Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Miscellaneous Subjects)

Stakeholder: EnviroVizion/Virotec Topic: New Product

Comment: ElectroBind is a new and proven metal sequestration technology for the plating 

industry developed by Virotec and licensed by EnviroVizion in North America. Because it is 

prepared from an industrial by-product, it is inexpensive and the use of the material provides an 

excellent example of Green Technology?. It can be prepared as pure Bauxsol or as one of many 

possible blends designed to enhance its capacity to treat contaminated waters with different 

compositions.

Stakeholder: US Oncology, Inc. Topic: Health Care Industry

Comment: I have noticed an increase of inspections and citations of healthcare institutions for 

RCRA violations. I believe this being as the USEPA and permitted States continue to recognize 

the complicated and voluminous numbers of hazardous materials used in administering healthcare 

and in support of that effort. However, very few of the more than 8500 USEPA staff members have 

ample background, knowledge nor understanding of compliance concerns specific to the 

Healthcare Industry. 

As we continue to utilize more and more hazardous chemicals for patient care, as within Oncology 

and Chemotherapy agents, this area of RCRA is often overlooked by the USEPA. In fact, much of 

what must be done with respect to healthcare P-listed waste and U-listed waste fails most EPA 

agents. It is important that resources for healthcare compliance become available, including 

educating individuals within the USEPA that can address common problems you are now finding 

through your inspection and citation process. 

Stakeholder: Internet Site -

OregonLive.com

Topic: Cleanup at HW Generator facility

Comment: Diary of Portland hazardous waste generator (Columbia American Plating 

-electroplator) where EPA sent $1.7 million cleaning up releases to environment. 

Stakeholder: American Chemical 

Society

Topic: Regulation of Certain Hydrogen-3 and 

Carbon-14 Low-Level Radioactive Wastes

Comment: BACKGROUND: Laboratories in academic, medical and pharmaceutical research 

facilities are the primary generators of low-level mixed wastes containing hazardous solvents. 

Under current Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules a radioactive materials licensee may

dispose of certain low level LSC media as if it were non-radioactive.

PROPOSAL: The Environmental Protection Agency should work with the NRC to achieve 

consistency in regulation, allowing all hazardous wastes containing H-3 and C-14 at 
concentrations currently deregulated in LSC to be similarly deregulated without regard to the 

process that generated the waste.

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: State authorization

Comment: Develop a process to allow immediate authorization for states to implement less 

stringent rules that are promulgated (by EPA?)

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Waste delistings

Comment: Streamline the ability of states to delist wastes meeting defined standards

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Generators using contractors

Comment: Generator Responsibilities for Hazardous Waste Generated by Contractors. EPA 

should revise the generator standards to create a generator category for contractors, with full 

responsibility for generator duties when generating hazardous waste at locations owned by their 

customers.

Discussion. Under current regulations hazardous waste generated from construction or 

maintenance operations is normally manifested under the facility owner’s EPA identification 

number. This arrangement leaves the facility owner in the awkward position of being directly 

responsible for waste management and disposal activities that are contractually the responsibility

of the contractor. We believe a better approach would be to establish within regulation a Generator 

definition and category that could be applied to companies that generate waste at multiple sites 

owned by others. The new generator category could be applied to construction and demolition 

contractors who generate hazardous waste by removing regulated materials during demolition or 

renovation, or by performing on-site maintenance of their equipment. We envision the new 

generator category would work as follows:

(1) The contractor would have their own EPA generator ID number that would be used for 

manifesting, waste tracking, and compliance purposes.

(2) The contractor would be responsible for all actions related to the manifest (i.e. preparation, 

tracking, record keeping)

(3) The contractor would be allowed to transfer small quantities of hazardous waste off-site to their 

own centralized 90-day accumulation area for consolidation prior to disposal. This approach 

would place primary responsibility for day-to-day management of hazardous wastes more clearly 

on the corporation or individual actually generating the waste.

Recommendation. We recommend that EPA develop a regulatory approach that would place 

greater responsibility for RCRA generator requirements on those construction and maintenance 

contractors with the hands-on role of actually generating the hazardous waste.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Incompatible wastes

Comment: Incompatible Wastes with the Same Waste Code. Comment. Some hazardous wastes 

bearing the same waste codes are incompatible and should not be stored or accumulated together. 

Modifying the waste code to better guide the segregation of these wastes during accumulation 
would be an improvement.

Discussion. The D001 Waste Code for ignitable wastes should be re-defined so that flammables 

and Department of Transportation (DOT) oxidizers do not bear the same waste code. Title 40 CFR 

261.21 defines the characteristic of ignitability to include substances that are an oxidizer as defined 

in 49 CFR 173.151; yet, wastes that are oxidizers should be accumulated separately from those that 

are ignitable, such as waste fuels which currently bear the same D001 Waste Code. Likewise, 

D002 should be split so that acids and caustics have different Waste Codes.

Recommendation. Modify the waste codes so that incompatible waste types do not have the same 

waste codes.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Derived from rule

Comment: EPA should codify de minimus exit concentrations from RCRA subtitleC for listed 

waste treatment residues under the Derived From Rule.

Discussion. RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 261.3(c) state that any solid waste generated from the 

treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste, including any sludge, spill residue, ash, 

emission control dust, or leachate (but not including precipitation run-off) is a hazardous waste; 

but, there are no de minimus values established for listed wastes based on constituent 

concentrations.

Recommendation. In addition to the existing delisting petition process, EPA ought to codify a 

RCRA exit strategy for wastes or waste treatment residues contaminated with de minimus amounts 

of listed wastes.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Barriers to Reclaiming Lead-Based Painted 

Wood

Comment. RCRA hazardous waste regulations discourage the re-use of wood or other building 

materials painted with lead-based paint.

Discussion. Painted boards can often be planed to remove paint and yield a salable product. The 

painted wood with intact paint is typically not a

hazardous waste by the TCLP test method. However, planing the wood can generate a hazardous 

waste by concentrating the lead-based paint in the form of shavings and paint chips. Although the 

act of planing painted wood boards to recover re-salable wood is environmentally beneficial, in 

that solid waste is minimized and the hazardous constituent (lead) is segregated for management as 

hazardous waste, under the current biennial reporting system this reclaiming activity would be 

penalized rather than rewarded. A business or government entity that recovered material with this 

approach would have to report the generation of increased amounts of hazardous waste.

