes capture the appropriate wastes. 

We recommend that EPA consider incorporating newer chemicals on to the P- and U- lists, e.g., 

chemotherapy drugs. We suggest EPA consider making some wastes universal wastes (e.g., aerosol cans, 

pharmaceuticals, and expired or returned retail products). Further, EPA should consider clarifying the Fand P/U-listed wastes. In addition to clarifying the narrative process descriptions that result in an F-listed 

waste, IEc suggests EPA consider explicitly stating the common constituents regulated under each Flisting. We recommend that EPA consider addressing the confusion around the applicability of the P- and 

U-listings only to products in which the listed chemical is the sole active ingredient. (In other words, we 

suggest EPA consider clarifying why a commercial chemical product is not a U- or P-listed HW if it has 

two or more active ingredients, even if all the ingredients are listed on the U- or P-list.) 

2. Establish a Direct Line of Communication between EPA and HW Stakeholders

Stakeholders indicated that opportunities for communication with EPA have decreased in recent years, 

contributing to the challenges generators face in complying with the HW determination regulations. They 

noted difficulty getting responses to HW determination questions from EPA and said that written 

inquiries often go unanswered. This perceived lack of communication seems to contribute to the distrust 

of the Agency some stakeholders harbor. We recommend the Agency consider creating avenues to 

facilitate better communication between EPA and stakeholders. Reinstituting the RCRA Hotline in one 

form or another is one potential mechanism.1

 Throughout this evaluation, stakeholders referred to the 

Hotline as an invaluable resource to the regulated community that enabled stakeholders to discuss 

difficult questions that inevitably arise when generators apply the regulations. Stakeholders experienced 

in making HW determinations lamented the loss of the RCRA Hotline, saying it was a vital resource, 

even for people who have been making accurate HW determinations for years. The Hotline’s ability to 

connect stakeholders with another person to discuss questions about applying the RCRA regulations 

facilitated an interpersonal connection between the Agency and the regulated community that cannot be 

replicated by providing regulatory assistance documents and interpretations online. 

 1 The RCRA Hotline was staffed by contractors to EPA, not actual EPA staff. Responses to questions were limited to the information available 

through existing documentation and interpretations. Staff did not provide callers with individualized interpretations for specific situations but 

assisted them in identifying available info applicable to their situation. 
ES-7

3. Make Guidance Documents Easily Accessible via RCRA Online and Make the Generator 

Website More User-Friendly

During the course of this evaluation, several stakeholders said that although RCRA Online contains some 

useful information it is often difficult to locate and the system is generally confusing to navigate. We 

recommend that EPA improve the visibility of guidance documents and interpretations on the site. For 

example, a generator visiting the site would likely be interested in specific pieces of information that are 

currently spread across four separate links on the front page. The Agency should consider making 

resources for generators more accessible, including generator guidance information and links to state and 

assistance provider websites.

4. Improve Tracking of Compliance Rates for HW Determination

We recommend that EPA revise RCRAInfo to allow tracking violations specifically related to 40 CFR 

262.11 and encourage EPA inspectors to consistently use this code to track HW determination violations. 

EPA may also wish to consider tracking the severity of HW determination violations. In addition, we 

recommend that EPA consider flagging targeted inspections vs. regularly scheduled inspections, so as to 

enable improved data analysis. Ideally, if tracking compliance with HW determination regulations is a 

high priority for the Agency, EPA would support representative sampling of facilities to accurately 

measure compliance rates, either at the state or federal level. For example, EPA Regions could work with 

states to gather representative data on compliance, and track this information periodically to gauge 

progress. Overall, we recommend that EPA consider improving RCRAInfo and the compliance 

monitoring data it stores to facilitate accurate, comparable, and consistent tracking of non-compliance 

rates over time.

Opportunities to Work with Other Stakeholders

5. Identify Opportunities to Improve Communications with State Agencies to Inform 

Regulatory Interpretations

By communicating with the states, EPA’s interpretations are more likely to reflect actual situations 

generators face since communication is greater between generators and the state than between generators 

and EPA. 

6. Improve Coordination with Other Agencies whose Regulations Overlap with Those of 

EPA

On more than one occasion, stakeholders discussed specific situations where another agency’s regulatory 

guidelines conflict with EPA’s. For example, sometimes the local fire department will inform a generator 

that they can dispose of an item as solid waste (likely based on regulations from OSHA or DOT).

However, the HW determination regulations may require this item to be characterized and handled as 

HW. To address these inconsistencies, we recommend that the Agency investigate the claims described 

in this evaluation and coordinate with the respective agencies to prevent distributing guidance to 

generators that conflicts with guidance from other agencies. EPA should also seek input from states, 

assistance providers, and generators about other instances of conflicting regulations and resolve these 

situations.
ES-8

7. Encourage Best Practices among States

State agencies conduct a wide range of compliance monitoring and assistance activities. For example, 

generator self-certification programs, like those in Colorado, Massachusetts, and other states have the 

potential to increase generators’ awareness of compliance requirements while also providing better 

compliance information to regulators. Hotlines devoted to answering generators’ questions facilitate 

communication between industry and regulators and help generators apply the regulations to make 

accurate HW determinations. Coordination across state agencies can help inspectors identify new 

businesses subject to HW regulations. We recommend EPA facilitate communication between the states 

so they can learn from each other’s approaches. We recognize that EPA provides competitive grants to 

fund the sector-based compliance assistance centers, and that these are good clearinghouses for 

compliance assistance materials. However we also encourage EPA to help states learn from each other 

with regard to best practices, such as approaches to targeting state inspections and making new generators 

aware of their obligations.

8. Promote Best Practices from Federal Facilities

EPA should use the federal facilities survey information, collected for this evaluation, to encourage HW 

determination best practices amongst generators. For example, EPA could issue a memo to assistance 

providers, trade associations, and other stakeholders that frequently interact with generators, stating that 

EPA’s review of federal facilities revealed that federal HW generators that implement processes for 

making HW determinations are more likely to make accurate HW determinations. The memo could point 

to resources that could assist facilities in developing appropriate waste determination processes (e.g., a 

decision-tree, such as Texas has developed or example procedures developed by federal facilities 

themselves). The memo could also include other federal HW generator best practices the Agency has 

identified. This would help generators understand the actions they can take to improve HW determination 

compliance.

9. Develop a Communications Strategy to Increase Awareness of Compliance Monitoring 

Presence and Enforcement Actions Related to HW Determination

This evaluation revealed that the perception that they “will not get caught” lulls some generators into a 

sense of complacency, instead of taking the time and effort to make accurate HW determinations. Where 

possible, EPA and the states should increase their field presence and inspection frequency. In addition, 

the Agency should consider taking steps to increase awareness of its compliance monitoring and 

enforcement actions when they occur. EPA could alert trade associations and assistance providers about 

recent compliance and enforcement actions, so that awareness of EPA’s presence would be magnified. In 

addition, EPA could provide information about the most common types of violations, and what generators 

can do to prevent them, and where they can get further compliance assistance. This communications 

strategy would broadcast EPA’s compliance monitoring presence to an audience much larger than can be 

reached through inspections alone and would motivate generators to take steps to come into compliance. 
1-1

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations require entities to determine 

whether waste they generate is a hazardous waste (HW). If it is, the HW generator must manage the HW

under RCRA regulations, which include requirements for management, recordkeeping, tracking, 

transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. The RCRA regulations are designed as a cradle-to-grave 

system to prevent serious environmental damages that might occur, as well as mitigate damages that have 

occurred, as a result of improper HW management. However, if a HW generator does not properly 

identify a waste as hazardous, the HW generator will not follow the relevant RCRA regulations, which 

may cause harm to human health and the environment. An EPA review of RCRA compliance data for 

2008 and 2009 suggested that HW generators have twice as many violations associated with their HW

determination process as any other type of RCRA violation. EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery (ORCR), with assistance from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) and 

EPA’s Office of Policy’s Evaluation Support Division (ESD) undertook a program evaluation to identify 

the underlying causes of these violations and assess the effectiveness of the RCRA HW determination 

regulations. ESD contracted with an independent evaluation firm, Industrial Economics Inc. (IEc), to 

conduct the evaluation. EPA asked IEc to develop independent recommendations describing how the 

Agency can help generators make accurate HW determinations, in compliance with the RCRA 

regulations. However, it is important to note that although EPA can and should help facilitate 

compliance, the regulatory burden and legal responsibility for making an accurate HW determination 

ultimately lies with the generator of the waste.

BACKGROUND 

The basic structure and design of the national RCRA HW determination regulation (40 CFR 262.11) 

program, is captured by the logic model (Exhibit 1). EPA developed the regulations requiring HW 

determinations in 1980, and has made only minor changes to the regulations since then. Most states have 

been authorized to implement the RCRA regulations. EPA Headquarters and Regions set national 

regulation and policy, but primarily work in an oversight and support role, e.g., offering interpretation of 

the federal regulations, compiling and tracking compliance data, and providing compliance assistance 

materials and information. Circled letters in the logic model correspond to the questions the evaluation 

addresses, as described later in this chapter. Key components of the logic model include:

• Resources: basic inputs to the program including funds, program staff, and contractor support.

• Activities/Outputs: specific actions that are taken to achieve the program goals and the immediate 

result of those actions. For example, EPA receives inquiries about HW determination from HW 

generators, transporters, trade associations, and states and in response develops guidance, memos, 

and frequently asked questions documents. 
1-2

• Intermediate Outcomes: changes in HW generator behavior that result in the proper determination 

of HW and lower non-compliance rates.

• Long Term Outcomes: outcomes that meet the overarching goals of the HW determination process, 

including proper management of HW and a potential reduction in the amount of HW generated (and 

thus increased protection of human health and the environment).
1-3

EXHIBIT 1. Logic Model for EPA’s National HW Determination Program

Resources Activities Outputs Target Audiences

Regulation Development

•Write preamble and 

regulation 

•Solicit comments from 

public 

•Work with workgroup to 

gain consensus 

•Publish proposal and final 

rules 

•Work with Office of 

Management and Budget 

Compliance Assistance/ 

Training/Outreach 

•Develop compliance 

assistance tools

•Conduct trainings for 

industry

•Conduct trainings for States 

and Regions

•Work with States, Tribes, 

Regions, and regulated 

community to disseminate 

training materials

•Develop websites and 

outreach materials

Responding to Inquiries

•Research regulations, 

memos and guidance

•Work with States and 

Regions on questions

•Write formal responses to 

questions

•Return phone calls with 

answers to questions

•Workgroup 

members

•1 PARMS staff

•Rule preamble and 

regulation text

•FAQs

•Press release

•Website with 

materials

•Public record via 

docket

•Training sessions 

on regulations

•Compliance 

assistance tools 

such as checklists, 

brochures and 

flowcharts

•Websites

•Communication via 

conferences, 

conference calls, 

emails, webinars

Improved 

awareness of 

regulations 

and how to 

comply with 

them

•Compliance with 

hazardous waste 

determination 

regulations

•Correct waste 

determination

•Proper 

management and 

disposal of 

hazardous waste

•Reduced 

hazardous 

waste releases 

and improper 

disposal

•Better 

protection of 

human health 

and ecology 

and reduced 

economic 

damages

External Influences 

•Budget constraints 

•Trade associations

•Presidential priorities

•State regulations

•Market shifts for hazardous waste management sector

•General economic conditions

Short-term Intermediate Long-term

Outcomes

•2.5 RGB staff

• Office of 

Resource 

Conservation and 

Recovery 

managers

•Contractor 

support

•Funding

• Office of 

General Council 

Office of 

Enforcement and 

Compliance 

Assurance States 

& Regions

•Program 

analyses

•State Review 

Framework 

reviews

States & 

Tribes

Compliance Monitoring

•Conduct inspections

•Obtain and enter data

•Data analysis

•RCRAInfo data 

(some of which is 

publically available)

Assistance 

Providers/ 

Consultants/

Trade 

Associations

Regions

Hazardous 

Waste 

Transporters/

Brokers/ 

TSDFs

Hazardous 

Waste 

Generators

•Guidance

•Memos

•FAQs

•Email responses

Note: While generators 

are legally responsible for 

determination, 

transporters, brokers and 

Treatment, Storage and 

Disposal Facilities 

(TSDFs) frequently 

engage in determination 

activities

A B C D

G

F

E
1-4

• Contextual/External Factors: factors not directly controlled by the national HW determination 

process that may influence compliance. For example, market shifts in the HW management sector, 

specifically the trend toward HW generators outsourcing HW determination to waste haulers, may

affect the accuracy of HW determinations.

EVALUATION PURPOSE, INTENDED USES, AND AUDIENCE

The specific goals of this evaluation are to determine the extent to which the federal HW determination

program is working, identify potential problems that HW generators experience, and assess whether

ORCR can improve the regulations and better assist HW generators in achieving compliance. The study is 

designed to evaluate how the federal HW determination program influences HW generator compliance. It 

is not designed to evaluate HW generators’ approaches to making HW determinations. The evaluation 

results are intended help improve EPA’s approach, methods, and activities designed to ensure compliance 

by HW generators as they make HW determinations. 

In addition, the evaluation may inform state HW programs as they partner with EPA to ensure HW 

generator compliance. In particular, the evaluation highlights various state approaches to ensure 

compliance. However, the purpose of this study is not to evaluate or critique state programs. Moreover, 

the evaluation team recognizes that each state with delegated authority implements the RCRA regulations 

within the context of its own state regulations, authorities, and budget limitations. 

The evaluation may also be of interest to additional stakeholders, such as trade associations, assistance 

providers, HW haulers, and HW generators themselves, although these groups are not the primary 

audience for the evaluation report.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND CONNECTION TO THE LOGIC MODEL

This evaluation seeks to address six primary questions, which EPA ORCR staff identified in conjunction 

with staff from EPA’s OECA and ESD, with support from IEc. The evaluation questions are as follows:

1. What is the national non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations? What is the 

non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations by sector?

2. What obstacles or challenges do HW generators face in complying with the HW determination 

regulations?

3. What firm characteristics influence HW generators’ compliance with the HW determination 

regulations?

4. How do state program activities influence HW generators’ compliance with the HW

determination regulations (i.e., are there particular state program approaches that are effective at 

increasing compliance)?

5. How do assistance providers/HW service providers/trade associations’ activities influence HW

generators’ compliance with the HW determination regulations?

6. What changes do stakeholders recommend to make the national HW determination process more 

successful? Specifically:

a. Proposed changes to EPA regulations?
1-5

b. Proposed changes to EPA assistance/training/outreach/support activities directed at: 

i. HW generators?

ii. Assistance Providers/HW Service Providers/Trade Associations (i.e., those that 

influence HW generators)?

iii. States?

c. Proposed changes to EPA compliance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms (including 

self-audit policy) to improve compliance?

Each of the evaluation questions corresponds to one or more points on the logic model, as shown in 

Exhibit 2. In this way, the evaluation tests whether the program is working as intended and described in 

the logic model. 
1-6

EXHIBIT 2. Evaluation Questions and Connection to the Logic Model 

EVALUATION QUESTION CONNECTION TO THE LOGIC MODEL

1. What is the national non-compliance rate with the HW 

determination regulations? What is the non-compliance rate with 

the HW determination regulations by sector?

F

2. What obstacles or challenges do HW generators face in complying 

with the HW determination regulations? C,D,E,G

3. What firm characteristics influence HW generators’ compliance with 

the HW determination regulations? D,G

4. How do state program activities influence HW generators’ 

compliance with the HW determination regulations ? D, G

5. How do Assistance Providers/HW Service Providers/Trade 

Associations’ activities influence HW generators’ compliance with 

the HW determination regulations?

D,G

6. What changes do stakeholders recommend to make the national HW

determination process more successful? Specifically:

a. Proposed changes to EPA regulations

b. Proposed changes to EPA 

assistance/training/outreach/support activities directed at: 

i. HW generators

ii. Assistance Providers/HW Service Providers/Trade 

Associations (i.e., those that influence HW generators)

iii. States

c. Proposed changes to EPA compliance monitoring and 

enforcement mechanisms (including self-audit policy) to 

improve compliance

A,B,C

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 2 describes the evaluation methodology, including sources of data and types of analysis 

conducted, as well as the limitations of this approach. 

• Chapter 3 discusses the findings from the evaluation. The chapter organization follows the six 

primary evaluation questions and is informed by interviews and discussions with generators, state 

officials, HW service providers, assistance providers, and other stakeholders, as well as a survey 

of federal facilities and an analysis of available information on compliance with HW 

determination regulations.

• Chapter 4 provides overarching themes and the evaluators’ recommendations. 

Supporting material, including sample interview and discussion guides, are included in the Appendices:

• Appendix A: Hazardous Waste Determination Non-Compliance by Sector

• Appendix B: Theme Prevalence

• Appendix C: Stakeholder Recommendations, Organized by Recommendation Type

• Appendix D: Interview Guide for Industry/Trade Association Representatives

• Appendix E: Interview Guide for Hazardous Waste Service Providers
1-7

• Appendix F: Discussion Questions for Hazardous Waste Generators 

• Appendix G: Discussion Questions for EPA Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators 

• Appendix H: Discussion Questions for Small Business Assistance Providers

• Appendix I: Discussion Questions for Sector-based Assistance Providers 

• Appendix J: Discussion Questions for EPA Regional Enforcement Managers

• Appendix K: Discussion Questions for State Associations

• Appendix L: Discussion Questions for Case Study States 
2-1

CHAPTER 2 | METHODOLOGY

This chapter summarizes the methodology used to answer the evaluation questions, including the data 

sources and approach to analyzing the data. The chapter also highlights limitations of this methodology.