The accounting of progress made under pollution prevention programs should be independent of 

such legacy hazardous materials and wastes. EPA should consider providing an additional Source 

Code for use in biennial reporting that recognizes a category of generation of hazardous waste 

from removal of legacy hazardous materials such as lead-based paint. This Source Code would 

logically be grouped with the codes for “other intermittent events or processes.”

Recommendation. We recommend EPA provide an additional Source Code for biennial reporting 

that recognizes a category of generation of hazardous waste due to removal of legacy hazardous 

materials such as lead-based paint.

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Used Oil
Comment: While perhaps not specifically requested for comment, the DE-DNREC would prefer 

to see the Part 279, Standards for the Management of Used Oil, especially as they relate to 

generators, amended to include provisions for secondary containment, as well as a requirement to 

maintain closed containers. Oftentimes used oil generator operations are dirty, with drips and spills 

impacting soils. Too, we find uncovered containers being exposed to rainfall, with oily rainwater 

mixtures overflowing the containers and contaminating surrounding soils. 

Stakeholder: Private Citizen - Gerald L. 

Mason

Topic: Definition of Wastewaters

Comment: Problem Definition

Definition of Wastewaters (WW) and Nonwastwaters (NWW), as found in 40 CFR 268.2, is 

unclear and leads to contradiction. The current wording reads: 

d. Nonwastewaters are wastes that do not meet the criteria for wastewaters in paragraph (f) of this 

section.

e. 

f. Wastewaters are wastes that contain less than 1% by weight total organic carbon (TOC)

Background: The WW definition doesn’t say whether the material is a liquid or aqueous. It can be 

assumed that the definition is talking about a liquid; however, in seeking clarification from both 

the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (UDSHW) and EPA Region VIII, I asked if I 

could assume that WW meant "an aqueous solution that contains less than 1% by weight total 

organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1% by weight total suspended solids (TSS)." I was told by

both regulatory agencies that I could not make the assumption.

Examples:

The current definition failed when I would receive liquid water-reactive wastes such as 

Titaniumtetrachloride or Phosphorous oxychloride. Using the strict WW definition, a material like 

elemental Mercury would be classified as a WW. However, when finding a treatment standard in 

40 CFR 268.40, the water-reactive WW treatment lists "NA" and the D009 High Mercury

subcategory WW treatment also lists "NA."

Proposed Resolution

Revise the WW definition to read "Wastewaters are aqueous wastes that contain less than 1% by

weight total organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1% by weight total suspended solids (TSS)."
Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Listings - U & P Wastes

Comment: Regarding the U and P lists, States were under the impression that EPA was going to 

finish rulemaking for these lists for mixtures. We disagree with use of the “sole active ingredient” 

rationale to consider these materials and listed wastes - particularly when it comes to the cleanup 

of mixtures.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Storage w/o a permit

Comment: Current regulations presume that the waste can be held without a permit for a specified 

period of time. There are certain staging activities that cannot always be confined to permitted 

areas, and the regulations need to address those activities and make sure they still occur under rules 

of prudent management, if not covered under the permit. 

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Topic: Pilot projects

Comment: Several of the proposed program improvements proposed in these comments could be 

“piloted” with Performance Track members, such as PNNL, if EPA desires to further examine the 

effectiveness of such changes. Examples of such changes could include expanded satellite 

accumulation quantities, especially if secondary containment is provided where necessary. EPA 

could also consider extending the provisions of the laboratory Project XL (262 Subpart J) to 

Performance Track members that are laboratories. This would help EPA determine if the 

alternative standards would be effective in meeting the goals of the program. 

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Topic: Analysis of state programs

Comment: We encourage EPA to study the differences between generator regulations in the 

various authorized states and report to Congress on the results of this study. PNNL recognizes the 

importance of allowing states to have more stringent generator regulations than the federal 

program. Legitimate public policy concerns can require individual states to regulate generators 

somewhat differently. State-specific transportation and disposal options may contribute to 

generator regulation. We note, however, that in many cases, politics, rather than sound science or 

policy concerns, seem to dictate differences between state and federal regulations. While a 

Federally regulated waste exhibits the same hazards in every state, different state standards may 

apply to generators of those wastes. Since EPA has already made a comprehensive evaluation of 

the regulation of generators, it seems that differences between state regulatory programs for 

generators should be relatively few and far between. This does not appear to be the case. States 

sometimes utilize the generator regulation program to have the appearance of “getting tough” on 

hazardous waste generators. In many cases, such actions do not have a public policy benefit (e.g. 

minimization of hazardous waste generation), but simply increase costs to regulated generators.
We also note that the increasing diversity between state generator regulations has impacts on 

business climate and competitiveness in some states. It also impacts the cost of providing services 

for residents of states that choose to regulate generators more stringently. While EPA cannot 

impact the regulations in authorized states, EPA should be sensitive to state programs’ concerns in 

order to avoid a patchwork of state-by-state regulation under RCRA generator programs.

Stakeholder: IPC Topic: Program Priorities

Comment: Conclusions. At the end of the ANPRM, EPA alludes to the need to prioritize agency

efforts given limited available resources, asking commenters to, “Identify the top three priority 

projects you would like to see EPA undertake in the near future.” IPC believes that while the 

intentions of evaluating the twenty year old RCRA Generator Standards are sound, limited 

resources require a more rigorous examination of the purpose, goals, and likely success of the 

proposed rule. IPC strongly believes that EPA should make it their highest priority to undertake 

the broad based reform outlined in the DSW Proposed Rule’s Preamble by excluding those 

materials legitimately recycled or reclaimed from Subtitle C RCRA jurisdiction. Absent such 

reform, it is recommended that EPA pursue individual materials exclusions such as a RCRA 

exemption for the reclamation of metals containing F006.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: SQGs - Subpart W rules

Comment: SQG access to the Subpart W standards of 40CFR – Also, the regulations are unclear 

as to whether SQGs (262.34(d) & (e)) can take advantage of the drip pad standards found in 

Subpart W of 40CFR. When the drip pad rules of Subpart W were initially adopted this was not 

really a

problem, as the rules defined process waters from a pressure cylinder as hazardous waste. Since a 

wood treater that did any significant amount of treating in a month could easily produce 1000kg of 

process wastewater, very few wood treaters were SQGs. However, the changes in the

rules that allowed wood treaters to exempt their process waters from regulation as a hazardous 

waste changed this situation dramatically. Now many small wood treaters fall into the SQG 

classification. Because the regulations are not clear on the ability of an SQG wood treater to

utilize drip pads, these small wood treaters are being held to a much higher standard of waste 

handling than the larger LQG wood treaters. To resolve this issue, ADEM recommends that 

262.34(d) be changed to explicitly allow SQGs to take advantage of Subpart W of 40CFR. 
Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Provide easier access to regulatory

assistance

Stakeholder: State of New York Topic: Universal Waste

Comment: Universal Waste Rule Revision. On Page 21803, USEPA solicits suggestions on what 

parts of the current program can be improved. With respect to the Universal Waste Rule of Part 

273, it is our experience that the proper management of unused hazardous products (e.g., unused 

pharmaceuticals) under the current regulatory framework is not effectively occurring. The current 

regulations serve as an impediment to environmentally-sound and cost-effective “take back” 

programs and “reverse distribution” facilities. For example, the regulated community is unclear of 

what is expected of them when unused products are being returned to the manufacturer and utilize 

reverse distribution facilities even when the products will not be recycled or reused. An innovative

solution worth considering is adding the reverse distribution of “unused commercial products” to 

the Universal Waste Rule. An unused commercial product is an article of commerce produced and 

created by human effort and which has not been put to use. Examples may include expired 

pharmaceuticals, paints, cosmetics, boat flares, and ammunition. These are often regulated as 

hazardous waste under the existing regulations if they cannot be reclaimed.

We would propose that unused commercial products being returned to the distributor or 

manufacturer be regulated as a new class of universal wastes.1 These new regulations would allow 

the initial, nonhousehold generator of these wastes to transport them to a manufacturer, 

intermediate party or central location for consolidation, segregation and further shipment to a 

disposal location, without the first location having to comply with the hazardous waste regulations, 

including the use of a hazardous waste manifest. Initial generators would be required to meet 

certain standards such as generally keeping the wastes in their original packaging, storing no more 

than one year, and complying with all applicable Department of Transportation requirements. The 

first point of consolidation of these wastes, after they leave the original generator, would be 

viewed regulatorily as the “generator” of these unused discarded commercial products for 

purposes of the hazardous waste regulations and would have to comply with all generator 

standards, including manifesting.

We believe that this regulatory change would improve an area of USEPA's regulations, as well as 

facilitate the proper management of these wastes. The Department is in the early stages of adding 

discarded unused commercial products to its Universal Waste Rule regulations.

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Program effectiveness - Examples

Examples of areas that are working well are:

(A) The “Self-Classification System” whereby generators are required to classify waste in 

accordance with rules and report to the oversight agency.

(B) A system of audits and support staff to assist generators 

(C) TCEQ’s ability to classify waste in cases of enforcement 

The TCEQ recommends, with respect to the question of whether the regulations are easy to 

understand, that when referencing other parts, subparts or sections the title of the referenced part, 
subpart or section be placed in parentheses following the reference. This would facilitate 

understanding how the various references relate to each other. For example: “§ 261.5 (c) When 

making the quantity determinations of this part and 40 CFR part 262 (Standards Applicable to 

Generators of Hazardous Waste), the generator must include all hazardous waste that it generates, 

except hazardous waste that: - - -.”

The TCEQ recommends that in § 262.12, EPA identification numbers, the words or approved state 

program be added after “the Administrator” in subsections (a)The TCEQ recommends that § 

262.34 (c) be updated with the interpretations suggested in the March 17, 2004, memorandum 

from Mr. Robert Springer, Director of the Office of Solid Waste, concerning Satellite 

Accumulation Areas Frequently Asked Questions. and (b) to reflect the current procedure. 

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: RCRA OnLine

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA continue to operate the “RCRA Online” program 

and the associated 1-800 number. Also, links to state compliance assistance programs should be 

provided on EPA’s website. 

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: National Environmental Data Exchange

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA continue to build a national environmental data 

network to facilitate the electronic exchange of data between the regulated community, states, and 

EPA to eliminate duplication of effort and provide for more efficient use of reported data. 

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Performance Measurement

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA continue to develop performance-based metrics to 

report overall source reduction and waste minimization results reported by the regulated 

community.

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Set priorities

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA prioritize pollution prevention programs to target 

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

and the environment.

The TCEQ recommends that EPA consider alignment of the existing and future Resource 

Conservation Challenge (RCC) programs, such as the National Waste Minimization Partnership, 

with existing state programs to promote a more coordinated effort which provides recognition at 

the state and federal level. 

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

the NEPT.

Burden reductions and pollution prevention/recycling benefits could be achieved through 

additional By-Product Synergy education. The difficulty is in placing this effort into a reasonable 

and reliable performance measure.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition 

(GAC)

Topic: Speculative Accumulation

Comment: The GAC supports revision of the “speculative accumulation” requirements to provide 
more flexibility for recycling, especially for smaller businesses. Currently, if a facility

accumulating the material cannot demonstrate that 75 percent or more of the material is recycled in 

a calendar year, commencing on January 1, then the material is deemed a waste and must be 

managed and disposed of under RCRA regulations. The GAC suggests revising the standard to 

allow facilities to demonstrate usage over a longer period of time or over a rolling average 

period. For example, a facility that has demonstrated recycling activities under the 

speculative accumulation requirement for a certain period of time could be afforded an 

additional amount of time to demonstrate future recycling efforts. In the alternative, facilities 

could be afforded a rolling annual average period, instead of the period commencing on January 1, 

demonstrating that on a rolling average – 75 percent of the material was recycled within a year 

from the date of generation. Such options would be beneficial for small businesses where the 

current prescriptive regulations may not afford enough flexibility to cost justify recycling efforts. 