DATA SOURCES

This evaluation draws on multiple data sources to answer the evaluation questions. The key sources of 

information include: (1) EPA’s RCRAInfo database, (2) statistical compliance rate data, particularly 

drawn from the state Common Measures Project and state Environmental Results Programs (ERPs), (3) 

EPA meetings with state officials (4) interviews and discussions with various stakeholders, and (5) a 

survey of federal partners with first-hand experience in HW determination compliance. Most of the data 

used for the evaluation are qualitative in nature (e.g., input gathered during interviews, discussions, and 

surveys); the main sources of quantitative data are EPA’s RCRAInfo database and state statistical 

compliance rates. The federal facilities survey provides both qualitative data (in the form of answers to 

open ended questions) and limited quantitative data (in the form of answers to close ended questions, 

where IEc could calculate the percentage of respondents selecting each answer choice). The data were

gathered by both EPA and IEc, although IEc conducted all of the analysis and prepared the 

recommendations included in Chapter 4. The text below describes each of these data sources in more 

detail. 

RCRAInfo

RCRA requires entities that generate, transport, treat, or store HW to provide information about their 

activities periodically to state environmental agencies. This information, along with information related to 

the characteristics of HW generators, is compiled in the RCRAInfo database. In addition, state and 

Regional EPA offices conduct inspections of HW generators and enter information about the inspections 

and any resulting violations into RCRAInfo. This database may be queried for a broad range of data, 

including compliance with federal and state regulations.2

IEc worked with EPA staff to query the RCRAInfo database as described later in this chapter (see the 

section on Data Analysis). The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of 

Compliance Enforcement Targeting and Data Division Media Systems ran the queries to extract the 

datasets requested by the evaluation team. IEc then summarized and described the data, and used it to 

inform the remainder of the evaluation.

 2 For more information on RCRAInfo, see http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/index.html
2-2

Statistical Compliance Rates

In recent years, a number of states have undertaken initiatives designed to measure compliance using 

statistically-based samples. These efforts have typically targeted sectors characterized by a large number 

of small businesses (e.g., auto body repair shops and printers), where it is infeasible for state inspectors to 

visit each shop regularly. In many cases, states have combined statistical sampling with targeted 

compliance assistance efforts to improve sector compliance rates over time. IEc summarized available 

information from states about statistical compliance rates to complement the RCRAInfo analysis in 

answering evaluation question 1.

EPA Meetings with State Officals

ORCR program staff attended or held five meetings with state regulators responsible for managing 

delegated state HW programs; IEc attended four of these meetings. These meetings allowed state 

regulators, inspectors, and assistance providers to share feedback about their experience with HW

determination. The session formats were generally similar; EPA asked states to comment on topics such 

as:

• Similarities and differences between the state and federal programs;

• Challenges HW generators face in HW determination;

• Factors that influence HW generators’ ability to accurately conduct a HW determination, such as 

firm characteristics; state program characteristics; and influence of assistance providers, HW 

service providers, and trade associations;

• Approaches states use in implementing their programs; and

• Recommended changes to the HW program.

At all five meetings, EPA and/or IEc took detailed notes. IEc used the information collected during these 

meetings to inform responses to the evaluation questions and to help design interview and survey 

questions for use during subsequent data collection. Exhibit 3 lists the groups and states represented at 

each meeting. Overall, the general discussions allowed input from at least one representative from each 

of 20 states.

EXHIBIT 3. Overview of General Discussions

GROUP STATE(S) 

REPRESENTED

DATE OF MEETING 

Vermont state regulators* VT September 27, 2010

New Hampshire state regulators* NH September 28, 2010

Association of State and Territorial 

Solid Waste Management Officials

(ASTSWMO) meeting 

AL

AR

MA

MI

MO

MT

NV

PA

April 19, 2011
2-3

GROUP STATE(S) 

REPRESENTED

DATE OF MEETING 

2011 Small Business 

Ombudsman/Small Business 

Environmental Assistance Program 

(SBEAP) State Partner Training

GA

IA

IL

KY

NH

OH

SC

TN

WI

May 4, 2011

Northeast Waste Management 

Officials' Association 

NJ

NY May 24, 2011

* Notes for these meetings were combined into a single file.

Interviews and Discussions with Stakeholders

Responses to interviews and open discussions with stakeholders provided information to address many of 

the evaluation questions. IEc and EPA gathered input from industry representatives, including trade 

associations, HW generators, and HW service providers whose clients are HW generators. IEc also 

conducted case studies in three states, consisting of interviews with state representatives and open 

discussions with individual generators and assistance providers. In addition, ORCR provided IEc with 

additional notes and comments from prior discussions with various stakeholders including, retailers, 

hospitals, and state agencies. Finally, IEc conducted a general discussion with EPA Regional 

representatives in order to get their perspective. Each of these data sources is described below:

1. Industry representatives. IEc selected eight industry trade associations to interview, based on 

information from the RCRAInfo queries about which sectors appear to have particular 

compliance issues. IEc interviewed seven of these industry representatives and EPA ORCR staff 

interviewed one. In addition to industry trade associations, IEc interviewed three HW service 

providers who consult with HW generators regarding HW determination. Questions for industry 

representatives addressed challenges they have experienced with HW determination, factors that 

influence their HW determination decisions (e.g., concerns about enforcement, availability of 

compliance information, and costs of compliance), sources of information about compliance, and 

recommended changes to the HW determination process. For all interviews, IEc or EPA sent the 

interview guides to the interviewees in advance to allow them to consider the questions before the 

interview. The interview guides included an introduction that briefly explained the background 

of the evaluation and how the information was to be used. To encourage candor, IEc offered

interviewees anonymity (i.e., IEc did not include their names or attribute specific positions to 

them in the evaluation report). All of the industry representative interviews were conducted by 

telephone.

2. EPA Regional representatives. IEc participated in one regularly scheduled conference call with 

EPA enforcement and inspection staff working on HW issues in the Regions. Prior to the call, 

ORCR distributed a list of questions and requested feedback. During the call, IEc asked the 

representatives for their perspectives on evaluation questions 2 through 6. 
2-4

3. State case studies. IEc and EPA conducted detailed case studies in three states that volunteered 

to participate: Minnesota, Colorado, and Texas. IEc selected these case study states based on their 

willingness to participate, characteristics of the program, and whether they were able to gather a 

group of generators for a general discussion. In each case, IEc and/or EPA traveled to the state to 

conduct interviews in person. The goal of the case studies was to gather information about the 

history and context of each state’s HW determination programs, and explore the strengths and 

limitations of these programs with input from state representatives, individual generators, and 

other stakeholders. For the case studies in Minnesota and Texas, IEc conducted a two-day trip to 

the state. ORCR conducted a two-day trip for the Colorado case study and IEc participated by 

phone. Each case study included one or more interviews with state representatives to explore how 

the state programs operate, how state regulators interact with their federal counterparts at EPA, 

and feedback about EPA’s federal HW program. In one case (Texas), ORCR also conducted an 

interview with the EPA Region. In each case, IEc conducted one or more group discussion(s)

with local HW generators to hear their experiences with HW determination and identify what 

issues present particular challenges. (EPA and state representatives participated in part of the 

meetings with generators, but then left the room at the end of the session to allow generators to 

offer any additional feedback to the independent evaluators without regulators present.)

Survey of Federal Facilities

EPA surveyed HW generators that are federally owned and operated. The federal facilities specifically 

invited to participate in the survey include 402 large quantity generators (LQGs) and 357 small quantity 

generators (SQGs) in the RCRAInfo database for which EPA has email addresses. In addition, the survey 

was advertised in FedCenter.gov and a link was included in the FedCenter Daily Newsletter, which is sent 

via email to 10,000 subscribers, most of whom are federal environmental managers and staff.3

 The 

survey was open from August 11 through September 20, 2011, and 286 individuals responded to the 

survey. The survey recipients represented facilities from a wide range of government agencies. The 

greatest number of responses came from the US Department of Defense (47 percent of respondents), 

Department of Veterans Affairs (12 percent of respondents), and Department of Homeland Security (11 

percent of respondents). Respondents were located in all but seven US states and territories. A majority 

of respondents were LQGs (57 percent of respondents), but SQGs were also represented (28 percent of 

respondents), as were conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) (14 percent of 

respondents). EPA administered the survey and provided the results to IEc for analysis. 

EPA asked survey respondents the following set of questions:

• What factors have helped you make more accurate HW determinations?

• Who generally makes your HW determinations?

• How helpful was the assistance in making HW determinations?

• How do you make HW determinations?

• How helpful was the method of making HW determinations?

 3 Since EPA is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act when surveying federal partners, these facilities represented a unique opportunity to 

gather information directly from a large number of generators in an efficient manner. 
2-5

• What factors have helped you make more accurate HW determinations?

• If you had an opportunity, what would you want EPA or your state to do to help facilities like 

yours make HW determinations more effectively?

• Which federal agency are you a part of?

• In what state or territory is your federal facility located?

• What is your federal HW generator regulatory status?

• Please provide a rough estimate of number of different HW streams generated annually.

• Do you have any additional input about making HW determinations?

Summary of Data Sources

In total, when all data sources are included, IEc and/or EPA conducted 11 interviews and 16 open 

discussions and administered the survey of federal facilities as a part of this evaluation. Each open 

discussion included numerous participants. In addition, EPA ORCR provided notes from six additional 

data sources. Note that interview questions varied by the data source (e.g., the interview questions for 

industry representatives differed from the questions for HW service providers.) Appendices F through N 

provide a sample of the interview and discussion guides used. Exhibit 4 describes the 34 data sources. 

EXHIBIT 4. Overview of Data Sources

DATA SOURCE DATA SOURCE TYPE

Industry Representative – retailers Interview

Industry Representative – metal foundries Interview

Industry Representative – paint and coatings manufacturers Interview

Industry Representative – hospitals/pharmaceuticals Interview

Industry Representative – automotive repair and maintenance Interview

Industry Representative – printers Interview

Industry Representative – printed circuit board manufacturers Interview

Industry Representative – chemical manufacturers Interview

HW Services Provider Interview

Hazardous Waste Services Provider Interview

HW Services Provider Interview

New Hampshire and Vermont state representatives Open Discussion

ASTSWMO Meeting Open Discussion

SBEAP State Partner Training Open Discussion

Case Study - Texas, Dallas Chamber of Commerce Open Discussion
2-6

DATA SOURCE DATA SOURCE TYPE

Case Study - Texas, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce Open Discussion

Case Study - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) Open Discussion

Case Study – TCEQ Small Business and Local Government 

Assistance Open Discussion

EPA - Region 6 Open Discussion

Case Study - Minnesota, State and County Inspectors Open Discussion

Case Study - Minnesota, Local Generators Open Discussion

Case Study - Colorado, Local Generators Open Discussion

Case Study - Colorado, Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment (CDPHE) Open Discussion

EPA - Regional Enforcement Managers Open Discussion

EPA - Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators Open Discussion

Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association Open Discussion

EPA - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Open Discussion

Site Visit - Holy Cross Hospital, Silver Spring, MD EPA Provided Data Source

ASTWMO Colorado Memo EPA Provided Data Source

Wal-Mart Public Comment on Retrospective Review EPA Provided Data Source

Home Depot Public Comment on Retrospective Review EPA Provided Data Source

Site Visit - North Memorial Hospital, Abbot Northwestern 

Hospital and Capital Returns Inc. (MN, WS) EPA Provided Data Source

ETC (trade association for HW handlers) EPA Provided Data Source

Survey of Federal Facilities Survey

TOTAL DATA SOURCES 34

DATA ANALYSIS

The general analytical approach for the evaluation included a qualitative content analysis of the responses 

from the 34 data sources, as well as a quantitative summary of RCRAInfo data, state data on statistical 

compliance rates, and the federal facility survey responses. Specifics of the approach vary for each 

evaluation question and are described below. 
2-7

Evaluation Question 1: What is the national non-compliance rate with the HW determination 

regulations? What is the non-compliance rate with the HW determination regulations by sector?

Working with data extracted from the RCRAInfo database on federal comprehensive evaluation 

inspections, IEc calculated non-compliance rates as: 

The number of CEIs conducted by EPA or its contractors

with RCRA Part 262 Subpart A violations

divided by

The total number of CEIs conducted by EPA or its contractors

IEc used “262.A” (RCRA Part 262 Subpart A) as the violation type in the RCRA queries because 262.11 

is not an allowed value for the VIOL TYPE field. RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart A is a broader part of 

the regulations, which includes the Purpose, scope, and applicability of Part 262 (262.10), HW

determination requirements (262.11), and EPA identification numbers (262.12). In order to ensure 

the most consistent data set, IEc limited its analysis to violations identified during Comprehensive 

Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) conducted by EPA or its contractors. IEc included only violations related 

to HW determination requirements, which are specified in RCRA regulations at Part 262 Subpart A. The 

analysis included data from a ten year period (5/27/2001 – 5/27/2011). IEc calculated national noncompliance rates overall, by generator class, and by sector.4

 

Note that inspectors often conduct targeted inspections (e.g., at facilities they believe are more likely to be 

out of compliance). Since EPA does not generally conduct CEIs at randomly selected facilities, the 

compliance rates derived from RCRAInfo are not representative of all regulated entities. Therefore, the 

non-compliance rates derived from EPA do not provide a good indication of the absolute rate of noncompliance for the total universe of regulated entities. Nevertheless, the compliance rate may be used to 

provide approximate relative information about the extent of compliance (e.g., across generator classes 

and sectors), with the understanding that inspection targeting protocols may vary in different EPA 

Regions.

IEc also considered statistical compliance rates calculated as part of the Common Measures Project and 

state Environmental Results Programs.

Evaluation Questions 2&3: 

2. What obstacles or challenges do HW generators face in complying with the HW 

determination regulations?

3. What firm characteristics influence HW generators’ compliance with the HW 

determination regulations?

IEc analyzed qualitative data from all 34 sources of information to understand what factors influence 

generators’ compliance with the HW determination regulations. These sources of information include 

interviews and general discussions with states, EPA Regions, assistance providers, industry 

 4 IEc calculated non-compliance rates by sector for the 21 sectors with the highest overall number of hazardous waste determination violations. 

Additional details on the specifics of the analysis are included with the findings in Chapter 3 of this report.
2-8

representatives, generators and HW service providers, as well as open ended responses to a survey of 

federal facilities. IEc identified 30 recurring themes that describe various obstacles, challenges, firm 

characteristics, and situations that influence HW generators’ compliance with HW determination 

regulations. Chapter 3 discusses these findings. 

To facilitate analysis, IEc assigned a weight for each theme as reflected in each data source. Weights are 

based on the extent of discussion on each theme within a given data source, as follows:

• 0: Theme was not mentioned

• 1: Mentioned as an issue but not a focal point of discussion

• 2: Mentioned as an issue by multiple parties and/or focal point of some discussion

• 3: Noted as a major issue for multiple parties and focal point of a major discussion

IEc then calculated a response index for each theme by summing the weights of that theme across the 34 

data sources. For example, if the theme “Generators have difficulty characterizing materials that are 

subject to different regulations by multiple entities” came up as an issue but not as a focal point of 

discussion (weight 1) in four data sources, and as a major issue for multiple parties (weight 3) in three

data sources, the response index for this theme would be (1 * 4) + (3 * 3) = 13.

Evaluation Question 4: How do state program activities influence HW generators’ compliance with 

the HW determination regulations?

IEc collected qualitative and anecdotal information during the interviews, discussion sessions, and federal

facilities survey to identify how state program activities influence HW generators’ compliance. For 

example, during interviews with HW generators, IEc explored the extent to which state program activities 

and other factors influence their HW determination practices. In addition, IEc conducted three case 

studies on states HW determination programs and the range of compliance assistance, monitoring, and 

enforcement practices these states use. These findings are summarized in Chapter 3 of the evaluation.

Evaluation Question 5: How do assistance providers/HW service providers/trade associations’ 

activities influence HW generators compliance with the HW determination regulations?

Similar to the analysis conducted for Evaluation Questions 2 and 3, IEc analyzed qualitative responses to 

the interviews, open discussions, and the survey of federal facilities to assess the influence of assistance 

providers, HW service providers, and trade associations. In addition, IEc considered the results of a 2007 

survey conducted by the Small Business Environmental Homepage.

Evaluation Question 6: What changes do stakeholders recommend to make the national HW 

program more successful?

Drawing upon information gathered during the interviews, open discussions, the case studies, and the 

federal facilities survey, IEc extracted and compiled stakeholder suggested recommended changes to 

make the federal HW determination process more successful. 
2-9

LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION

Throughout this study, IEc sought to use representative, objective, and robust data collection and 

analytical approaches to the extent possible. However, as with all program evaluations, data collection 

and analytical limitations exist, which we seek to make transparent in our findings. This study’s 

limitations include: 

• Uncertainties associated with secondary data. Due to the inability to interview more than 

nine HW generators directly (without preparing a formal Information Collection Request),

IEc primarily relied upon states, trade associations, and assistance providers to report their 

perspectives about the challenges faced by individual HW generators. These reports may not 

completely and accurately represent the experiences of the overall population of HW

generators. 

• Data may not be representative. Given the limit on the number of interviews and open 

discussions IEc was able to conduct, the qualitative data collected for this evaluation are not 

comprehensive and may not fully represent the stakeholder groups of interest. However, IEc 

sought to ensure the interviews, discussion sessions, and survey of federal facilities represent 

a cross-section of sectors, regions of the country, and state program approaches. In addition, 

the RCRAInfo data are not representative of all regulated entities, since the inspections are 

often targeted, rather than conducted at a random sample of facilities.

• Inability to fully characterize state programs. It was not feasible for this evaluation to 

characterize all state HW programs. Based on discussions with EPA to date, we conclude 

there is no existing comprehensive categorization of state programs to draw on. Therefore, 

IEc was not able to identify different types of state programs (e.g., those focused more on 

enforcement vs. assistance, or those investing more or less resources in HW determination). 

Given this lack of state program categorization, IEc was not able to compare noncompliance rates for different types of state programs.

• Potential uncertainties in data on compliance rates. Quantitative data derived from the 

RCRAInfo database may not be completely accurate or consistent with regard to HW 

determinations. In particular, IEc understands that inspectors may code HW determination 

violations differently, with some treating these violations as a “default” violation code. IEc 

sought to ensure the greatest consistency in the RCRAInfo data by using only data from 

EPA inspectors or their contracts (rather than data from state inspections, which might 

follow different protocols). 

• Potential inaccuracies in information reported by stakeholders. IEc summarized, but 

did not verify, information reported by stakeholders. There were a few instances in which 

EPA disagreed with stakeholders’ characterizations of EPA actions or policies. IEc has 

noted these instances in footnotes in the text. IEc encourages readers to understand the 

qualitative findings as a summary of stakeholder perceptions. These perceptions are 

important as EPA gauges how its regulations are implemented and perceived by the 

regulated community. 
3-1

What is the 

noncompliance 

rate? 

Q1

CHAPTER 3 | FINDINGS

This chapter describes the findings for six evaluation questions relevant to EPA’s HW determination 

program. The findings are based on interviews, discussions, and an analysis of compliance data at federal

and state levels, as described in the evaluation methodology. Overall, the findings suggest a number of 

shared perspectives about the challenges associated with making HW determinations, and opportunities to 

optimize the program, which we will consider further in the Summary of Findings and Recommendations 

chapter.

QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE NATIONAL NON-COMPLIANCE RATE WITH THE HW 

DETERMINATION REGULATIONS? WHAT IS THE NON-COMPLIANCE RATE WITH

THE HW DETERMINATION REGULATIONS BY SECTOR?

To develop an overall picture of the frequency of HW determination violations, IEc analyzed data in 

EPA’s RCRAInfo database. As described in the evaluation methodology, the analysis is based on RCRA 

262 Subpart A violations identified during Comprehensive Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) conducted by 

EPA or its contractors over a ten-year period (5/27/2001 – 5/27/2011). Note that these compliance rates 

are not based on a representative sample of all regulated entities.

HW Determination National Non-Compliance Rate

The analysis of non-compliance rates as determined by EPA/contractor-conducted CEIs shows a national

average non-compliance rate for RCRA Part 262 Subpart A of 34 percent.5

 Exhibit 5 shows the number 

of CEIs conducted, the number of CEIs with RCRA Part 262 Subpart A violations, and the resulting 

national HW determination non-compliance rate.

EXHIBIT 5: National Overall HW Determination Non-Compliance Rate

COMPLIANCE INFORMATION BASED ON EPA/CONTRACTOR-CONDUCTED 

INVESTIGATIONS REPORTED IN RCRAINFO

TOTAL NUMBER OF 

CEIS CONDUCTED

OVER 10 YEARS

NUMBER OF CEIS WITH RCRA 

PART 262 SUPBART A 

VIOLATIONS REPORTED

OVER 10 YEARS

RATE OF NONCOMPLIANCE

8405 2887 34%

 5 This calculation is based on the total number of CEIs with violations reported is divided by the total number of CEIs for all 57 states, territories,

and dependencies over the 10 year period analyzed. The calculation does not give equal weight to each state/territory. If the non-compliance 

rate were calculated based on the percentage of CEIs in each state with violations reported, and then an average calculated across all 57 states, 

territories, and dependencies, the rate would be 28 percent.
3-2

Further analysis of non-compliance data suggests that small quantity generators (SQGs) tend to have 

higher non-compliance with HW determination requirements than large quantity generators (LQGs).6

 

Exhibit 6 shows non-compliance rates for LQGs compared to SQGs. 7

This analysis corroborates 

anecdotal information gathered in this evaluation, where regulators, assistance providers, and generators 

themselves suggested that larger, more sophisticated facilities with dedicated environmental staff were 

more likely to understand their compliance requirements than smaller, less sophisticated facilities.

EXHIBIT 6: National HW Determination Non-Compliance Rates by Generator Class 

 6 EPA conducted an independent analysis of overall non-compliance with RCRA regulations over the past five years, and found that there were not 

substantial differences in compliance between LQGs, SQGs, or CESQGs. This difference between different classes of generators for overall noncompliance with RCRA requirements vs. non-compliance with HW determination requirements may merit further investigation. 

7 IEc also analyzed hazardous waste determination non-compliance rates for CESQGs, however, the number of inspections conducted at CESQGs was 

relatively small, and definitions of CESQGs vary. For this reason, we have not included the CESQG non-compliance rate in Exhibit 6.

What is the 

noncompliance 

rate? 

Q1

Percentage of federal CEIs that reported a 262 A violation (CEIs with violation/total Federal CEIs)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

SQG

LQG

32% 

(748/2353)

24% 

(1115/4641)
3-3

In addition to information on non-compliance rates drawn from EPA’s RCRAInfo database, IEc also 

compiled information from states that have conducted their own inspections at statistically-based samples 

of facilities in order to estimate compliance rates across a universe of facilities. The universe of facilities 

was in some cases all facilities within a sector (e.g., auto body), and in other cases was all facilities within 

a generator class (e.g., SQGs). IEc found data generated by 15 states related to whether regulated

facilities in the universe had identified all of their HW streams, as determined by trained inspectors or site 

visitors. Exhibit 7 shows the observed percentage of facilities meeting this requirement in each state. 

Overall, most states included in the analysis found that a majority of entities inspected had identified all 

of their HW streams or had conducted a complete and accurate HW determination.

The results of this analysis of state data differ from the analysis of EPA’s RCRAInfo data. The 

differences may be due to several reasons. First, EPA inspections covered both LQGs and SQGs from a 

wide variety of sectors, while the state inspections were primarily at smaller facilities (SQGs or auto body 

shops). Second, the state inspections were based on random samples, while the EPA inspections were 

likely targeted. Finally, the wording of the questions for the state inspections differed from the standards 

for determining compliance that EPA inspectors and contractors use. Most states asked about identifying 

all waste streams, but did not ask about accurate identification. The state that asked whether entities had 

“conducted a complete and accurate HW determination” (Delaware) reported a much lower percentage 

of entities that met this standard, compared to other states. Overall, the information from the analysis of 

state data and RCRAInfo data are not directly comparable, and it is also difficult to make direct 

comparisons in compliance rates between states that use different inspection questionnaires.

Non-Compliance Rates by Sector

IEc analyzed HW determination violations by sector. To conduct this analysis, IEc first identified the 21 

sectors with the highest overall number of RCRA Part 262 Subpart A violations identified during CEIs 

conducted by EPA or its contractors during the 10 years between 5/27/2001 and 5/27/2011 (for a full list 

of these sectors, see Appendix C). Using data in RCRAInfo, IEc then worked with EPA to identify the 

number of CEIs conducted in these sectors and to calculate sector-specific non-compliance rates. Based 

on this analysis, Exhibit 8 shows the 10 sectors with the highest HW determination non-compliance rates 

amongst the 21 sectors. These sectors include both manufacturing industries and colleges and 

universities, which have long been a focus for EPA’s HW determination program, as well as hospitals, 

which have been a more recent focus for EPA’s program.

What is the 

noncompliance 

rate? 

Q1
3-4

EXHIBIT 7: Percentage of Facilities That Had Identified All HW Streams , Based on Statistical Samples

 8 The States Common Measures Project, Final Report June 19, 2009, Prepared by: Steven DeGabriele, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Susan Peck, Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection and Tara Acker, Northeast Waste Management Officials Association.

9 Personal communication, Renee Lesjak Bashel, Policy Development and Business Specialist-Engineer, Permits and Modeling Section, Bureau of Air Management Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Renee.Bashel@Wisconsin.gov. Spreadsheet “Copy of ChecklistAnswerImport_Final9-1-11.xls”, tab Round 1 All, shows that 156 shops were inspected in the baseline sample, and inspectors 

marked “yes” on Question D2 (Have you identified all of your facility's HW (i.e., have documentation of wastes generated or have identified in some other manner wastes that are hazardous) for 127 of 

these shops. The presentation “Baseline results R5ERP-SEC11162011.ppt” provides additional background on the project.

10 Auto Body Pilot Project Evaluation Assessing the Environmental Results Program in Washington State August 2011 Washington Department of Ecology

11 Evaluation of Three Environmental Results Programs (ERPs) Final Report, prepared by IEc for US EPA’s Evaluation Support Division, August 2009

STATE SOURCE OF DATA

GENERATOR 

TYPES # SAMPLED

OBSERVED % OF FACILITIES THAT 

HAD IDENTIFIED WASTE STREAMS

Maine Common Measures Project: States collected data at random samples of SQG 

facilities in eight states between October 2007 and October 2008. Inspectors 

used a checklist of questions related to HW. One of these questions is relevant 

to HW determination: Has the facility identified all of its HW streams?

Conformance was determined based on: review of production processes, type of 

wastes generated at these processes and whether or not they have been 

characterized as HW.8

 

SQG 55 100%

Massachusetts SQG 54 94%

New Hampshire SQG 51 94%

Colorado SQG 57 91%

Vermont SQG 44 91%

Connecticut SQG 38 90%

New York SQG 57 86%

Rhode Island SQG 22 86%

EPA Region 5 (Michigan, 

Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, 

Wisconsin, and Minnesota)

Based on ERP baseline data collected in five states in 2010. Question wording: 

Have you identified all of your facility's HW (i.e., have documentation of wastes 

generated or have identified in some other manner wastes that are hazardous)?9

Auto Body 156 81%

Washington

Based on auto body ERP Baseline data collected in 2008 or 2009. Question 

wording: Has the facility identified all of its HW streams?

10 Auto Body 296 73%

Delaware

Based on auto body ERP baseline data collected between 2003 and 2005. As 

part of its ERP, Delaware measured the percentage of auto body shops that had 

conducted a complete and accurate HW determination.11 

Auto Body 47 36%
3-5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

23% (18/78)

25% (14/57)

25% (42/167)

27% (142/531)

27% (52/192)

28% (11/39)

29% (132/457)

30% (57/193)

31% (11/35)

46% (42/91)

Percentage of federal CEIs that reported a 40 CFR 262 Subpart A violation 

(CEIs with violation/total federal CEIs)

EXHIBIT 8: HW Determination Non-Compliance Rates for the Ten Sectors with the Highest 

Non-Compliance Rates

Printed Circuit Board 

Manufacturing 

Copper Foundries

Hospitals

Colleges, Universities, 

Professional Schools

Fabricated Structural Metal 

Manufacturing

Paint & Coating Manufacturing

Electroplating

Wood Preservation

Iron Foundries

Miscellaneous Manufacturing

What is the 

noncompliance 

rate? 

Q1
3-6

QUESTIONS 2 & 3: WHAT OBSTACLES, CHALLENGES, AND FIRM 

CHARACTERISTICS INFLUENCE HW GENERATORS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE HW

DETERMINATION REGULATIONS?

IEc analyzed qualitative data from 34 sources of information to understand what factors influence 

generators’ compliance with the HW determination regulations. These sources of information include

interviews and general discussions with states, EPA Regions, assistance providers, industry 

representatives, generators and HW service providers, as well as open-ended responses to a survey of 

federal partners.

12 IEc identified 30 recurring themes that describe various obstacles, challenges, firm 

characteristics, and situations that influence HW generators’ compliance with HW determination 

regulations. The following sections discuss these findings. 

To facilitate analysis, IEc assigned a weight for each theme as reflected in each data source. Weights are 

based on the extent of discussion on each theme within a given data source, as follows:

• 0: Theme was not mentioned

• 1: Mentioned as an issue but not a focal point of discussion

• 2: Mentioned as an issue by multiple parties and/or focal point of some discussion

• 3: Noted as a major issue for multiple parties and focal point of a major discussion

IEc then calculated a response index for each theme by summing the weights of that theme across the 34 

data sources. For example, if the theme “Generators have difficulty characterizing materials that are 

subject to different regulations by multiple entities” came up as an issue but not as a focal point of 

discussion (weight 1) in four data sources, and as a major issue for multiple parties (weight 3) in three 

data sources, the response index for this theme would be (1 * 4) + (3 * 3) = 13. Appendix D shows the 

response index for each of the 30 themes, as well as the number of data sources with a weight of 1, 2, and 

3, and the overall percentage of data sources which mentioned the theme.

Many of the themes we identified are interrelated. To organize these findings, we characterize the themes 

using three overarching categories of challenges to generator compliance: (1) challenges related to the 

regulations, (2) challenges related to generators, and (3) challenges related to regulatory agencies. In the 

following sections, we break down each category into more detailed sub-categories, and elaborate on each 

theme as described by the respondents. Within each sub-category, the themes are ordered by their 

response index (which is shown in parenthesis), from highest to lowest. 

Note that in some instances, stakeholders raised questions or concerns that ORCR believes it has 

addressed (though stakeholders may not have been aware of this). This report includes information 

on ORCR’s guidance or resources in the footnotes, for general reference. 

Exhibit 9 illustrates the prevalence of each overarching category of themes. The 

percentage represents the sum of the response indices for all themes in the category 

divided by the sum of the response indices for all themes in all categories. 

Stakeholders identified challenges related to the regulations themselves as the most 

 12 Collectively, we call the individuals who provided feedback as part of this evaluation “respondents” or “stakeholders.

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-7

43%

40%

16%

Challenges related to 

the regulations

Challenges related to 

generators

Challenges related to 

regulatory agencies

prevalent theme, closely followed by challenges related to generator characteristics. Challenges related to 

regulatory agencies were less prevalent. The following sections consider each of these types of 

challenges in turn.

EXHIBIT 9: Prevalence of Different Types of Challenges Generators Face 

Complying with HW Determination Regulations* 

* Percentage represents the sum of the response indices for each theme in the category, as a 

percentage of the sum of all response indices in all categories

Challenges Related to the Regulations

The interviews and discussions suggest two overarching types of challenges to compliance related to the 

regulations themselves: (1) difficulty understanding the regulations as written, and (2) difficulty 

interpreting and applying the regulations to specific circumstances. Exhibit 10 illustrates that general 

difficulty in understanding the regulations is more prevalent than the difficulty in applying the regulations 

to specific circumstances.

EXHIBIT 10: Prevalence of Different Types of Challenges Related to the 

Regulations*

*Percentage represents the sum of the response indices for each theme in the

sub- category, as a percentage of the sum of all response indices in the category

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-8

Difficulty in Understanding the Regulations as Written 

The following themes demonstrate the challenges generators face with the language, writing style, and 

substance of the HW determination regulations and their associated guidance documents. The response 

index for each theme is included in parentheses. 

• (41) Industry specific guidance and outreach would be most helpful: Stakeholders frequently 

noted the importance of developing guidance documents and outreach materials for specific 

sectors. Stakeholders seek guidance that references specific materials and equipment used and 

situations encountered, so the individuals making the waste determination can understand 

precisely how the regulations apply to them. Assistance providers report that they write nearly all 

of their guidance in this manner and they believe it is the most useful approach. 

• (38) HW determination regulations are generally confusing 

and difficult to follow (e.g., narrative interpretations, 

references to previous sections): Many stakeholders indicated 

that generators struggle with the language used in the HW 

determination regulations. The regulations are not linear and 

contain frequent internal references and in some cases use 

narrative descriptions to identify HWs, instead of explicitly 

stating them. Generators find this writing style vague and easy to 

misinterpret. A generator’s inability to read the regulations and 

confidently make a HW determination can lead to noncompliance.

• (37) There is a need for more interpretation/guidance/definitive answers from EPA: Given 

uncertainties about how to interpret the regulations as written, generators and other stakeholders 

seek direct and definitive answers to questions about regulatory interpretations by EPA. One HW 

services provider indicated that the RCRA Hotline used to serve this function, but now that it is no 

longer available it is much more difficult to get a direct answer to questions about HW 

determinations from EPA.13

Difficulty Interpreting and Applying the Regulations to Specific Circumstances 

The following themes demonstrate the difficulties generators face with specific sections of the 

regulations. In addition, stakeholders discuss specific situations that frequently cause generators to make 

incorrect HW determinations. 

• (49) Generators have difficulty making waste determinations for listed wastes: Making 

waste determinations for listed wastes is the number one challenge faced 

by HW generators in the waste determination process. This theme 

received the highest response index, was the most frequently mentioned 

issue, and was a primary focus of interviews and discussions more often 

than any other theme. Stakeholders cited all of the listed wastes as 

problematic, but they mentioned difficulties with F-listed and P-listed 

wastes more than any other. 