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition 

(GAC)

Topic: Lead Based Paint

Comment: EPA prepared a draft guidance document that addresses the disposal of 

equipment coated with lead based paint. The GAC asks that EPA consider finalizing and 

publishing this document to clear up questions regarding proper disposal procedures that 

should be implemented for this type of situation.

Stakeholder: DOE Topic: RCRA OnLine

Comment: DOE has found the RCRA Online service provided on the EPA Web page to be a 

useful tool for generator understanding of applicable requirements. The ready availability of 

EPA guidance and regulatory interpretations compiled in this database offers the regulated 

community a valuable source of materials that aid in understanding the RCRA implementing 

regulations and assist in addressing the many waste management issues that arise. The 

Department encourages the EPA to continue providing current information and guidance via 

RCRA Online.

Stakeholder: DOE Topic: EMSs

Comment: As the EPA is aware, Executive Order 13148, “Greening the Government Though 

Leadership in Environmental Management,” requires all federal agencies to implement EMSs at 

appropriate agency facilities by December 31, 2005. Accordingly, DOE has developed a 

directive (DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection Program) that requires DOE facilities to 

implement EMSs as part of existing Integrated Safety Management Systems (ISMS). DOE notes 

the EMSs implemented at the Department’s facilities have and will continue to improve 

environmental performance at those facilities. The EPA could provide additional incentive 

for facilities that have EMSs in place through relief from administrative and other 

requirements, possibly in the form of reduced reporting requirements and frequency of 

inspections for generators with records of good compliance.
2.. 2. DOE suggests that the EPA expand the University Laboratories XL Project 

in 40 CFR part 262, subpart J to allow participation by additional academic 

and research laboratories who implement EMSs, including DOE national 

laboratories and technology centers, as well as other research laboratories 

operated by other federal agencies. 

Stakeholder: DOE Topic: State Programs

Comment: The California Health and Safety Code sections 25123.5 (treatment definition), 

25143.14 (residues), 25150.6 (exemptions), and 25200.3.1 (laboratory waste management) 

adopt bench top treatment regulations giving research institutions, such as DOE 

laboratories, some flexibility in treating hazardous wastes. Treatment residues are 

rendered non-hazardous, and under specific controlled conditions are discharged to the 

sanitary sewer at constituent-specific concentration levels which do not exceed regulatory 

limits established by the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). DOE recommends that 

the EPA review the risks and hazards associated with the California approach and, if appropriate, 

adopt a similar federal program allowing laboratories to perform small-scale treatment on some 

types of hazardous wastes without a permit. 

2. 2. Some States (e.g., California) promote environmentally responsible recycling of 

electronic wastes [see California Code of Regulations §§ 66273.1 – 66273.90 

containing emergency regulations to implement the provisions of the California 

Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003]. DOE encourages the EPA to review the 

programs in California and other States with electronic waste recycling programs and 

identify potential ways to modify the Universal Waste regulations (40 CFR 273) or 

otherwise foster improvements related to handling and management.

3. The Washington State Department of Ecology has issued regulations [WAC 

173-303-170(3)(b)] and guidance (Technical Information Memorandum #96-412) on how 

generators may treat hazardous wastes on-site, in accumulation tanks and containers without a 

permit [referred to as Treatment by Generator (TBG)]. DOE believes the Washington State TBG 

program has been effective in reducing the dependence of hazardous waste generators on off-site 

treatment, storage, and/or disposal facilities (TSDF). In addition, the TBG program enables 

generators to reduce the hazards of their waste at the generation site and reduces the quantity and 

hazard of waste transported over public highways. To assure broad and consistent 

implementation by regulators and eligible generators, DOE encourages the EPA to provide greater 

clarification within both regulations and guidance on permissible generator treatment, especially

with respect to satellite accumulation areas.

Stakeholder: Utility Solid Waste 

Activities Group

(USWAG)

Topic: PCB Regulations

Comment: EPA Should Expand The Exclusion From Hazardous Waste Regulation for TC 

Organic Wastes Subject To Dual Regulation Under TSCA’s PCB Regulations To 

Encompass All Hazardous Wastes Subject to the TSCA PCB Regulations. USWAG 
believes that EPA should expand the scope of the exclusion for Subtitle C regulation under 40 

C.F.R. § 261.8 to include all PCB regulated wastes that also are identified or listed hazardous 

wastes, and not limit the scope of this rule to only those PCB wastes that are hazardous under the 

toxicity characteristic (“TC”) for specified organic constituents (D018-D037). Amending the 

scope of this rule within the context of this generator rulemaking is appropriate because the 

scope of the exclusion potentially has a direct bearing on the generator status of many utilities. 

Moreover, as discussed below, properly amending the scope of this rule to include all 

characteristic wastes already subject to comprehensive controls under TSCA’s PCB regulatory

program would complement EPA’s increasing focus on promoting the voluntary phase-out of 

PCB-containing equipment and would help accelerate the remediation of historic PCB spill 

sites....

By way of background, when EPA amended the scope of the TC regulation in 1990 to include 

new organic constituents, the Agency realized that such expansion would potentially bring 

within the scope of RCRA’s Subtitle C hazardous waste system certain dielectric fluids (e.g., for 

the potential presence of chlorinated benzenes) that were already regulated under TSCA’s 

stringent PCB regulatory program per 40 C.F.R. Part 761. Because TSCA’s PCB program 

regulates all facets of PCB use, storage, transport and disposal, USWAG and others urged EPA 

to avoid creation of a dual regulatory regime that would have resulted by applying RCRA to 

PCB-containing wastes already fully regulated under another comparable federal statute. 

Commenters also pointed out that subjecting PCB-containing wastes to dual regulation would 

hinder PCB phase-out programs and create other “legal, practical and administrative 

complications.” 55 Fed. Reg. 11798, 11841 (March 29, 1990).