 13 EPA points out that the Agency does not make HW determinations for generators, and that EPA staff and contractors who used to staff the RCRA 

Hotline cannot tell generators whether their site-specific waste is a HW.

“EPA’s convoluted and 

conflicting language poses

problems for experienced 

jurists, much less for lay 

persons attempting to apply 

them in the everyday 

workplace.”

-- Industry Representative 

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-9

The narrative descriptions used for the F-listings present a 

major source of confusion for generators. For example, 

whereas U-listed wastes are specific substances (i.e.,

Acetone – U002), F-listed wastes are not explicitly stated. 

The F-listed wastes include substances derived from 

specific processes (e.g., quenching bath residues from oil 

baths from metal heat treating operations where cyanides 

are used in the process – F010), where the resulting waste 

is ambiguous. On more than one occasion, respondents 

said the F006 listing is particularly confusing because the 

narrative describes only those wastes which are exempt 

from the regulation, not those that are subject to it.

Stakeholders attributed confusion surrounding P-listed 

wastes to the logic of the regulation, as opposed to the 

way it is written. For example, according to one group we 

spoke with, a used nicotine patch containing 80 percent of the original nicotine is not a P-listed 

waste. However, the foil wrapper that the patch came in is considered a P-listed waste because it 

contains nicotine residue. Additionally, one stakeholder indicated there is frequent confusion 

about characterizing wastes from experiments at academic labs as P-listed HW. 14

• (34) Generators struggle with understanding the HW recycling regulations: Generators, 

assistance providers, and regulators agree that HW determination regulations are particularly 

tricky with regard to recycling. For example, one stakeholder noted that the regulations do not 

clearly indicate if a retailer is considered the generator when they collect used consumer 

electronics and ship them to a third party to evaluate their recycling potential. Retailers say this 

lack of clarity deters them from recycling consumer electronics because they are uncertain 

whether they must ship them to the third party as HW. 15 Generators and Regional inspectors also 

struggle to understand whether a material awaiting recycling must be characterized and managed 

as HW until that time when it is actually recycled.

• (22) Generators have difficulty making waste determinations for 

characteristic wastes: Although not as problematic as listed wastes, 

stakeholders noted that sometimes generators have difficulty making 

determinations for characteristic wastes. One example is the practicality of 

conducting a TCLP test on large or bulky items (e.g., Klystrons, tubes used 

for the generation and amplification of ultrahigh-frequency current, which

weigh up to 450 pounds).

 14 EPA notes that if a chemical is used in an experiment, the resulting waste would not be P-listed since the chemical would be used and a P-listed 

HW by definition is an unused commercial chemical product.

15 See Tonetti, Robert. “EPA’s Regulatory Program for ‘E-Waste’” Office of Solid Waste, October 2007. This EPA presentation explains used 

electronics are not wastes until determined by a third party. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/ewasteregs.pdf

“Change F006 nomenclature 

from "electroplating" to be 

more descriptive of the listing 

by identifying all of the 

processes covered in the F006 

definition (i.e., cleaning, 

stripping, etching, milling, 

anodizing, and 

electroplating.) Change the 

F006 listing description to 

identify what processes were 

included in the listing, not 

just those that were 

excluded.”

-- State Regulator

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-10

• (19) HW generators often mischaracterize peripheral waste: Stakeholders report that 

generators often accurately characterize their primary waste streams but neglect to make a 

determination for supplementary waste streams that come into contact with the primary HW

stream. For example, dry cleaners often do not think to evaluate lint from the cleaning process

that is contaminated with perchloroethylene as potential HW.

• (15) Generators have difficulty knowing when to make a waste determination during the 

production process: Stakeholders frequently noted that EPA’s definition of “point of generation” 

causes significant confusion in HW determinations. In 

particular, members of the retail sector struggle to apply this 

portion of the regulations to their reverse distribution 

process, whereby retailers send unsold products to a central 

location and receive financial credit from the manufacturer. 

The retailer decides the fate of these products at a central 

location and if the retailer discards or recycles the products, 

the retailer must make a waste determination. However, 

according to the EPA regulations, the retailer is in violation 

of the HW determination regulations because the 

determination was not made at the “point of generation.” In 

addition to this concern, one stakeholder reported that the 

literal interpretation of the “point of generation” definition 

means that the person present when the waste is created 

must make the determination, thus potentially preventing the 

appropriately trained employee (who may not be present) 

from making the determination.

16

• (15) Generators are often confused about the 

rules/interpretations with regard to empty containers: A number of stakeholders reported 

having difficulty interpreting EPA’s definition of empty containers. Of particular concern is their 

application with regard to pharmaceuticals. One generator stated that it is illogical to require that 

an empty pill bottle in a hospital setting be “triple rinsed using a solvent capable of removing the 

commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical intermediate”(40 CFR 261.7). In 

addition, more than one stakeholder noted difficulty applying the 

empty container rules to aerosol cans, saying that often generators will 

forget to depressurize cans, therefore not rendering them empty.

 16 For information about who can make HW determinations, see EPA memo regarding “Hazardous Waste Generated in Laboratories,” from Elizabeth 

Cotsworth, Director Office of Solid Waste (name changed to Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 18, 2009) to RCRA Senior 

Policy Advisors, EPA Regions I-X dated August 16, 2002. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/labwaste/memolab.htm

“It is currently unclear which 

party is considered the 

‘generator’ if a retailer 

collects used consumer 

electronics and sends them to 

be evaluated by a third-party 

that possesses the expertise 

to determine whether they 

can be refurbished or 

recycled. If some of the 

electronics are recycled by 

the third-party instead of 

refurbished, retailers may 

face an enforcement action 

for illegally transporting 

hazardous waste.”

-- Industry Representative

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-11

• (13) Generators inappropriately apply RCRA 

exclusions/exemptions: Stakeholders report that generators find 

the rules concerning wastes that are exempt or excluded from the 

definition of solid waste and HW confusing and vague. Some 

generators inappropriately apply exemptions to their waste 

streams, to avoid managing them as HW. Others fail to apply the 

exemptions and exclusions in legitimate situations because they 

don’t understand the regulations.

• (7) Generators don't understand how to apply the "derivedfrom" rule: Stakeholders reported that generators are confused 

by the “derived-from” rule which requires residues from treating

listed wastes to be classified as listed HW. One stakeholder 

claimed that according to the “derived-from” rule, water considered safe under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act may be considered HW.

• (6) Generators don't understand how to apply the “mixture rule”: The “mixture rule” 

confuses generators because like the derived-from rule, substances that may not test positive for 

hazardous constituents are still considered HW.

Challenges Related to Generators

The interviews and discussions suggest three overarching types of challenges to compliance related to 

generators: (1) lack of accurate or complete information to apply the regulations, (2) lack of time and/or 

resources, and (3) generator characteristics/organization. Exhibit 12 shows that lack of information and 

generator characteristics are the most prevalent types of challenges associated with generators themselves.

EXHIBIT 11: Prevalence of Different Types of Challenges Related to the 

Generators *

* Percentage represents the sum of the response indices for each 

theme in the sub- category, as a percentage of the sum of all response 

indices in the category

“Large quantity generators 

may have the resources but 

often times use them to 

interpret the laws in ways 

which are economically 

favorable to them. For 

example, many large firms 

will inappropriately use RCRA 

exclusions to avoid making a 

hazardous waste 

determination.”

-- Federal Assistance Provider

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-12

Generators Lack Accurate or Complete Information to Apply the Regulations

The following themes demonstrate how inaccurate or incomplete information can prevent generators from 

correctly interpreting and applying the regulations. This lack of information may result in generators 

making uninformed decisions about HW determinations, or relying upon inaccurate information provided 

by third parties. 

• (44) Reliance upon third parties (HW service providers, suppliers, disposers) for 

information used to make determinations can result in generator determination violations: 

Stakeholders indicate that generators regularly seek information from third parties when making a 

HW determination due to their own lack of understanding with regard to the regulations. 

Sometimes, third parties provide inaccurate information leading to HW determination violations. 

This may happen because the supplier is also uninformed about the regulations, or in some cases 

it may be due to a financial incentive. For example, respondents suggested that suppliers, who sell 

products containing hazardous constituents, will tell generators that their product does not have to 

be treated as HW when discarded, in the hope they will be convinced to purchase from them 

instead of a competitor. Stakeholders also described this situation with regard to HW service 

providers, reporting that they will offer generators a lower price to manage their waste than 

competitors by determining it not to be hazardous. This topic is discussed in greater detail later in 

this chapter (See Question 5)

• (30) Generators are often unaware that they are generating a HW at all and therefore 

subject to RCRA: Stakeholders report that when many small businesses open, the owner is 

typically not aware of the environmental regulatory obligations. Businesses such as auto body

shops and dry cleaners often do not understand that the waste 

they produce is hazardous and therefore do not notify as 

generators, nor manage their waste as HW.

• (18) Generators often use the MSDS for waste 

determinations but fail to account for materials that have 

been mixed or altered during the production process: A 

number of stakeholders, including both generators and assistance 

providers, expressed frustration over the role of the MSDS in the 

HW determination process. Generators often assume that the 

MSDS provides all the information needed to make an accurate 

determination, and may only learn this is not the case when they fail an inspection. They often 

overlook the fact that a product’s hazardous constituents may be altered or become more 

concentrated during the production process, thus making the information on the MSDS invalid.

“The MSDS isn't the end point. 

If a product constituent is less 

than 1 percent, it's not listed 

on the MSDS. When you point 

out that the MSDS isn't the 

answer, people get very 

frustrated.”

-- State Regulator

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-13

• (14) Generators do not understand when a waste should be 

analyzed in order to make a HW determination vs. when 

process knowledge is sufficient: Stakeholders report that the 

lack of clear guidance as to what constitutes “generator 

knowledge” leads to non-compliance, since generators and 

inspectors sometimes disagree about when generator 

knowledge is sufficient to make a determination.

• (12) Generators have difficulty understanding and/or 

applying the analytical results of sampled waste streams: 

Generators with little knowledge of their waste streams and/or 

the HW determination regulations may not know what tests to 

ask the lab to perform on their sample. In addition, the lab may 

report the results of a sample in units not consistent with those 

used in the regulations, requiring the generator to convert the 

results into the appropriate units before making a determination. 

Generator Characteristics/Organization

A firm’s characteristics, including its organizational structure can influence its compliance with HW 

determination regulations. The following themes describe this relationship.

• (43) Lack of training/staff turnover: As many generators do not have staff focused on 

environmental issues, staff who are not trained or specifically focused on HW management often 

end up conducting HW determinations. Stakeholders reported that fewer generators have 

dedicated environmental staff than in the past. Also, staff turnover, particularly during trying 

economic times, leads to unqualified employees making HW determinations.

• (28) The size and/or sophistication of a firm may play a role in its ability to make accurate 

determinations: Some stakeholders suggested that the size of the firm correlates to their 

compliance with HW determination regulations because they are more likely to have the staff and 

resources needed to be sophisticated about their waste streams 

and the regulations. Other stakeholders disagree, and say that 

small businesses that take the time and make the effort to 

understand the regulations can do very well on compliance. 

Thus size and/or sophistication of a firm may play a role in the 

ability to make accurate determinations, but it may depend 

greatly on the individual facility.

• (23) Generators are not concerned with HW determination 

unless they are fined for non-compliance: On a few occasions generators 

and other stakeholders stated that unless they are fined for non-compliance, 

generators simply do not concern themselves with the management of their 

HW streams, including proper waste determination. 

“Sometimes when a company 

has something tested, test 

results come back but 

companies don't know what it 

means. The test results don’t 

say explicitly that it is 

hazardous or not. Generators 

wait for us to tell them, or 

their vendor. Sometimes 

vendors use invalid tests for 

making decisions (or partially 

valid, like total metals) 

without explaining their 

reasoning to the generator.”

-- State Regulator

“We don’t have big brother 

who is going to come and 

show us how to do it. Frankly, 

a lot of us don’t care until we 

get into trouble.”

-- HW Generator

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-14

• (16) Generators do not have procedures in place to ensure proper waste determination: 

Generators without set procedures in place to make waste determinations may fail to catch 

hazardous constituents that are introduced to the waste stream when the generator changes the 

production process. 

• (6) Facilities that have varying waste streams have difficulty with waste determination 

compliance: Some generators report that they produce highly variable waste streams throughout 

their business cycle, causing their generator status to fluctuate. This leads to general confusion

about the regulations and potential compliance violations because the generator must adhere to 

different standards depending on their monthly generator status. While the stakeholders did not 

say so explicitly, it appears likely that these fluctuations in waste streams cause difficulty for 

making proper HW determinations because the constituents, as well as volumes, of waste are 

subject to change. According to stakeholders, this issue is most prevalent amongst CESQGs that 

generate quantities of HW which render them SQGs.

Quantitative information from the federal facilities survey also supports the idea that generator 

characteristics and organization influence generators’ likelihood of making accurate HW determinations. 

The survey identified the factors that help federal facilities make more accurate HW determinations. 

• As shown in Exhibit 12, survey respondents report that having processes and procedures in place 

at the facility are top contributors to accurate HW determinations. 

• Further, federal facilities indicated that knowing which analytical test to request was a strong 

contributor to making accurate HW determinations.

EXHIBIT 12: Top 5 Factors That Help Federal Facilities Make More Accurate HW

Determinations

CONTRIBUTING FACTOR % STRONGLY AGREE OR AGREE

Processes & procedures in place to help 

characterize wastes

79%

Knew which analytical test to request 

when testing waste 

71% 

Considered waste streams besides those 

associated with production processes 

59%

Waste streams generated are easy to 

characterize 

56%

Production process is straightforward 54%

Lack of Time and/or Resources

Many generators have difficulty making HW determinations because they lack the 

time and/or resources to apply the regulations effectively to their business 

operations. The following themes discuss these difficulties.

What factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-15

• (29) Cost constraints can lead to HW determination 

violations: Generators sometimes avoid having a waste 

stream analyzed or fail to characterize something as 

hazardous due to the high cost associated with testing a waste 

sample, and transporting and disposing of HW.

• (14) Generators are too busy or overwhelmed to keep up 

with compliance requirements: Generators must be diligent

in managing their waste streams to avoid falling into noncompliance. Many generators simply do not find the time to do this, resulting in incorrect HW

determinations. This situation is more prevalent amongst small businesses where the employee 

responsible for making HW determinations often has many other duties to fulfill. Producing 

multiple waste streams further complicates the issue, since the generator must characterize each 

of these waste streams individually. As a result of this situation, many generators hire HW service 

providers to characterize, manage, transport, and dispose of their HW. While hiring these 

contractors does not necessarily lead to inaccurate HW determinations, this can be the outcome 

when generators do not have the capacity to give service providers correct information about their 

waste streams.

Challenges Related to the Structure and Limitations of Regulatory Agencies

The interviews and discussions suggest two overarching types of challenges to compliance related to 

regulatory agencies: (1) lack of resources/presence/attention and (2) lack coordination/consistency. 

Exhibit 13 shows that both issues are common, but that lack of regulator resources/presence is a slightly 

more prevalent concern.

EXHIBIT 13: Prevalence of Different Types of Challenges Related to Regulatory 

Agencies*

* Percentage represents the sum of the response indices for each theme in the

sub- category, as a percentage of the sum of all response indices in the category

“Analytical testing is very 

expensive. Often times, 

customers don't want to pay 

for that, so you have to rely 

on customer knowledge.”

-- HW Service Provider 

Representative

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-16

Lack of Regulator Resources/Presence/Attention

The following themes illustrate how regulating agencies’ lack of resources, presence, and attention 

devoted to the HW determination process can influence generators’ compliance with the regulations.

• (23) Reduced funding at the federal, state, and county level has eliminated many generator 

outreach and training programs: Several stakeholders indicated that budget cuts have 

eliminated programs designed to aid generators’ compliance with RCRA both at the state and 

federal level. Most notable of these is the EPA RCRA Hotline, which generators, assistance 

providers, and EPA representatives praised as being an effective tool for increasing compliance.

• (18) RCRA does not keep up with changes to products and/or technology: Stakeholders 

report that industry technology advances more rapidly than the regulations which govern the 

management of their wastes. Some of these advances 

eliminate the hazardous constituents traditionally generated 

by industrial processes. However, the narrative descriptions 

of F-listed wastes require the byproducts of certain processes 

to be characterized as hazardous, regardless of the presence 

of hazardous constituents. This confuses and frustrates 

generators, as changes to cleaner and safer technology do not 

translate to less stringent waste regulations. Adding to this 

confusion is the fact that some wastes, which industry 

representatives believe are hazardous and should be regulated 

as such, are not regulated as HW. For example, several 

people who deal with the pharmaceutical industry expressed frustration that certain chemotherapy 

drugs are not regulated as HW, despite the fact that these substances are harmful to the 

environment and human health. 

• (14) A lack of presence by regulating entities dissuades generators from being attentive to 

waste determinations: Some generators are willing to risk that they will not be inspected rather 

than make the necessary effort to make an accurate HW determination. The fact that state and 

EPA inspectors rarely or never visit some generators exacerbates this situation. 