EPA fully agreed with these comments, noting, among other things, that:

[t]he TSCA program, with which the regulated community is familiar, is 

specifically tailored to deal with the problem of widely dispersed waste 

generation and the timely disposal of a chemical that is no longer commercially

produced. The confusion that could result from the addition of requirements 

under a separate regulatory disposal system, and the RCRA disincentives to waste 

production, would cause significant disruption to the expeditious disposal of large 

quantities of these PCB wastes if these wastes were to become subject to the 

RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

Id. In addition to the unique regulatory regime already in place for PCB wastes and the 

complications of dual regulation, the Agency also reasoned that the regulation of PCB wastes 

under TSCA was fully protective of human health and the environment:

........If the dual regulation of PCB/hazardous wastes under RCRA and TSCA was a complicating 

factor to ensuring compliance with a narrower, mandatory PCB phase-out program in 1990, then 

a similar exclusion is surely warranted to help promote participation in a much broader, 

nationwide voluntary PCB phase-out effort. Based on USWAG member participation in 

similar phase-out initiatives at the Regional level, we respectfully suggest that critical to the 

success of any voluntary effort – where companies are being asked to prematurely dispose of 

otherwise valuable and perfectly functional equipment and materials – is the elimination of any

unnecessary regulatory burdens. By removing the specter of RCRA/TSCA dual regulation for 

PCB materials voluntarily removed from service, EPA would eliminate a potentially significant 

barrier to companies engaging in such voluntary efforts. The same rationale applies to 

encouraging companies to engage in accelerated remediation efforts of historic PCB spill sites. 
By removing the potential application of RCRA Subtitle C to such remediation wastes, there 

would be one less regulatory barrier to confront when engaging in such pro-active remediation 

efforts.

For all the above reasons, USWAG believes that EPA should revisit the scope of the existing 

exclusion under 40 C.F.R. § 261.8 and expand the scope of that rule to include all hazardous 

PCB-containing wastes already subject to full regulation under TSCA’s PCB program. As EPA 

acknowledged when first promulgating the rule in 1990, TSCA’s management and disposal 

regulations already provide fully protective controls for PCB-containing wastes and subjecting 

such wastes to RCRA controls is not only duplicative, but also creates regulatory and practical 

complications. This is true for all PCB-containing wastes subject to RCRA’s hazardous waste 

rules – not only those that are hazardous for the TC organic constituents. Therefore, it is time 

for EPA to expand the scope of the rule accordingly.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers

Topic: F019 Listing

Comment: B. EPA should revise the F019 hazardous waste listing

Hazardous waste code FO 19 is applied to any wastewater treatment plant sludge that results from 

the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. This designation typically arises at an automobile 

or truck assembly plant when an aluminum part (of any size) is added to a frame that is sent 

through the paint shop’s phosphate system. When this occurs, the sludge from the facility’s 

wastewater treatment plant switches from being a non-hazardous waste to an F019 hazardous 

waste without changing the chemical composition. Members of the automobile industry have been 

working on a resolution to the FO 19 problem for at least a decade. Various attempts in the early 

and mid-I 990’s met with little success except to further document the impact of this issue on the 

industry and to build a substantial knowledge base concerning FOl 9.

The current listing results in:

• increased costs between non-hazardous and hazardous waste disposal sites;

• increased waste transportation costs;

• increased administrative and operational costs like recordkeeping, training; reporting, tracking, 

manifesting, and contingency plan development;

• increased waste storage costs;

• increased hazardous waste taxes;

• negative public perception; and

• lowers potential for recycling

It is therefore imperative that EPA revisits the FO 19 listing and correct the misapplication of the 

FO 19 listing to the automobile industry.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers

Topic: Waste removal from manufacturing 

units

Comment: EPA SHOULD EXTEND THE TIME FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL 

FROM MANUFACTURING PROCESS UNITS
EPA should allow generators to develop and comply with reasonable compliance schedules 

to remove hazardous wastes from manufacturing process units that have ceased operation.

The current regulation allows a generator only 90 days to remove the hazardous waste without 

becoming subject to full RCRA regulation. While in some cases this may be an appropriate 

timeframe, in others it is too restrictive and forces a generator to incur undue labor expenses to 

meet the 90-day deadline. (40 CFR 6261.4(c)). This “one size fits all” approach is inappropriate 

for large manufacturing processes. 

To reduce unnecessary labor expenses, EPA should develop a provision that allows a generator 

to implement a hazardous waste removal plan appropriate to the size and type of 

manufacturing system. This would relieve generators of unnecessary labor costs associated 

with complying with the current 90-day timeframe.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers

Topic: Universal Wastes - Fluorescent Lamps

Comment: 5. EPA SHOULD REMOVE THE UNIVERSAL WASTE REQUIREMENT 

THAT UNBROKEN FLUORESCENT LAMPS SHOULD BE STORED IN CLOSED 

CONTAINERS. 

EPA should revise the “closed” requirements for containers and packages holding lamps (40 CFR 

273.33 (d)(1)) to allow for any management technique that prevents releases. It can be very

burdensome during a lamp replacement project for electricians to repeatedly open and close a 

container. In fact, over-handling of the container/package to meet this requirement may increase 

the risk of breakage. EPA, therefore, should remove the requirement of the 

container/package being closed except during periods where lamps are no longer being 

added to the package or container.

Stakeholder: DOE Topic: EMSs

Comment: 1. As the EPA is aware, Executive Order 13148, “Greening the Government Though 

Leadership in Environmental Management,” requires all federal agencies to implement EMSs at 

appropriate agency facilities by December 31, 2005. Accordingly, DOE has developed a 

directive (DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection Program) that requires DOE facilities to 

implement EMSs as part of existing Integrated Safety Management Systems (ISMS). DOE notes 

the EMSs implemented at the Department’s facilities have and will continue to improve 

environmental performance at those facilities. The EPA could provide additional incentive 

for facilities that have EMSs in place through relief from administrative and other 

requirements, possibly in the form of reduced reporting requirements and frequency of 

inspections for generators with records of good compliance.

2.. 2. DOE suggests that the EPA expand the University Laboratories XL Project 

in 40 CFR part 262, subpart J to allow participation by additional academic 

and research laboratories who implement EMSs, including DOE national 
laboratories and technology centers, as well as other research laboratories 

operated by other federal agencies. 
TECHNICAL/Compliance ASSISTANCE

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Technical assistance

Comment: Additional self-help training programs/compliance tools/abbreviated environmental 

management systems/self-audit formats should be made available to generators.

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Compliance Assurance

Comment: In general, the DE-DNREC believes the current hazardous waste generator 

requirements provide protection to human health and the environment when implemented 

properly. The DE-DNREC also believes it is the intent of the majority of those governed by the 

regulations to comply with the written requirements. But, due to a lack of understanding by the 

smallest generators; or misinterpretation by the some of the largest, regulatory compliance is not 

always achieved. While EPA has taken steps to assist with regulatory compliance at the smaller 

generators, for example publishing “EPAs Handbook for Small Business;” and EPA makes 

available regulatory interpretations through its RCRA Hotline and through RCRA Online, 

additional compliance assistance documents and interpretations, hopefully developed with state 

input, are necessary. Then too, EPA has taken steps to develop its regulations in an effort to make 

them more clear and understandable through use of a question and answer format. While this is 

helpful, it may not have achieved its expected goal as DE-DNREC found with its promulgation of 

EPA’s regulations for Remedial Action Plans. DE-DNREC learned that some generators remained 

confused when a question they had was not directly asked and answered within the regulations. 

Further, the DE-DNREC has found it difficult, when the regulations are presented in a question 

and answer format, to cite regulatory violations in enforcement actions. 

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Topic: RCRA Online

Comment: 262 General: The RCRA Online service provided by EPA has become an indispensable 

tool for generator compliance. The ready availability of this broad body of knowledge has aided 

PNNL and others in development of process improvements to reflect the “state of the art” in waste 

management. We encourage EPA to maintain this collection current and to consider making 

pre-1995 Federal Register preamble language (another significant source of EPA guidance for 

compliance) similarly available.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Topic: Outreach on Published guidance

Comment: EPA should be forthcoming with published guidance on generator requirements. We 

note that most of the EPA guidance on implementation of generator requirements (e.g. RCRA 

Online) comes from responses to questions raised by the regulated community, not from EPA 
initiatives to communicate implementation “pointers” to the community. In the state of 

Washington, a great deal of guidance is provided to regulated generators to assist them in 

development of compliant programs for management of the waste they generate. Perhaps EPA 

could team with and/or benchmark authorized state programs to develop a system of proactive 

communication with regulated generators to assist the community in developing compliant 

management approaches.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: RCRA OnLine, et. al.

Comment: EPA has improved the availability of regulatory interpretations issued by the Agency

with RCRA Online. However, the RCRA Hotline is still a valuable resource that should be 

maintained for the regulatory community. Additionally, EPA needs to continue to work with 

State agencies to ensure consistent adoption and interpretation of the regulations. 

EPA and the states can improve their compliance and technical assistance activities for hazardous 

waste generators through effective dialogue with one another. The regulated community has 

learned to accept that there are inconsistent (and sometimes conflicting) EPA and state versions 

and/or interpretations of the RCRA generator regulations. For example, the U.S. territory of 

Puerto Rico has not adopted any of the changes in RCRA regulations since 1987. The current 

burden is on the generator to comply with all of the requirements of the Environmental Quality

Board (EQB) and the federal regulations. Also, this same issue exists in states that have RCRA 

authority. For example, the EPA revisions to the mixture and derived-from rules (66 FR 27266) 

was final on May 16, 2001, but was not effective in Indiana until 13 months later on July 3, 2002. 

PhRMA urges EPA to work with the states, territories, and tribes to harmonize regulatory

interpretations by adopting (or speeding up the process of adoption) the changes in RCRA rules as 

they are promulgated to avoid the situation where the generators have to keep two sets of 

compliance records.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Provide easier access to regulatory 

assistance

Comment: Provide easier access to regulatory assistance. EPA should explore ways, with 

stakeholder input, to increase availability of compliance assistance information and tools to the 

regulated community. Increased understanding of regulatory requirements and interpretations 

would increase compliance and decrease interpretation conflicts. Alcoa encourages EPA to 

continue the RCRA Hotline, which is staffed by consultants, for routine questions and perhaps 

make available Agency regulatory experts for more complicated issues and for answering 

interpretive questions.

BLASTING GRIT

Stakeholder: CBL Industrial Services Topic: Blasting grit
Comment: EPA poses the question: “Has the generation and disposal of hazardous waste been 

minimized or eliminated?” Following the release of the Land Disposal Restrictions(LDR) rule in 

the late 80’s early 90’s, certain DOT’s began to require the use of a recyclable grit blasting process 

in an attempt to minimize, but not eliminate the generation of hazardous waste. Before this time, 

expendable abrasives, which generate a larger volume of waste per unit area of lead paint removal, 

were used. Theoretically, fewer tons of hazardous waste would be generated when using these 

recyclable grit systems. These systems were, and remain very expensive. Many state DOT’s 

require their painting contractors to invest in these capital- intensive blast systems by specifying 

their use. This practice has been since the early 1990’s. It should be noted that although these 

systems can reduce the aggregate volume of waste generated on a project by more than 50%, the 

absolute volume of toxic metals in the waste stream remains the same regardless of what blasting 

technology is used.

There have been no material changes in the application of this recycled grit technology since the 

implementation of the LDR, so volume reduction has stagnated. These practices produce a lower 

volume of hazardous waste with a significantly higher level of toxicity. No further progress has 

been made on hazardous waste prevention using this method.

In fact, according to the 1997 EPA Biennial Report, there were still well over 26,000 tons of 

hazardous waste produced by state DOT’s. If one asks whether the generation and disposal of this 

hazardous waste been “minimized or eliminated?” the answer is most certainly “no”. The 

contractors that work for the state DOT’s also work for a wide array

of other structure owners, and they provide lead paint abatement services that include useof the 

same blasting technology. In short, state DOT hazardous waste generation rates understate the 

amounts of hazardous wastes generated because of their policies.