• (3) Regulators lack the expertise needed to make effective interpretations of HW

determination regulations: Several respondents to the federal facilities survey raised concern 

that their local or state regulators need additional training on how to make HW determinations, 

and that their interpretations of the requirements are inconsistent or incorrect. Others point out 

the need for EPA staff to have both broad and deep experience in industry when writing the 

regulations and answering questions from generators.

Lack of Coordination/Consistency

The following themes describe the challenges generators face making HW 

determinations due to a lack of coordination and consistency amongst regulations 

and regulatory agencies. 

“EPA should be nimble enough 

to handle wastes that are 

likely to damage the 

environment but are not 

covered under federal 

hazardous waste laws. EPA 

should take the lead on 

emerging wastes.”

-- State Regulator

What 

factors 

influence 

compliance?

Q2&3
3-17

• (39) Lack of consistency of the regulations and how to interpret them at the different levels 

of government is confusing to generators, leading to HW determination violations: Some 

generators do not realize that they not only have to comply with federal regulations and guidance, 

but also with their state waste determination regulations and regulatory interpretations that may 

be more stringent or broader in scope. Those generators who are aware of this responsibility may 

have difficulty, in part because they must reference multiple sources (state/federal) in order to 

make a HW determination. In some states (e.g., Minnesota), local regulations that are more 

stringent than those of the state confound the issue. Businesses that operate in multiple states 

face the greatest challenge since they must comply with multiple states’ regulations. This 

situation makes it more difficult for these generators from 

setting unified waste determination guidelines throughout 

their company.

• (14) Generators have difficulty characterizing materials 

that are regulated by multiple authorities (e.g., EPA, 

DOT, FDA, OSHA): Materials that are regulated by 

multiple authorities cause confusion among generators. For 

instance, although a fire department may tell an auto body 

shop that a rag previously containing a solvent can be dried 

and thrown out, EPA requires the rag to be managed as an 

F-listed HW and kept in a covered, labeled container.

QUESTION 4: HOW DO STATE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES INFLUENCE HW 

GENERATORS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE HW DETERMINATION REGULATIONS?

This section examines the experience of a few states to explore how their program activities influence 

HW determination, and to identify whether there are particular state program approaches that are effective 

at increasing compliance. Three states -- Minnesota, Texas, and Colorado -- volunteered to assist EPA 

with the evaluation by convening a group of generators and a group of state inspectors to provide their 

perspectives on the HW determination regulations and how the programs in their state operate. The 

diversity of state program features lends insight into the different ways that the federal HW determination 

regulations are implemented at the state level. This section begins by summarizing the characteristics of 

the three state programs, and then provides more detailed descriptions of each state’s program . 

Summary of State Approaches

The three state case studies suggest there is a wide range of state approaches to implementing the federal

HW determination requirements. For example, Texas has state requirements that match the federal

requirements, while Colorado and Minnesota have requirements beyond the federal

rules (e.g., Minnesota regulates wastes that meet the definition of its lethality 

characteristic). Minnesota’s program emphasizes both assistance (through an 

extensive array of online fact sheets) and compliance monitoring (through 

inspections at the state and county level). Colorado’s program emphasizes integrated 

compliance assistance and enforcement, whereby, for certain sectors, generators are 

required to complete a self-certification questionnaire designed to raise awareness of 

the requirements. Generators that do not return the questionnaire are subject to inspections and 

“The FDA requires us to 

maintain an explanted 

product [i.e., an implanted

medical device that has been 

removed] for 10 years... It's a 

hazardous waste that we must 

dispose of according to the 

EPA, but the FDA doesn't 

allow us dispose of it. Who do 

we listen to, EPA or FDA?”

-- HW Generator

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-18

enforcement. Colorado also offers extensive training, on-site assistance, and a customer assistance 

hotline. Texas’ program conducts audits of waste profiles generators submit as a way to extend its 

coverage, since the state is only able to inspect a small percentage of the regulated universe each year. 

Like Colorado, Texas provides a hotline and training, and offers compliance assistance to help generators 

understand their compliance requirements.

Common challenges across all three states include: (1) raising awareness of HW determination 

requirements, particularly among small businesses and new businesses that may be completely unaware 

of their obligations, and (2) maintaining sufficient inspection “coverage” to motivate facilities to make the 

effort to comply. All three states described here have made efforts to translate the federal and state 

requirements into “plain language,” and two of the three states have undertaken sector-specific initiatives 

to focus on translating the requirements as they apply to specific waste streams and industries.

Minnesota

The following section describes the Minnesota HW determination program, including the relationship of 

the state to the EPA Region and local regulators, compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, 

assistance activities, and information on compliance.

Relationship between State and Co-Regulators

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulates HW generators in Minnesota, in cooperation 

with EPA and county level regulators in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Minnesota has 

delegated authority for the RCRA HW program. MPCA holds monthly conference calls with EPA 

Region 5 to share information, such as the status and outcomes of inspections. MPCA also meets with the 

Region at the end of each year. The Regional EPA Criminal Investigation Division coordinates with the 

MPCA and counties through quarterly meetings; MCPA also coordinates with the EPA Superfund 

Regional representative. MPCA and the Region do coordinate to some extent on sector-specific 

initiatives, though recent coordination has been less formalized than in past years, and in some cases 

MPCA undertakes initiatives independently (e.g., the plater initiative). MPCA staff do not typically 

accompany EPA Regional staff on inspections or enforcement actions, since this is seen as an inefficient 

use of resources; however, county staff do typically accompany EPA staff. EPA Region 5 has not 

coordinated with MPCA on compliance assistance efforts. The state reports that in some cases Regional 

assistance has been based on federal requirements, which led to inaccuracies since the state’s HW 

regulations are sometimes different than the federal requirements.

MPCA regulations go beyond the federal requirements. In particular, MPCA has created an additional 

class of characteristic wastes (i.e., the lethality characteristic), which are 

defined as those that can cause severe health effects when ingested, inhaled, 

or absorbed through the skin. Examples include wastes containing bulk 

chemotherapy wastes and used solutions containing more than 20 percent

formaldehyde.

17 The state-only lethality characteristic regulates more wastes 

as HW than the federal requirements. In addition, MPCA regulates very 

small quantity generators (VSQGs) that generate 220 pounds or less of HW 

 17 For more information see the Lethality Characteristic factsheet (Waste/Hazardous Waste #2.05 • May 2009) available online at

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=4002

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-19

per month.18

When adopting federal requirements, MPCA has traditionally transcribed the full language of the 

requirements into the state rules. This means that any changes in federal rules do not take effect 

automatically in Minnesota. More recently, the state has begun adopting some federal rules by reference;

in particular MPCA has adopted the federal universal waste rules. This has benefits in that any changes at 

the federal level are adopted more quickly into the state regulations; however, MPCA has had to weigh 

the efficiency of adopting federal rules by reference with the implications for state regulations. For 

example, when MPCA adopted the federal universal waste rules, the existing state storage requirements 

for lead-acid batteries as well as fluorescent and high-intensity discharge lamp management requirements 

were no longer in effect. In general, the MPCA is hesitant to adopt federal rules by reference where 

doing so would preempt existing state-specific requirements. Therefore the state prefers to have some 

flexibility in adopting the federal requirements.

Minnesota is unusual in the degree of county involvement in HW regulation. The state legislature 

enacted a statute that requires the seven counties in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area to operate 

HW regulatory programs, while the MPCA’s HW program covers the 76 counties in the rest of the state. 

The county programs were authorized by the state of Minnesota in 1980, prior to the start of the state 

RCRA program. Each county has its own HW ordinance; these are at least as stringent as the state 

regulations (and in a few cases, they are more stringent). For example, in some cases counties regulate 

Freon as HW, which is not regulated as HW at the state level. The counties regulate all sizes of 

businesses (LQGs, SQGs, and VSQGs), licensed treatment storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs), and 

facilities that are processing appliances and electronics. The counties conduct joint enforcement with the 

state, and most counties can write criminal citations. 

In Minnesota, the seven Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan counties generally have more resources than 

the state. Most of the counties’ programs are self-funded (e.g., through fees and fines paid by generators) 

for a majority of their program costs. In contrast, MPCA relies primarily on state funding. In part as a 

result of state budget cuts, the MPCA staff devoted to HW has declined, the state has fewer inspectors and 

permitting engineers, and the state no longer has staff devoted to technical assistance.

The counties and MPCA coordinate closely with each other to ensure consistency in their interpretation of 

the regulations. However, there are some differences in interpretation between the counties and the state. 

For example, regarding recycling parts washers, MPCA and some counties differ on the appropriate 

approach to evaluating the solvent in the upper basin of parts washers (the state says this solvent should 

be counted as HW, whereas certain counties do not count the parts washer solvent toward generator size 

or charge any HW fees for this waste in order to encourage recycling). MPCA and the metropolitan 

counties participate in monthly meetings to identify and seek to resolve any 

potential differences in interpretation.

Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Approach

MPCA points out that generators who have never had contact with regulatory 

authorities do not always think to identify their wastes. While this was 

especially true during the 1980s, it still happens today. MPCA reports that 

 18 For information on MPCA’s requirements for VSQGs, see the factsheet for Minimal Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste (Waste/Hazardous 

waste #1.50 • May 2011) available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,9006

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-20

inspectors are often the driver for generators to evaluate their wastes. Thus, MPCA and its co-regulators 

in the metropolitan counties place particular emphasis on reaching out to as many generators as possible 

through inspections.

As a general rule, EPA expects states to inspect at least 50 percent of non-government TSDFs and at least 

20 percent of LQGs in their jurisdictions each year.19 In addition to its commitments to inspect TSDFs 

and LQGs, MPCA also seeks to inspect each SQG every five years when the state has the resources to do 

so. MPCA also responds to complaints outside the metro area, while county inspectors respond to 

complaints within the metro area. When possible, MPCA prefers to focus on risk-based initiatives (e.g., 

targeted inspections of health care facilities). MPCA reports that it is sometimes able to pursue these 

initiatives under a “flex plan” with EPA (e.g., conducting an inspection at a health care facility instead of 

an LQG), but that EPA does not always allow this flexibility, and the Agency is generally “driven by the 

numbers.” 

The metropolitan counties vary in their compliance monitoring approaches, though all seven counties 

report that they undertake initiatives focused on perceived risk. The counties with the largest number of 

generators, Hennepin and Ramsey, report that they assign risk factors to companies, and that each 

category of risk is inspected on a specified frequency. For example, Hennepin County assigns a risk factor 

between one and nine to each company, based on company size, types of wastes generated, and 

compliance history. Higher risk facilities get inspected once per year, lower risk once every five years, 

and minimal generators20 may be inspected every seven years or less often (some are never inspected). 

Hennepin County has conducted sector initiatives targeting scrap yards, healthcare, retail stores and 

wholesalers, drycleaners, metal finishers. Ramsey County takes a similar approach to applying risk 

factors, with a focus on the industry type and amount and types of wastes generated. Ramsey County has 

identified drycleaners, metal finishers, health care, scrap yards, and auto body shops as relatively risky 

sectors for HW. The county inspects each risk category at a specified frequency: high risk generators are 

inspected once per year, medium risk generators every 18 months, and low risk generators every three

years. Dakota County also bases its

 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the RCRA Subtitle C 

Program, January 2010, page 26. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/rcra/rcracms.pdf

20 Minimal generators are a subset of VSQGs generating less than 100 pounds per year of non-acute HW and no acute HW. Although minimal 

generators are regulated as such by the MPCA, not all counties recognize this classification. See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/whw1-50.pdf

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-21

inspection frequency on generator risk and size. In the metropolitan counties with smaller numbers of 

generators (Washington, Carver, and Dakota), county inspectors seek to attain a certain coverage (e.g., 

inspecting SQGs and LQGs every year in Carver and Scott Counties, and inspecting all generators every 

year in Washington County). 

All counties take active approaches to identify all generators in their jurisdictions. For example, 

Hennepin County uses a self-audit program, whereby the county purchases lists of companies from 

vendors, follows up with phone calls to see which of these companies may be HW generators, and then 

mails out a self-audit form to potential generators to alert them of their regulatory requirements. If a 

facility does not return the self-audit form, the county will follow up. This approach allows the county to 

identify companies that are avoiding the regulatory system altogether. The smaller counties also focus on 

identifying new generators through means such as reviewing HW manifests, gathering referrals from 

other businesses, getting a list of businesses applying for new EPA ID numbers each month, coordinating 

with city planning departments that require HW licenses, purchasing software with a list of all businesses 

in the county, and just driving around looking for new businesses. 

Exhibit 14 shows the number of generators and inspectors in each of the six metropolitan counties that 

participated in a discussion as part of this evaluation, along with the number of inspections that these 

counties conduct per year. (One metropolitan county, Anoka County, was not available to participate in 

this discussion.)

EXHIBIT 14: Generators and Inspectors in Minnesota Metropolitan Counties

COUNTY

NUMBER OF 

COUNTY 

INSPECTORS

NUMBER OF 

LICENSED 

GENERATORS

NUMBER OF 

INSPECTIONS 

PER YEAR

PERCENTAGE OF 

LICENSED GENERATORS 

INSPECTED PER YEAR

Hennepin 6 5,000 1,000 20%

Ramsey 5 1,900 1,600 84%

Dakota 3 1,500 450-500 30% - 33%

Washington 3 475 475 100%

Carver 1 400 125-130 31% - 33%

Scott 1 400 100-120 25% - 30%

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-22

MPCA notes that enforcement is one of the most powerful tools to motivate 

compliance, but that it is one of the weaker aspects of its program. MPCA 

points out that the Agency is currently limited to a 30-day window for 

requiring corrective actions (a state-specific requirement), which is often 

difficult to meet given the time needed to get lab results back. Moreover,

Administrative Penalty Orders are limited to $10,000 (another state-specific 

limitation), which does not provide sufficient deterrence according to MPCA. The state can negotiate 

settlements or take violators to court, but MPCA is limited by resources (e.g., the state is losing attorney 

staff). MPCA would consider putting together a legislative 

package to strengthen its enforcement tools, but the Agency 

worries that this could result in unintended consequences (e.g., 

lower penalty amounts) if the issue is opened up for debate in the 

legislature. MPCA believes that depending on the industry, 

enforcement can be more effective than outreach, but that the 

Agency needs better enforcement tools and support from EPA. For 

example, it would be helpful from MPCA’s point of view if EPA 

would over-file in enforcement cases, to demonstrate the 

seriousness of the violation.

Assistance Approach

MPCA has invested considerable effort in providing fact sheets for generators covering a range of topics 

(e.g., general requirements, guidelines on HW identification, sector-specific guidelines, and wastespecific information).21 MPCA lists over 140 fact sheets and resources on its webpage, which serves as a 

resource for the metropolitan counties as well as the state. MPCA will often refer generators with 

questions to the fact sheets, but will make staff available for phone consultations to respond to questions 

that the fact sheets do not address.. MPCA previously provided substantial outreach and training (e.g., up 

to nine full-day workshops each year), but as resources have 

dwindled, the state has focused its efforts on providing a 

comprehensive set of fact sheets in lieu of other outreach. MPCA 

points out that while the state has provided considerable outreach in 

the past, in times of reduced budgets, the agency has had to limit 

compliance assistance, monitoring, and enforcement activities 

focused on generators that are not aware of their obligations or are 

seeking to evade them. 

The metropolitan counties do offer generator training, as well as 

sector-specific outreach (e.g., in the health care sector and in scrap 

yards). Ramsey County offers at least two or three sector-specific 

trainings in high-risk sectors each year (e.g., metal finishers, health 

care, drycleaners, and auto parts). Ramsey County also offers a 

general training twice per year, as well as onsite training. 

MPCA points out that a strength of its program is efforts, such as 

 21 See MPCA’s Hazardous Waste Publication page for a complete listing of fact sheets: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/waste/wastepermits-and-rules/waste-permits-and-forms/hazardous-waste-publications.html

“Generators do a better job 

of evaluating wastes now than 

they did 20 years ago, but 

[HW determination] is still a 

common violation, even at 

generators that have been 

visited repeatedly over the 

years by inspectors. Some 

generators don’t get it at all 

and will not evaluate their 

wastes until they are visited. 

The more sophisticated the 

generator, the fewer 

evaluation problems.”

-- County regulator

 

“When MPCA takes action, it 

has reverberations, and the 

counties see deterrence. We 

know that the ‘gorilla in the 

room’ is EPA Region 5 or the 

MPCA. That’s hard to measure 

but it’s there.” 

-- State regulator

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-23

the health care initiative, that focus on emerging RCRA issues. In that effort, 

the state and counties coordinated to focus first on education before following 

up with enforcement. MPCA viewed the initiative as very successful. The state 

has also had success with initiatives in the plating industry. In both of these 

cases the state conducted meetings with sector representatives. EPA helped 

support these outreach programs through grants. MPCA and the counties 

report there are more initiatives they would like to pursue (e.g., with the retail 

sector) if they had sufficient resources. 

Information on Compliance

MPCA reports that the most common HW violations are labeling violations, lack of weekly inspections, 

and manifest violations, and that all of these categories of violations are more common than HW

determination violations. However, HW determination violations do still occur, particularly for less 

obvious wastes (e.g., peripheral wastes) or for new processes. 

MPCA rarely cites generators for failing to evaluate their wastes within 60 days of generation (a state 

specific requirement that is largely ignored), unless they are disposing a large quantity of HW. 