Stakeholder: CBL Industrial Services Topic: Waste minimization Blasting grit

Comment: I have personally discussed this issue with a number of officials from various State 

DOT’s around the country. Based on those discussions, it appears that signing the generator 

certification on the Hazardous Waste Manifest has become a “token” guarantee. Their certification 

seems to mean that the generator has “ a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of 

waste generated...”. In truth, those programs have not evolved in 15 years. There appear to be few, 

if any proactive programs that serve to “raise the bar” or in some way encourage further hazardous 

waste minimization or complete prevention. In fact, one northeastern state DOT recently indicated 

that they could not use any other system than recyclable blasting systems because of this federal 

hazardous waste certification program. They either poorly understood what the certification 

meant, or simply used it as a justification to continue only using recyclable blasting systems for 

lead paint abatement projects. We are aware of two different state DOT’s in the northeast engaged 

in additional research to see if there is a better alternative available to hazardous waste generation. 

For one DOT, the incentive came from its environmental department who clearly understands the 

importance of hazardous waste prevention, but the issue only received serious consideration after 

the state quadrupled the Generator Hazardous Waste tax. Without the additional incentive, that 

generator would have simply continued the same program they put in place 15 years ago. The other 

DOT engaged in hazardous waste reduction after local, political pressure forced them to do so. 

Clearly, since the primary focus for the DOT’s is - and should be - on the construction and 

maintenance of the transportation infrastructure, it appears little is being done on hazardous waste 
management issues until an economic disincentive or political pressure arises. Since waste 

management issues can be secondary for DOT projects, it is not surprising to find ourselves in 

today’s situation. The DOT’s are focused on issues of structure construction and maintenance. 

This is why it is important that EPA become involved, since one of the stated goals of this ANPR is 

“to foster ... a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy”.

b. Alternative Solution

It is probably reasonable to continue requiring generators to sign the certification on the Hazardous 

Waste Manifest. However, more “teeth” need to be included within the certification program. This 

might include:

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

A reporting requirement showing a net change in unit hazardous waste generation rates year to

year (Data already being collected in the Biennial Reports). EPA could simply measure and 

compare the amount of hazardous waste being produced each year. The EPA Biennial report 

captures this information, so data is already available for EPA to measure. Decreases of reported 

hazardous waste quantities may suggest that an effective program is in place and would give EPA 

a measurement tool. The EPA penalize generators who don’t embrace new technologies, but 

reward those that continually move towards the elimination of the generation of hazardous waste.

Monitoring waste reduction reports and assessing additional fees if waste reduction 

improvements are not met.

For steel structures maintenance industry lead abatement projects, there are several abrasive 

pre-treatment technologies that have been available for a number of years that prevent the 

generation of hazardous spent abrasive waste. At least one of these technologies was successfully

tested under the US EPA CRADA Program (USEPA National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory, 2000). Some DOT’s have been allowing and specifying use of these hazardous waste 

elimination technologies use for a few years, but a majority of the state DOT’s still require 

recyclable blast systems and dispose of the residues in Subtitle C landfills. The largest barrier to 

elimination of this hazardous waste generation practice appears to be an overall resistance to 

change by the structure owners (DOT’s) and contractors (both cogenerators of the waste) who 

already use the recycled grit systems. They believe the problem was solved by minimizing the 

volume of hazardous waste in the early 90’s and have been reluctant to make additional changes. 

As mentioned above, waste management issues are not central to preserving a large bridge 

structure, so waste management understandably can receive little, additional thought, particularly 

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

Stakeholder: State Agency - New York 

DOT

Topic: Abrasive Blasting

Comment: The New York State Department of Transportation, like many other public works 

agencies, no longer uses lead-based paint on bridges and infrastructure. We must, however, meet 

RCRA requirements when we repair, rehabilitate, and repaint bridges that were previously coated 

with lead-containing primers and coatings. These older paints typically exceed the regulatory

threshold for lead when tested using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), and 

the waste generated by removing these coatings through abrasive blasting must be managed as 
hazardous for the characteristic of toxicity. If the underlying steel is intact, we can rehabilitate a 

bridge by removing the old, deteriorating, lead-based coating through abrasive (sand) blasting, and 

repainting the structure with environmentally friendly coating systems. The spent abrasives 

represent hazardous waste and we have been instructed that these must be stored at the site of 

generation under RCRA Subtitle C regulations. This requirement to store drums filled with dry, 

lead-contaminated blasting slag only at the site of generation creates problems of safety, 

environmental exposure, and liability for us. Unlike factory settings, our "sites of generation" are 

commonly bridges or viaducts, and may be in congested urban settings, or sometimes adjacent to 

steep rock outcrops or retaining walls where storage space doesn’t exist. 

These areas are not suitable for storing 55-gallon drums of spent abrasives. Many times the 

contractor is forced to store drums in shoulder areas where they pose a safety risk to the travelling 

public. We have also tried to store filled drums behind the guiderail if space was available. 

Meanwhile, motorists driving slowly through our construction areas observe drums only a few 

feet from their vehicles with large labels which read: HAZARDOUS WASTE. Errant vehicles 

have also collided with filled drums staged near the edge of the highway, causing accidents 

involving toxic waste that are reported in the news media Security is also a major problem when 

our hazardous wastes are stored in this way. Because of the public nature of rights-of-way, our 

work sites cannot be easily fenced and are readily accessible. Bridge work is rarely conducted on 

a 24-hour schedule and site supervision is available only when operations are underway. These 

locations allow vandals to enter, dump material, and steal the drums. Vandalism has consistently

been a problem in both crowded, urban areas and in rural parts of New York State. We believe that 

storing this type of waste in secure and lockable locations, under the control of the DOT’s 

contractor, would improve public and environmental safety, reduce liability, and greatly increase 

our security from accidental or intentional spills of hazardous wastes. We propose that leasing 

storage space near our project locations to stage the generated wastes within the RCRA timeframes 

would provide a better approach to managing hazardous wastes that are generated by public works 

projects.

Stakeholder: Sponge-Jet, Inc. Topic: Renting of plastic abrasive 

Comment: I understand that you are reconsidering the laws regarding the handling and 

transporting of hazardous waste. There has been an issue or loophole which I would like you to 

consider. The US Air Force (and others) when cleaning it's aircraft with plastic grit remove 

hazardous chromates and cadmium. To my understanding they used to report these as hazardous 

waste generation and properly dispose of them. The past several years they "rent" plastic abrasive 

and return it to their supplier who "valuable recycles" this material by blending it into other 

plastics (the hazardousmaterials have no benefit so I think it is dilution not valuable recycling). 