When MPCA places new emphasis on a sector (e.g., health care), generators are typically resistant at first. 

But with persistent outreach, generators eventually accept their compliance requirements. 

Texas

The following section describes the Texas HW determination program, including the relationship of the 

state to the EPA Region, compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, assistance activities, and 

information on compliance.

Relationship between State and Co-Regulators

Texas is located within EPA Region 6, and the state and Region cooperate to conduct inspections. The 

Region and the state share responsibility for training inspectors, while the state takes primary 

responsibility for conducting outreach to generators. The Region offers guidance to state inspectors as 

needed with regard to HW determinations and RCRA applicability. Typically, Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff will accompany the Region on EPA inspections, and the Region will 

sometimes accompany TCEQ on state inspections (however, the Region is limited by the number of 

inspectors it has: a total of eight for the five-state Region). The Region conducts a limited number of 

inspections each year (48 in 2010, 20 in 2011) focused on LQGs and more complex operations like 

centralized HW treatment facilities (TSDFs). 

Among the Region 6 states, Texas has the largest volume of HW 

generated, and the largest number of Large Quantity Generators (878 

in Texas, compared to 329 in Louisiana, 138 in Oklahoma, 123 in 

Arkansas, and 31 in New Mexico).22

The TCEQ headquarters in Austin, Texas charges fees to generators, 

writes permits, takes enforcement actions, issues regulations, and 

provides guidance, while TCEQ field offices around the state conduct 

investigations for compliance with HW permits and regulations. 

 22 This information was provided during an interview with EPA Region 6 staff.

“If you look at the numbers, 

there are nearly 300,000 

business entities in Texas. 

And how many enforcement 

agents [are there]? So if 

you’re off the radar screen, 

no one will ever find you.” 

-- HW Generator

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-24

TCEQ requirements are generally consistent with federal requirements. 

TCEQ has a small business assistance program that reports directly to the 

Executive Director of the Commission (rather than to the program office) 

to ensure confidentiality of assistance. The Small Business 

Environmental Assistance Division (SBEA) provides statewide 

compliance assistance services and has staff in most TCEQ field offices.

Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Approach

TCEQ inspects approximately 400 generators each year. TCEQ’s goal has been to inspect at least 20

percent of Large Quantity Generators a year (which would equal 175 LQGs) , although TCEQ reports that 

Region 6 recently approved an alternative plan, whereby the state will inspect 10 percent of LQGs and 

conduct the remainder of its inspections at a combination of SQGs 

and CESQGs. The state acknowledges that there are so many 

generators in the state that TCEQ does not get to some of the 

smaller generators very often, if at all. Given this limitation in 

coverage, the state also conducts paper audits of waste 

characterizations that generators submit. Generators in Texas are 

required to submit a profile of their individual waste streams. 

TCEQ then randomly picks 560 of these profiles to audit each 

year. 

In fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, TCEQ piloted an EPA-approved three-year risk-based inspection 

strategy approach to identify the highest risk facilities to inspect (this pilot program was implemented in 

Air, Water and Waste compliance monitoring programs at TCEQ). However, as of fiscal year 2012, 

TCEQ's inspection targeting strategy for HW is based upon the "Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C Program" (RCRA CMS), issued by EPA in 2010. 

The RCRA CMS calls for states to inspect at least 50 percent of 

non-government operating TSDFs and at least 20 percent of 

LQGs in their jurisdictions each year.23 After TCEQ 

headquarters provides each field office with a list of registered 

generators in their jurisdiction, the field offices select generators 

for inspection based on the date of the most recent inspection, 

compliance history, and other factors. 

When TCEQ finds a violation, the state will issue either a Notice of Violation (for less serious violations) 

or a Notice of Enforcement (for more serious violations). TCEQ has developed a guidance document that 

categorizes violations according to their severity and provides field office inspectors with criteria for 

initiating enforcement actions. 

The Small Business Advisory Committees (SBACs) are made up of small business representatives, trade 

associations and environmental professionals and provide feedback to the TCEQ on regulatory issues 

facing small businesses. SBACs report that often small businesses are unaware of the RCRA regulations 

until an investigator goes out to the site. For this reason, it is important for regulators to get out into the 

 23

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the RCRA Subtitle C 

Program, January 2010, page 26. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/rcra/rcracms.pdf

“We’ve heard some peers say, 

‘I just keep my head down and 

hope [the inspectors] don’t 

come by.’”

-- HW Generator

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?

“It’s not hard to find free 

help if you know to look; 

generators are grateful when 

the state helps them.”

-- HW Generator
3-25

field to as many small businesses as possible. TCEQ’s SBEA Division

conducts outreach to registered businesses and trade associations to try to 

educate them about environmental regulations, but acknowledges that 

facilities that have not registered with the state and do not belong to a 

trade association are hard to find. These businesses tend to occur in rural areas (though they can be in 

urban areas as well), and while they are required to identify their HW, they are often unaware of these 

requirements and assume regulators will alert them of what they need to do. Businesses do alert each 

other when inspectors are active in an area. Businesses also know who is registered and who is not 

among their peers. Sometimes they will turn each other in through a complaint process. 

Assistance Approach

TCEQ’s SBEA Division, Field Operations and Waste Permits Divisions provide several resources to HW 

generators to assist in making HW determinations, including one-on-one compliance assistance from 

SBEA staff, assistance resources, and a range of assistance programs. For example, one resource is an 

electronic checklist that provides a yes/no decision tree to assist generators in identifying if they have a 

HW. EPA Region 6 reports that the checklist is helpful, provided that generators provide correct 

information to answer the questions. SBEA also has prepared a booklet on HW geared toward Small 

Quantity Generators.24 The TCEQ’s Waste Permits Division has created a guidance document for 

generators to assist them in classifying HW. This 53-page document offers an explanation of the 

regulations, though it is not sector-specific or focused on particular waste streams.

25 TCEQ does translate 

some of its outreach material into Spanish but does not have the resources to translate all its outreach 

documents into Spanish or other languages. TCEQ also offers a Compliance Commitment (C2) program, 

which involves a multi-media audit (including HW management requirements) conducted by a third-party 

contractor using industry-specific checklists. At the conclusion of 

the audit, the contractor provides the regulated entity with a copy of 

the completed checklist indicating where they are in compliance, 

where they are deficient, and actions necessary to correct any 

deficiencies and achieve compliance. Approximately 300 site visit 

audits are completed each year. In addition, through the 

EnvirMentor Program (EM), regulated entities who demonstrate a 

financial need may be matched with a HW service provider willing 

to provide services for free. 

SBEA offers a toll-free confidential hotline through which regulated 

entities can speak directly with a compliance assistance specialist 

without fear of enforcement. SBEA receives questions ranging from 

schools dealing with lab chemicals to complex questions regarding 

waste management. SBEA receives about 7,000 calls a year on their 

hotline (though this figure covers all topics relevant to TCEQ, not 

just HW). 

 24 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division, Industrial and Hazardous Waste: Rules and 

Regulations for Small-Quantity Generators. July 2009.

25 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Waste Permits Division, Guidelines for the Classification and Coding of Industrial and Hazardous 

Wastes, February 2005. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/rg/rg-022.html/at_download/file

“Most of the time it’s 

industrial facilities that 

don’t have the staff person 

to deal with hazardous 

waste that are in violation; 

it’s small businesses more 

than anything else, schools 

universities and hospitals, 

[who have problems with 

HW determination.] They 

are not as aware that 

they’re subject to 

regulations [as large 

businesses].”

-- State regulator

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-26

TCEQ also hosts an annual trade fair each year to which generators and enforcement agencies are invited. 

The two-day conference offers an opportunity for education and information sharing. The HW program 

provides information on waste classification at the conference and offers an opportunity for generators to 

get to know state contacts with whom they can follow up if they need help.

Every three to four years SBEA conducts RCRA Recordkeeping and Reporting workshops across the 

state. Small businesses are the workshops’ primary intended audience. TCEQ also offers abbreviated 

training on demand. For example, TCEQ provided such training to metal finishers. The state reports that 

while there is always high demand for training, it is sometimes hard for generators to get to the training.

SBEA coordinates with field inspectors to provide offers of assistance following inspections. SBAC staff 

tries to build relationships with investigators, so that when they are aware that an issue came up during an 

inspection, they can proactively follow-up with the generator to offer help. SBAC generally provides 

multi-media assistance that gives small businesses an overall picture of their environmental compliance 

requirements. SBEA also provides templates to assist generators in compiling needed 

information.26SBEA has, on occasion, offered inspector checklists to generators, but will always provide 

them upon request to help generators understand what inspectors are looking for. 

SBEA has tried in the past to do mailings to all facilities in particular industry sectors, using lists of 

businesses from the state Comptroller’s office. However, SBEA got a very low response rate. SBEA 

does believe that training needs to be sector specific, and presented in plain language. 

EPA Region 6 reports that Texas has a more active assistance program than any of the other states in the 

Region. 

Information on Compliance

TCEQ reports that violations regarding HW determinations are fairly common, as are problems with lack 

of documentation (e.g., missing laboratory reports). In TCEQ’s experience, smaller, less sophisticated 

facilities are more likely to have violations. Small facilities generally do not have a good understanding 

of terms like “hazardous” or “toxic.” These generators commonly use hazardous products and do not 

perceive them to be dangerous; they also expect someone to tell them if they are not allowed to throw 

something away. However, sometimes even larger facilities will miss an aspect of the analysis or their 

process knowledge will be incomplete, leading to inaccurate determinations. Overall, TCEQ finds that the 

most competent firms are those that have been investigated and are (therefore) educated about the rules. 

Texas currently has 5,237 active generators. During fiscal years 2007

through 2011, TCEQ conducted 1,170 generator inspections, resulting in 

125 enforcement actions. (In other words, approximately 11 percent of 

inspections resulted in enforcement actions.) The most common 

violations during this period pertain to accumulation time, notification 

requirements, record keeping and annual reporting, and HW

determination. 

 26 These forms include a blank waste stream profile, HW generation chart, HW management unit form, HW management unit inspection log, daily 

drum inspection log, emergency plan, emergency responder notification form, emergency site plan, facility site plan, transporter profile, and 

disposal facility profile.

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-27

Colorado

Colorado has developed a self-certification approach to addressing HW compliance, integrating

assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. Therefore, this section begins by discussing the 

relationship between Colorado and the EPA Region, and then goes on to describe the self-certification 

program. The section also describes additional compliance monitoring, enforcement, and assistance 

activities aside from the self-certification program. The section concludes with a discussion of HW 

determination compliance in the state.

Relationship between State and Co-Regulators

Colorado is located in EPA Region 8, and the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and the Environment 

(CDPHE) has a fully delegated RCRA HW program. 

The state and Region have a good working relationship. 

Colorado’s HW regulations, implemented through the 

state rulemaking commission, are consistent with but in 

some cases more stringent than the federal regulations. 

CDPHE has staff focused on corrective action, 

inspections, enforcement, technical assistance, data 

management, and permitting. CDPHE HW staff are all 

located at its central office in Denver, which is in close 

proximity to 80 percent of the state’s population and its 

HW generators. CDPHE staff travel to sites outside of 

the Denver Region frequently. Enforcement and 

compliance assistance staff from two media programs 

(Hazardous Material and Waste Management Division 

and the Air Pollution Control Division) partner to 

improve environmental compliance throughout the 

state. This integrated enforcement/assistance and multimedia approach allows the staff to be more efficient and effective.

CDPHE’s HW program is funded primarily by state HW fees, though EPA 

provides a quarter of the program’s budget through the Performance 

Partnership Grant. Even though the state legislature authorizes CDPHE to 

spend its funding, the Department does not depend on the legislature for 

funding from the state’s general fund. 

The Environmental Results Program (ERP) is an 

integrated system of (1) Plain-language compliance 

assistance that promotes pollution prevention, (2) 

Facility self-assessment and self-certification, (3) 

Agency inspections to verify certifications and assess 

performance, and (4) Statistically-based 

performance measurement.

ERP combines these tools in a repeating process to 

improve or sustain overall sector performance.

Compliance assistance materials explain what 

facilities need to do, facility certifications state that 

they are doing it, and agency inspections of a 

representative sample of facilities document and 

verify overall sector performance. Performance 

data, in turn, inform and help states improve the 

next round of compliance assistance and better 

target enforcement actions.

Source: States ERP Consortium (www.erpstates.org)

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-28

Self-Certification Approach

Colorado uses a self-certification approach, modeled after the Environmental Results Program developed 

in Massachusetts, to address environmental compliance among HW generators.27 CDPHE sees selfcertification as an important tool to leverage limited resources and maintain contact with facilities that 

notify the state they are generating HW. CDPHE requires certain sectors (e.g., dry cleaners and SQGS, 

including surface coaters and healthcare facilities) to participate in a self-certification initiative each year.

For each target sector, the state mails all known generators a brief questionnaire listing the requirements 

the generators must follow. The SQG questionnaire is broadly applicable and includes questions such as 

“Have you determined what HW you generate at your facility?” and “Do you label your HW drums?” 

Sector-specific questionnaires address issues unique to generators in the target sector. For example, the 

drycleaner questionnaire alerts generators of issues such as, “Typical HWs at dry cleaners include: muck, 

separator water, vacuum water, used filters and lint from the perc [perchloroethylene] machines.”28 The 

questionnaires are included in sector-specific booklets, calendars and other compliance assistance and 

guidance materials. Some of the questionnaires are translated into languages other than English to assist 

businesses in understanding their requirements. For example, the dry cleaner questionnaire is translated 

into Korean to assist the many Korean dry cleaners in Colorado. Generators are supposed to be able to 

complete the questionnaires in approximately 30 minutes. Generators are then required to send the 

questionnaire back to the state. Colorado encourages generators to submit the questionnaire 

electronically, though it can also be submitted in hard copy.29 

CDPHE does not view the questionnaires as an accurate measure of compliance (nearly all generators 

report they are in compliance). Rather, the questionnaires are designed as a way to raise awareness of the 

requirements and encourage facilities with questions to seek assistance. CDPHE follows up with 

statistically-based inspections to project actual compliance rates for the overall sector. Compliance rates 

are compared over time. 

Generators that do not return the self-certification form in a timely manner are issued an informal 

enforcement action known as a compliance advisory to prompt participation. If there is still no response, 

CDPHE proceeds with a formal enforcement action with a penalty.

CDPHE believes the self-certification approach has many benefits. The most important of these is the 

partnership the program has created between the businesses and the state. In the wake of the selfcertification program, generators are more likely to call the state with questions. CDPHE views the selfcertification form as an avenue to build trust with generators, while achieving better coverage of the target 

sectors. 

In addition, the program has allowed the state to better characterize its 

universe of generators. Before undertaking self-certification, the state 

thought it had more than 1,000 SGQs, along with 115 LQGs and 8 TSDs. 

After reaching out to these entities through the self-certification program, 

the state found it only had 650 SQGs. The state also tracks the most 

 27 For more information on ERP, see http://erpstates.org/

28 Source: CDPHE 2012 Dry Cleaners Regulations & Best Management Practices Self Certification Checklist, available online at 

https://www.formrouter.net/forms01@CODPH/dccert.pdf

29 For more information see the CDPHE Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Self-Certification Checklists webpage at 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/certify/index.htm

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-29

common violations based on statistically representative inspections. For example, for SQGs, the four top 

types of HW violations were related to requirements for training, labeling, open containers, and 

emergency response. CDPHE and then uses this information to focus the content of its workshops and 

other outreach initiatives. 

CDPHE staff in the Hazardous Material and Waste Management Division and the Small Business 

Assistance Program in the Air Pollution Control Division work together to provide outreach not only to 

businesses but also to trade associations and suppliers. For example, in the surface coating sector, the 

compliance assistance programs conducted train-the-trainer workshops and created a multi-media 

questionnaire that suppliers distribute to their clients. CDPHE found this approach to be very successful 

because it generated many calls to the state from businesses that had been contacted by their suppliers.

CDPHE found it was resource intensive to initiate the self-certification program, but once the program 

was established it has been easier to maintain. EPA Region 8 supported the launch of Colorado’s selfcertification programs. EPA Headquarters has supported similar programs in other states in the past.30 

Additional Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement

In addition to conducting statistically-based inspections as part of its self-certification program, Colorado 

conducts regular, targeted inspections in accordance with EPA’s requirements. One of the greatest 

compliance monitoring challenges CDPHE reports is identifying new businesses. As with other states, 

Colorado has found it is difficult and time intensive to locate all generators in the state. CDPHE uses a 

database of all businesses that have applied for a business license in the state in order to develop the 

mailing lists for its self-certification program. CDPHE is developing a checklist for new businesses that it 

is distributing to planning departments, chambers of commerce, fire departments, the Small Business 

Administration, and the Secretary of State and other outreach partners. The checklist outlines general 

environmental requirements new businesses should be aware of, and provides agency contacts. 

CDPHE reports that some of the state’s enforcement actions with regard to HW determination come from 

non-notifiers. These businesses are typically SQGs who fail to notify the state they are generating HW. 

CDPHE may identify these non-notifiers through complaints, but it is difficult to systematically identify 

them. CDPHE does review HW manifests to look for generators who have not notified the state;

however, CDPHE does not view this method as optimal because it takes considerable resources, and it 

does not address all non-notifiers.

Additional Assistance

Colorado offers training, direct assistance, and guidance materials to educate generators about their 

requirements. 

CDPHE offers multi-media training. For example, CDPHE has offered training with health care workers 

to increase awareness of HW issues regarding proper disposal of 

medications. The state has also worked with suppliers in the health care 

industry, such as pharmaceutical companies, on improving environmental 

compliance. In addition to sector-specific training, CDPHE offers an allday training session once per quarter focused on HW. The state provides 

training in all regions of the state. CDPHE reports the training is 

 30 For more information on EPA’s past support of ERP, see http://www.epa.gov/erp/

Influence 

of state Q4 programs?
3-30

“Generators will say, ‘I had no 

idea where to get any 

information. I got my business 

license and that’s all I thought I 

needed. Where was I supposed 

to find out I needed to do 

something else?’”

-SBEAP Representative

extremely popular and receives excellent reviews from participants. The training is relatively inexpensive 

and represents a cost-effective approach to generator outreach. 

CDPHE has developed general guidance documents addressing HW identifications31 and exclusions.32 In 

addition, the state has developed fact sheets for HW in specific sectors, such as surface coating, auto 

body, printing, plating, and healthcare. 

CDPHE supports a Generator Assistance Program (GAP) that provides businesses with free on-site 

technical assistance and information on the state’s HW regulations. GAP partners with the Small 

Business Assistance Program to provide multi-media outreach and assistance. Any compliance 

deficiencies noted during the GAP site visit will not result in any enforcement action (unless they are 

deemed as imminent and a substantial endangerment to public health or the environment).

CDPHE also runs a hazardous and solid waste technical assistance hotline. One staff person answers the 

hotline six hours a day, receiving about 10 to 15 calls a day from facilities, HW service provider and

members of the public. Callers can remain anonymous. 

Information on Compliance

CDPHE reports that for the decade from 2000 – 2009, HW determination violations were the fifth most 

common type of violations for both LQGs and SQGs, and both groups had an average 87 percent 

compliance rate with HW determination violations over the ten year period (this is equivalent to a 13 

percent non-compliance rate). In any given year, the compliance rate might be higher or lower (for 

example in 2009, CDPHE reports that SQGs had 75 percent compliance rate with waste determination 

requirements, and LQGs had a 95 percent compliance rate). As noted earlier, for SQGs, the four top 

types of HW violations were related to requirements for training, labeling, open containers, and 

emergency response. (CDPHE did not report the top four types of violations for LQGs.) 

CDPHE has found compliance rates vary by sector. For example, drycleaners tend to have lower 

compliance rates with HW determination violations than the cross-sector average. While the compliance 

rate has improved considerably over the years, drycleaners continue to have problems. 

QUESTION 5: HOW DO ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS/HW SERVICE PROVIDERS/TRADE 

ASSOCIATIONS’ ACTIVITIES INFLUENCE HW GENERATORS’ COMPLIANCE WITH 

THE HW DETERMINATION REGULATIONS?

To determine how assistance providers, HW service providers, and trade 

associations’ activities influence HW generators’ compliance with HW 

determination regulations, IEc participated in discussion sessions with 

16 assistance providers (most of whom participated in a single workshop 

discussion with Small Business Environmental Assistance Providers and 

Small Business Ombudsman), interviewed three HW service providers,

and interviewed eight trade association representatives. The following 

 31 See the CDPHE Hazardous Waste Identification Guidance Document, October 2008 available online at 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/hwid.pdf

32 See the CDPHE Hazardous Waste Exclusions Guidance Document, April 2009, available online at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/hwexcl.pdf
3-31

section describes our findings from these interviews and discussion sessions.

Small Business Assistance Providers

IEc spoke with assistance providers who are beneficiaries of state funded programs mandated by the 1990 

Clean Air Act. These state funded programs comprise Small Business Ombudsmen (SBO), Small 

Business Environmental Assistance Providers (SBEAP), and a Compliance Advisory Panel (CAP). All of 

the state funded providers work exclusively with small businesses.33 IEc also spoke with the EPA 

Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsmen, a representative from the EPA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA), two EPA Regional assistance providers (Regions 4 and 10), and a 

representative from an environmental and energy services firm that works with EPA to audit federal

facilities, small businesses, and hospitals. IEc also reviewed the results of a 2007 survey conducted by the 

Small Business Environmental Homepage.34 These discussions and survey results suggest that small 

business assistance providers influence generators’ HW determination compliance in several ways:

• Assistance providers are often the first line of information about HW management for 

generators: Assistance providers reported many small businesses are not aware they produce HW 

subject to regulation. Many of them first learn of their responsibilities when they meet with an 

assistance provider. Understanding this, assistance providers actively seek out small businesses 

that are likely violating HW management regulations. Some assistance providers work with state 

and municipal officials to identify new businesses and inform them of their HW management 

obligations. 

• Assistance providers operate at the sector level: Several assistance providers mentioned they 

develop guidance materials specific to situations that arise in a particular industry. They create fact 

sheets that translate regulatory language into laymen terms and assist generators with HW 

determination issues common to specific industries and materials. For example, the SBEAP for the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency devotes a section of their website to “Industry Specific 

Waste Management Information.” The site provides links to guidance documents and fact sheets 

for different industries, including the transportation services industry, where one can find 

information on how to properly manage oil and filters, aerosols, batteries, solvents, and other 

hazardous materials frequently used in the industry.

• Assistance providers find resources for generators to get further HW management 

assistance: The Small Business Environmental Homepage survey 

showed that 92.5 percent of the surveyed assistance providers who 

offer HW assistance provide referrals to generators, where referrals

is defined as: providing your client with contact names and phone 

numbers outside your SBAP/SBO (Small Business Assistance 

Provider/Small Business Ombudsman) program.

 33 The definition of a small business varies depending on industry, number of employees, and annual revenue.

34 http://www.smallbiz-enviroweb.org/SharingInformation/surveys/multimedia07.aspx- The Small Business Environmental Homepage – responses 

from an online survey conducted in January-February 2007

Influence 

of 

assistance 

providers?

Q5
3-32

• Assistance providers will seek information from outside 

sources to assist generators: The Small Business 

Environmental Homepage survey showed 82.5 percent of the 

surveyed assistance providers who offer HW assistance 

provide personal contact to generators, where personal contact

is defined as: making contact with resources outside your 

SBAP/SBO program and getting back to your client for further 

discussion or arrangements. For example, some of the 

assistance providers said they regularly interact with EPA and 

state offices, facilitating communication between small 

businesses and the regulators. Generators often avoid asking 

regulators compliance questions due to a fear of enforcement, 

so the assistance providers, whom generators are more comfortable speaking with, help bridge the 

communication gap by reaching out to regulators on the generators’ behalf. 

• Assistance providers offer expertise on HW management: The Small Business Environmental 

Homepage survey showed 70 percent of the surveyed assistance providers who offer HW 

assistance provide expertise to generators, where expertise is defined as: providing your client 

with expertise (answers to questions, fact sheets, site visits, hands-on technical assistance, etc.) 

from within your SBAP/SBO program. For example, through the Small Business Technical 

Assistance Program, the New Hampshire Small Business Ombudsman conducts site visits for 

small businesses, helping them to come into compliance with various environmental regulations, 

including HW determination. 

• Assistance providers’ influence on HW determination compliance is limited by their ability 

to reach generators: Many of the assistance providers who provided input for this evaluation said 

their efforts are limited by the ability to reach small businesses. Despite working with state and 

municipal organizations to identify HW generators, many small businesses remain “off the radar” 

to assistance providers as well as state and federal inspectors. The sheer volume of small 

businesses prevents assistance providers from identifying all those who need help. Furthermore, 

they do not have the personnel or budgetary capacity to assist everyone. 

HW Service Providers

For this evaluation, IEc interviewed three HW services firms of varying sizes. All of the firms service 

generators of all classes, with one serving primarily SQGs and LQGs and one serving primarily CESQGs. 

Two of the firms make HW determinations on behalf of their clients. The other focuses on hauling and 

disposing their clients’ waste, rarely making determinations; however, this firm is utilized by many small 

businesses and as such, is uniquely attuned to HW service providers’ influence on small generators’ HW 

determinations. HW service providers influence HW determination compliance in the following roles:

• HW service providers are integral to the HW determination 

process for many generators: A large number of generators 

indicated they rely upon HW service providers to make their 

determinations because they do not have the time or expertise to 

comply with the HW determination regulations. In addition, seven 

of the eight trade association representatives said their members 

Influence 

of 

assistance 

providers?

Q5

“A small number of companies 

can monopolize small business 

assistance providers’ time. 

Getting to them early on 

means they can monopolize 

my time. We need a lot more 

help if we’re going to provide 

assistance to everyone.”

-SBEAP Representative
3-33

utilize HW services companies. Many businesses do not have dedicated environmental 

management staff, leaving the HW determination process to employees with many other 

responsibilities. Rather than risk improper HW management and the associated penalties, many

businesses subcontract with HW service providers to handle their HW management, including 

making HW determinations, transportation, and disposal.

• HW service providers are better positioned to make accurate HW determinations than many

generators: All three of the HW services representatives mentioned various technical resources 

they can access to make HW determinations for their clients. For example, one company maintains 

its own chemical database, housing approximately 50,000 records of appropriate HW

characterizations for various chemicals and chemical mixtures. All three of the firms interviewed 

noted they train their employees in making HW determinations. In addition, employees of these 

firms have access to colleagues with technical expertise and years of experience managing HW. 

Generators that choose to make their own HW determinations generally do not have access to such 

resources. 

• HW service providers over-characterize waste streams 

as hazardous: Two of the three HW service providers

indicated that in some cases they will err on the side of 

caution when making a HW determination. Many generators 

do not want to pay for expensive analytical testing on their 

waste streams. As a result, the service providers have to rely 

on generator knowledge to make the determination. If they 

cannot confidently make an accurate determination based 

upon this knowledge, they will characterize the waste as 

hazardous to ensure that it is managed safely. 

• There is a perception that financial incentives lead HW

service providers to mischaracterize waste streams: 

Some of the stakeholders suggest HW service providers over-characterize waste as hazardous so 

they can collect higher fees for managing a larger volume of HW. Stakeholders also report that 

HW service providers have an incentive to under-characterize HW. They suggest service 

providers will not classify waste as hazardous so they can offer clients a lower price to manage 

their waste, leaving the unsuspecting generator vulnerable to fines due to incorrect determinations.

Trade Associations

IEc interviewed eight trade association representatives for this evaluation. The selection of trade 

associations was based on information from the RCRAInfo queries about which sectors appear to have 

particular compliance issues, as well as trade associations specifically requested by EPA ORCR and 

OECA. Trade associations influence generator compliance with HW determination regulations through 

several pathways:

• Trade associations serve the role of assistance provider to their 

members: All of the trade association representatives stated their 

members seek HW determination guidance from their organization. 

Many of them provide guidance documents, training materials, and 

personal expertise with regard to making HW determinations. In 

Influence 

of 

assistance 

providers?

Q5

“Analytical [testing] is very 

expensive. Often times, 

customers don’t want to pay 

for that, so we have to rely 

on customer knowledge. I’m 

sure we over-classify in 

order to be sure it’s being 

managed.”

-Hazardous Waste Services 

Representative
3-34

addition, trade associations will set up educational conferences for their members that often have a 

HW management component. For example, the Printing Industries of America maintains an 

Environment, Health, and Safety division, which offers members access to industry-specific 

environmental compliance fact sheets, training programs, staff trained in EHS, and a consulting 

service that audits facilities to ensure regulatory compliance. 

• Trade associations work with regulators to assist their members with HW determination 

compliance: A number of the trade associations stated they previously collaborated with EPA to 

develop guidance documents and training materials geared towards their industry. This includes 

working together to develop regulatory interpretations and translating the regulations into layman 

terms. In some cases, trade associations invite EPA representatives to speak at industry 

conferences about specific HW issues. A few of the trade associations employ consultants or other 

HW experts to offer direct guidance about HW issues to their members. 

• Trade associations lobby for HW regulations favorable to their industry: Some of the trade 

association representatives mentioned they work to protect their industry’s interests in Washington, 

suggesting lobbying for favorable environmental regulations is part of their service to members. 

For example, the American Coatings Association has a Government Affairs Committee which 

oversees the Paint Council Network, described as “a network of grassroots organizations 

representing the association in its efforts to promote the interests of the paint and coatings industry 

at the state level. ACA’s Paint Councils provide a forum for companies doing business in those 

states to interact with each other and their elected officials.”35 In addition, the association also runs 

its own Political Action Committee called PaintPAC. PaintPAC makes monetary contributions to 

political candidates and advises elected officials on issues of interest to the industry. 

• Trade associations seek more cooperation with EPA: Several trade association representatives 

stated they would like more interaction with EPA when it comes to developing and interpreting 

HW regulations. A few individuals noted the relationship between industry and EPA has faded in 

recent years as some industry outreach programs have been cut. For example, one industry 

representative noted EPA no longer employs a sector outreach specialist to work directly with 

specific industries in order to help businesses come into compliance. 

• Trade associations’ influence on generators is generally limited to their members: A number 

of stakeholders indicated that while the trade associations are an excellent resource for generators, 

only a small portion of businesses belong to one. Due to membership fees, many small businesses 

forego joining trade associations and do not have access to the HW determination assistance they 

provide. 

QUESTION 6: WHAT CHANGES DO STAKEHOLDERS RECOMMEND TO MAKE THE 

NATIONAL HW DETERMINATION PROCESS MORE SUCCESSFUL?

Drawing on the comments provided by stakeholders during the interviews, discussions, and survey of 

federal partners, IEc identified 180 stakeholder recommendations to improve the national HW 

determination process. IEc organized these recommendations into 13 categories, as shown in Exhibit 15. 

The most common types of recommendation, by far, related to enhancing or expanding guidance 

available for making HW determinations. The following section describes each category of 

 35 http://www.paint.org/programs/paint-council-network.html
3-35

recommendation in more detail. In addition, Appendix E lists all of the recommendations identified 

during this evaluation organized by recommendation category.

EXHIBIT 15: Recommendations to Improve the National HW Determination Process 

RANK RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY

COUNT OF 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN 

THE CATEGORY

1 Provide, improve, and/or increase the guidance available for making 

HW determinations 52

2 Other (see Appendix E for more detail) 29

3 Simplify the regulations in general 17

4 Define and clearly interpret specific sections of the regulations 15

5 Address situations where applying the regulations is not practical 14

6 Increase collaboration with the regulated industries 10

7 Specific waste stream issues 9

8 Revisit listed wastes 8

9 Improve consistency between regulating agencies as well as the 

regulations themselves 8

10 Address unregulated waste streams known to be harmful to the 

environment 5

11 Increase enforcement 5

12 Require manufacturers to provide more product information to 

generators via the MSDS or other means 4

13 Require more documentation of the waste determination procedures 4

TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS 180

Recommended Q6 Changes?
3-36

• Provide, improve and/or increase the guidance available for 

making HW determinations: Many of the requests for 

guidance focused on providing industry-specific 

information. For example, multiple people requested 

EPA develop a document that calls out the most 

common waste streams generated by specific industries 

and provides their associated waste codes. They also 

recommended definitive guidance on specific products 

that are notoriously difficult for generators to characterize, such 

as aerosols and solvents, improving the accessibility of 

existing assistance resources, and reinstating the RCRA 

Hotline. 

• Other: Stakeholders provided many recommendations 

that stand on their own and do not fit well into the other 

categories. These recommendations cover a wide range 

of topics including: creating alternative methods for 

calculating generator status; providing generators with a 

list of labs certified to sample waste streams; increasing 

the budget of state agencies; switching the determination 

responsibility from generators to the EPA; and creating 

economic incentives for correct determinations. 

Appendix E provides a full listing of these 

recommendations.

• Simplify the regulations in general: Many 

recommendations suggested that EPA simplify the 

language and writing style of the HW determination 

regulations. For example, stakeholders frequently 

remarked that EPA should make the regulations linear to 

eliminate the constant referencing of previous sections 

and write them in “plain English,” to enable generators 

to understand them. Some stakeholders requested more 

fundamental changes such as eliminating listed wastes 

and making the HW determination irrespective of how 

the waste is used (e.g., recycled or reused).

• Define and clearly interpret specific sections of the 

regulations: A number of respondents recommended 

EPA make clear and definitive interpretations for 

sections of the regulations they consider vague. For 

example several people suggested EPA better define the 

terms “generator knowledge” and “point of generation.” 

They also recommend EPA disseminate these definitions 

to the regulated parties and be more accessible to 

“When a business is registered, 

provide a fact sheet that says 

‘these are what your typical waste 

streams will be.’"

-State Agency Representative

“Back when EPA ran the 1-800 

hotline to answer questions, I used 

it pretty often. That was a good 

thing. Those old answers are posted 

on an EPA web site but it is almost 

impossible to find the site.”

-Federal Facility Representative

“Simplify regulatory determination 

requirements. There are far too 

many intricacies in determining 

whether a solid waste is a 

hazardous waste, many of which 

have no bearing on whether they 

are potentially harmful to the 

environment if improperly 

disposed.”

-Federal Facility Representative

“Provide consumer product relief 

under the Universal Waste rules 

allowing consumer product waste 

determinations to be made at a 

consolidation or returns processing 

facility or provide a specific ruling 

on when waste determination must 

be made in the retail returns 

process.”

-Industry Representative
3-37

provide interpretations for generators that have questions about 

the regulations. 

• Address situations where applying the regulations is not 

practical: Generators and other stakeholders regularly discussed 

the need for EPA to address the impracticality of the regulations 

when applied to certain situations and industries. Specifically, 

they recommend EPA take action to ease the regulatory 

burden of the HW determination regulations as they 

pertain to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. We 

heard on multiple occasions that the classification of these 

waste streams as universal waste would be an effective 

measure in this regard. Respondents also noted that due to 

the outstanding concerns of this regulatory burden, there is 

a need for EPA to provide prompt responses to questions 

from people making HW determinations for these 

products.

• Increase collaboration with the regulated industries:

Generators, regulators, and assistance providers said EPA should work more closely with industry 

when developing regulations, issuing interpretations, and providing guidance. They expressed 

concern that EPA sometimes fails to adequately engage the industries they regulate, thus missing 

out on opportunities to coordinate efforts to increase 

generator compliance.

• Specific waste stream issues: A number of individuals 

recommended improving the regulations for specific 

waste streams. Those waste streams mentioned on more 

than one occasion include acetone, aerosol cans, and 

pharmaceuticals.

• Revisit listed wastes: Several stakeholders recommended 

EPA make changes to the listed waste regulations. In 

particular, they suggest that EPA remove outdated 

listings, base the listings on the presence of toxic 

constituents as opposed to a narrative description of the waste generation process used for the Flisted wastes, and clean up and streamline the regulatory language in general.

• Improve consistency between regulating agencies as well as the regulations themselves: A

number of stakeholders recommend that all states develop consistent HW determination 

regulations to eliminate the difficulties generators experience trying to comply with different 

regulations for each state. (Given the delegated nature of the program, implementing this 

recommendation would be outside of EPA’s control.) Stakeholders also recommend EPA and the 

states develop consistent guidance on specific issues such as satellite accumulation. Furthermore, 

they recommend coordination with other agencies that regulate the same materials, so they do not 

“Eliminate outdated and 

unnecessary hazardous waste 

listings. If hazardous wastes 

were determined solely on 

objective analytical criteria, 

most problems could be 

avoided."

-Industry Representative

“The fire department says one 

thing and allows material to be 

thrown away but RCRA says 

differently, such as the 

evaporation of solvents used on 

rag, which could be an F-listed 

waste. I recommend outreach on 

every level, [including] talking 

with the fire department.

- State Regulator

Recommended Q6 Changes?
3-38

give generators conflicting guidance. For example, EPA and the local fire department regulate 

some of the same materials for different purposes. However, the compliance requirements differ 

between agencies. 

• Address unregulated waste streams known to be harmful to the environment: Stakeholders 

recommend EPA take the lead on regulating wastes known or suspected to be environmentally 

damaging but not currently regulated, such as nanoparticles and certain pharmaceuticals. In 

addition, they recommend adding new chemicals to the listed wastes.

• Increase enforcement: A few stakeholders recommend 

that EPA increase its enforcement efforts to help 

encourage greater compliance with the HW 

determination regulations. They also recommend 

increasing the number of inspections and having them 

conducted on a routine basis, so generators are less 

willing to risk non-compliance because they are unlikely 

to be inspected. One person said that EPA should create a penalty for “over coding,” where 

generators classify non-HW as hazardous when they are uncertain of the correct determination.

• Require manufacturers to provide more product information to generators via the MSDS 

or other means: Stakeholders recommend EPA encourage manufacturers to provide more 

product disposal information to generators. Specifically, they ask that RCRA waste codes and end 

of life disposal information be included on the MSDS. In addition, one person requested that the 

information on the MSDS be tailored for the specific industry using the product.36

• Require more documentation of the waste determination procedures: Stakeholders 

recommend EPA require generators to document their HW determination process, including the 

names of individuals who make the determination.

In addition to suggestions raised through the interviews and open discussions, EPA gathered 

recommendations through the federal facilities survey. Exhibit 16 shows responses to the federal

facilities survey question: If you had an opportunity, what would you want EPA or your state to do to 

help facilities like yours make HW determinations more effectively?

The recommendations are in accord with those provided during the interviews and discussion sessions. In 

both cases, improving guidance and assistance for generators is the most 

frequent recommendation and clarifying the content and language of the 

regulations is highly recommended. However, the responses are not directly 

comparable because respondents to the federal facilities survey ranked a list 

of pre-established answers as opposed to offering independent 

recommendations, as respondents in interviews and discussion sessions did.

 36 EPA points out that it does not have authority over MSDSs, and that the specifications for MSDSs are set by OSHA. EPA could, however, advocate 

for such changes with OSHA.

“Audit our facilities & enforce 

non-compliance occasionally.

Management doesn't recognize 

non-compliance as a problem!”

-Federal Facility Representative

Recommended Q6 Changes?
3-39

EXHIBIT 16: Recommendations for EPA or States to Help Facilities Make HW

Determinations More Effectively

RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY

PERCENT RANKING 

RECOMMENDATION AS 

MOST IMPORTANT

Provide user-friendly guidance 34%

Improve the clarity of the regulations and guidance 23%

Improve the readability of the regulations and 

guidance 16%

Provide a hotline dedicated to helping generators 

make more accurate determinations 12%

Other 11%

Provide on-site technical assistance upon request 8%

Offer periodic webinar training 8%

Recommended Q6 Changes?
4-1

CHAPTER 4 | OVERARCHING THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This evaluation compiled information from a wide range of stakeholders along with analysis of available 

data in order to assess the effectiveness of EPA’s HW determination program. The evaluation suggests 

that there are many inter-related factors influencing compliance with HW determination regulations, and 

that aside from the regulations themselves, many of the greatest influences on generator compliance are 

beyond EPA’s direct control. Nevertheless, EPA has the opportunity to make some direct changes to 

improve its program. In addition, EPA can use its influence with states, assistance providers, trade 

associations, and other stakeholders to increase communication, resources, and attention to the issue in 

order to maximize compliance. 

OVERARCHING THEMES

Several overarching themes emerge from this evaluation:

• Many stakeholders would like EPA to simplify and improve the HW determination

regulations. Stakeholders indicated that the regulatory language sacrifices clarity in an attempt to 

cover all possible scenarios where the regulations apply. This degree of detail complicates the 

regulations, making them difficult for generators to interpret and apply. In addition, stakeholders 

express concern that listed wastes may not cover important types of waste that may be hazardous

(e.g., chemotherapy drugs). Stakeholders also suggested that EPA reclassify some HW as 

universal waste.

• Certain stakeholders expressed frustration with the non-intuitive, complex process of 

making HW determinations. Stakeholders suggested that if people without experience or 

training in making HW determinations perceive the regulations to be overly complicated, not 

logical, or overly time consuming they may become discouraged and give up on their efforts to 

ensure proper waste determination. Stakeholders who are well trained and have years of 

experience with waste determinations are not as likely to raise this concern, though they also seek 

improvements to the regulations. 

• Generators seek greater clarity about how to apply the existing regulations to their 

operations. Stakeholders said that it would be very helpful to have sector-specific guidance for 

typical waste streams, paired with an opportunity to ask detailed questions and get prompt 

feedback from EPA for non-typical waste streams. While EPA cannot make HW determinations 

for generators and requirements vary depending on state regulations, there appears to be an 

opportunity for EPA to share assistance materials and tools to supplement state resources.

• In practice many generators have essentially “outsourced” the HW determination process 

(even though by law generators themselves must make HW determinations). For a number of 

reasons, including financial constraints, time constraints, and the complexity of the regulations,

many generators hire HW service providers to manage their HW or rely on information from other 
4-2

third parties (e.g., suppliers) to make their determinations. Some HW service providers make HW 

determinations on behalf of their clients, while others simply offer information as to whether a 

waste stream is hazardous or not. HW service providers often have particular expertise and 

resources that enable them to make accurate HW determinations. However, if they are relying on 

incomplete or incorrect information from generators, or if they are motivated by financial 

incentives to under-or over- classify waste as hazardous, HW service providers may contribute to 

inaccurate HW determinations.

• Stakeholders report that a combination of compliance monitoring and enforcement and

compliance assistance is an effective approach to improving compliance with HW 

determination regulations. This evaluation finds that many HW generators do not recognize 

their HW determination regulatory obligations until they have been contacted by EPA, the state, or 

an assistance provider. However, reduced funding at the state and federal level has prevented 

regulating agencies from expanding their compliance monitoring efforts and assistance providers 

from expanding their outreach and guidance efforts. 

• Current compliance data do not facilitate calculation of non-compliance rates pertaining to

HW determination regulations. Inspections tracked in RCRAInfo do not reflect representative 

samples of facilities and may therefore provide inaccurate indications of compliance rates. 

Moreover, inspectors apparently may use 262.11 as a default violation during an inspection of a 

facility with numerous violations. Use of this code does not reflect the severity of the violation. 

IEC’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO EPA

Based on the lessons gathered during this evaluation, IEc has developed nine recommendations for EPA, 

which we group into two categories: (1) improvements EPA can make directly to its own program; and 2) 

opportunities to work with other stakeholders to influence generators. We summarize each of these 

recommendations below.

Overall, IEc suggests changes to the HW determination process to address the interrelated challenges that 

lead to non-compliance with the HW determination regulations. For example, in addition to providing 

regulatory interpretations that clarify sections of the regulations, EPA should also disseminate the new 

information to the generators, ideally through assistance providers, HW service providers, and/or trade 

associations who already have relationships with generators.

1. To the Extent Possible, Simplify and Improve the Regulations, and Provide SectorSpecific Guidance

The evaluators suggest EPA look for opportunities to simplify the regulatory language and revise it to 

include fewer references to previous sections and more focus on addressing the majority of applicable 

situations. Where it is not possible to simplify the regulations, IEc suggests that EPA provide more 

sector-specific plain language guidance, to help generators and stakeholders interpret the regulatory 

language.

The evaluators suggest that EPA also consider whether the listed wastes capture the appropriate wastes. 

We recommend that EPA consider incorporating newer chemicals on to the P- and U-lists, e.g., 

chemotherapy drugs. We suggest EPA consider making some wastes universal wastes (e.g., aerosol cans, 

pharmaceuticals, and expired or returned retail products). Further, EPA should consider clarifying the F-
4-3

and P/U-listed wastes. In addition to clarifying the narrative process descriptions that result in an F-listed 

waste, IEc suggests EPA consider explicitly stating the common constituents regulated under each Flisting. We recommend that EPA consider addressing the confusion around the applicability of the P- and 

U-listings only to products in which the listed chemical is the sole active ingredient. (In other words, we 

suggest EPA consider clarifying why a commercial chemical product is not a U- or P-listed HW if it has 

two or more active ingredients, even if all the ingredients are listed on the U- or P- list.).

2. Establish a Direct Line of Communication between EPA and HW Stakeholders

Stakeholders indicated that opportunities for communication with EPA have decreased in recent years, 

contributing to the challenges generators face in complying with the HW determination regulations. They 

noted difficulty getting responses to HW determination questions from EPA and said that written 

inquiries often go unanswered. This perceived lack of communication seems to contribute to the distrust 

of the Agency some stakeholders harbor. We recommend the Agency consider creating avenues to 

facilitate better communication between EPA and stakeholders. Reinstituting the RCRA Hotline in one 

form or another is one potential mechanism.37 Throughout this evaluation, stakeholders referred to the 

Hotline as an invaluable resource to the regulated community that enabled stakeholders to discuss 

difficult questions that inevitably arise when generators apply the regulations. Stakeholders experienced 

in making HW determinations lamented the loss of the RCRA Hotline, saying it was a vital resource, 

even for people who have been making accurate HW determinations for years. The Hotline’s ability to 

connect stakeholders with another person to discuss questions about applying the RCRA regulations 

facilitated an interpersonal connection between the Agency and the regulated community that cannot be 

replicated by providing regulatory assistance documents and interpretations online. 

3. Make Guidance Documents Easily Accessible via RCRA Online and Make the Generator 

Website More User-Friendly

During the course of this evaluation, several stakeholders said that although RCRA Online contains some 

useful information it is often difficult to locate and the system is generally confusing to navigate. We 

recommend that EPA improve the visibility of guidance documents and interpretations on the site. For 

example, a generator visiting the site would likely be interested in specific pieces of information that are 

currently spread across four separate links on the front page:

• Sector specific guidance documents are available under the RCRA in Focus section, which is 

reached by clicking the Laws & Regulations link.

• Fact sheets about specific hazardous materials are located under the Publications section within 

the Information Resources link.

• The Educational Materials link provides access to the RCRA Orientation Manual and RCRA 

Training Modules.

• The RCRA Frequent Questions Database is accessed by a separate link in the text of the front 

page (see Exhibit 17). 

The Agency should consider making resources for generators more accessible, including generator 

guidance information and links to state and assistance provider websites.

 
4-4

EXHIBIT 17: EPA’s Current RCRA Online Website

4. Improve Tracking of Compliance Rates for HW Determination

We recommend that EPA revise RCRAInfo to facilitate tracking of violations specifically related to 40 

CFR 262.11 and encourage EPA inspectors to consistently use this code to track HW determination 

violations. EPA may also wish to consider tracking the severity of HW determination violations. In 

addition, we recommend that EPA consider flagging targeted inspections vs. regularly scheduled 

inspections, so as to enable improved data analysis. Ideally, if tracking compliance with HW 

determination regulations is a high priority for the Agency, EPA would support representative sampling 

of facilities to accurately measure compliance rates, either at the state or federal level. For example, EPA 

Regions could work with states to gather representative data on compliance, and track this information 

periodically to gauge progress. Overall, we recommend that EPA consider improving RCRAInfo and the 

compliance monitoring data it stores to facilitate accurate, comparable, and consistent tracking of noncompliance rates over time.

Opportunities to Work with Other Stakeholders

5. Identify Opportunities to Improve Communications with State Agencies to Inform 

Regulatory Interpretations

By communicating with the states, EPA’s interpretations are more likely to reflect actual situations 

generators face since communication is greater between generators and the state than between generators 

and EPA. For example, Minnesota praised EPA ORCR for recently pre-emptively seeking comments to a 

regulatory interpretation, noting that in its opinion EPA interpretations are usually issued without state 

input.

6. Improve Coordination with Other Agencies whose Regulations Overlap with Those of 

EPA

On more than one occasion, stakeholders discussed specific situations where another agency’s regulatory 

guidelines conflict with EPA’s. For example, sometimes the local fire department will inform a generator 

that they can dispose of an item as solid waste (likely based on regulations from OSHA or DOT). 
4-5

However, the HW determination regulations may require this item to be characterized and handled as 

HW. To address these inconsistencies, we recommend that the Agency investigate the claims described in 

this evaluation and coordinate with the respective agencies to avoid distributing guidance to generators

that conflicts with guidance from other agencies. EPA should also seek input from states, assistance 

providers, and generators about other instances of conflicting regulations and resolve these situations.

7. Encourage Best Practices among States

State agencies conduct a wide range of compliance monitoring and assistance activities. For example, 

generator self-certification programs, like those in Colorado, Massachusetts and other states have the 

potential to increase generators’ awareness of compliance requirements while also providing better 

compliance information to regulators. Hotlines devoted to answering generators’ questions facilitate 

communication between industry and regulators and help generators apply the regulations to make 

accurate HW determinations. Coordination across state agencies can help inspectors identify new 

businesses subject to HW regulations. We recommend EPA facilitate communication between the states 

so they can learn from each other’s approaches. We recognize that EPA provides competitive grants to 

fund the sector-based compliance assistance centers, and that these are good clearinghouses for 

compliance assistance materials. However, we also encourage EPA to help states learn from each other 

with regard to best practices, such as approaches to targeting state inspections and making new generators 

aware of their obligations.

8. Promote Best Practices from Federal Facilities

EPA should use the federal facilities survey information, collected for this evaluation, to encourage HW 

determination best practices amongst generators. For example, EPA could issue a memo to assistance 

providers, trade associations, and other stakeholders that frequently interact with generators, stating that 

EPA’s review of federal facilities revealed that federal HW generators that implement processes for 

making HW determinations are more likely to make accurate HW determinations. The memo could point 

to resources that could assist facilities in developing appropriate waste determination processes (e.g., a 

decision-tree, such as Texas has developed or example procedures developed by federal facilities 

themselves). The memo could also include other federal HW generator best practices the Agency has 

identified. This would help generators understand the actions they can take to improve HW determination 

compliance.

9. Develop a Communications Strategy to Increase Awareness of Compliance Monitoring 

Presence and Enforcement Actions Related to HW Determination

This evaluation revealed that the perception that they “will not get caught” lulls some generators into a 

sense of complacency, instead of taking the time and effort to make accurate HW determinations. Where 

possible, EPA and the states should increase their field presence and inspection frequency. In addition, 

the Agency should consider taking steps to increase awareness of its compliance monitoring and

enforcement actions when they occur. EPA could alert trade associations and assistance providers about 

recent compliance and enforcement actions, so that awareness of EPA’s presence would be magnified. In 

addition, EPA could provide information about the most common types of violations, what generators can 

do to prevent them, and where they can get further compliance assistance. This communications strategy

would broadcast EPA’s compliance monitoring presence to an audience much larger than can be reached 

through inspections alone and would motivate generators to take steps to come into compliance.