Since the materials are always in a production stream and never labeled waste most the rules do not 

seem to apply. The result is that the Air Force has claimed a reduction in hazardous waste while in 

effect all that is happening is they are avoiding any reporting and the hazardous materials are 

ending up in consumer products and building materials without traceability or notification. No 

positive effect on reduction of hazards has occurred.

This just seems to me to be contrary to the intent of any environmental efforts and has hurt many 

reputable companies who would not partake in such activities.

The above explanation is the impression I have received having frequent business contacts with 

many people in the abrasive blasting industry. I am not an expert in the law nor do I have specific 
personal knowledge of this activity - it is just a frequently recanted issue within people in our 

industry who think we should all be held to a higher ethical level.

PERFORMANCE TRACK

Stakeholder: NEGT Topic: Member Flexibility - PT Facilities

Comment: As you know, Performance Track (PT) facilities have strong environmental 

management systems in place. This, by definition, indicates a higher than average level of 

environmental performance that goes well beyond compliance. While EPA may be hesitant to 

modify some RCRA provisions across the board for all regulated facilties, PT facilities may

provide excellent pilot program facilities for EPA and the states to experiment with new 

approaches to RCRA regulation. USGenNE would be pleased to collaborate with EPA and the 

states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont where we have PT facilities subject to 

RCRA regulation.

One simple overall approach to RCRA regulation for PT facilities would be for EPA to incorporate 

a general waiver provision within RCRA that allows PT facilities to submit requests and be 

granted waivers (within a reasonable timeframe) for greater flexibility in achieving the intent of 

specific provisions when strict adherence to the provision is overly burdensome and/or when 

alternative management strategies have no adverse environmental impact. Both New Hampshire 

and Vermont have waiver provisions in place for state hazardous waste regulations that may be 

more stringent than RCRA.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Performance Track Facilities

Comment: The Task Force notes that Performance Track facilities (with environmental 

management systems) typically go beyond the rules and regulations of RCRA and therefore would 

not seem to benefit from exclusions from the RCRA regulations.

Financial Assurance

Stakeholder: State of Georgia Topic: Financial Assurance

Comment: 3. The need for financial assurance at hazardous waste generator facilities has 

become an issue that EPA should undertake. Georgia and other states are experiencing an 

alarming increase in the number of generators going out of business and leaving large 

amounts of hazardous wastes abandoned at the facility. One recent incident involving an 

electroplating facility, that defaulted on a loan and closed, cost EPD nearly $1 million dollars 

just to remove the waste abandoned at the site.
Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Financial Assurance

Comment: Currently, a generator has limited liability under RCRA if the wastes that they 

generate and manage are improperly managed or disposed of by a subsequent TSD facility 

that received their hazardous waste. Increasing generators’ liability for subsequent 

mismanagement of their wastes would help assure that the "cradle-to-grave" principle is 

more fully practiced and that facilities’ wastes meet the LDR requirements.

Performance -Based Regulations

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Performance-Based Regulations

Comment: While at times it has been proposed that the regulations become less prescriptive 

and more performance based, it is necessary to evaluate any change on regulatory clarity 

and enforceability. The DE-DNREC believes that not all regulations can become 

performance based, especially when implementing a preventative program. However, the 

State recognizes, especially with generators implementing EMS programs, that there must 

be a degree of regulatory flexibility afforded these sites. However, there must also be a clear 

means to ensure regulatory compliance with the RCRA regulations when EMS standards go 

unachieved. This is especially true if performance achievement falls into gray area, or 

where performance has not been fully achieved, but human health has not been directly 

impacted. It has been our experience with even the most prescriptive of regulations that a 

generator will claim that theregulations are confusing and up to interpretation. In one 

instance, a generator’s legal council claimed the requirements of 40 CFR §262.34(a)(3) 

requiring containers be labeled or marked with the words “Hazardous Waste,” provided for 

the alternate labeling of “Solvent.”

Measuring performance

Stakeholder: IPC Topic: Measuring performance

Comment: As an organization, EPA is shifting away from its past bean-counting type 

measurements of the number of inspections, enforcements, etc. and towards the more 

meaningful measure of changes in environmental quality. It is only through measuring the 

effect of the regulations, i.e. environmental quality, that we can gauge true success. 

Therefore, IPC recommends that EPA measure spills to land and or new remediation needs 

as a measure of the RCRA regulatory program’s success
RECYCLING

Stakeholder: IPC Topic: Definition of solid waste and F006

Comment: As mentioned in the introduction to our comments, IPC believes that to foster 

pollution prevention and recycling EPA must remove the regulatory barriers and economic 

disincentives created by subjecting the recovery and reclamation of hazardous materials to 

RCRA regulations. IPC believes that EPA would provide greater incentive for recovery 

and reuse of beneficial materials by revising the definition of solid waste to identify certain 

recyclable hazardous secondary materials as not discarded and thus no longer a “waste” 

subject RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

Absent pursuit of a broad DSW reform, IPC suggests that EPA finalize, as expeditiously as 

possible, a RCRA exemption for the reclamation of valuable metals from electroplating 

sludge (F006). Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations, 

predominantly from the metal finishing and circuit board industries represent one of the 

largest sources in the United States of untapped metal-bearing secondary material amenable 

to metals recovery. The hazardous waste designation greatly increases the cost of 

recycling, resulting in a large quantity of valuable metal bearing sludge being disposed of in 

hazardous waste landfills rather that being recycled. Because landfilling and associated 

treatment are generally less expensive than metals recovery, much metals-rich sludge is 

landfilled, wasting these valuable resources.

UNIVERSAL WASTES

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries 

Alliance (EIA)

Topic: Universal Wastes

Comment: In a similar vein, EIA also believes that EPA should expand the use of universal 

waste regulations to a wider variety of wastes than EPA is currently contemplating. Aerosol 

cans, if EPA persists in viewing them as “reactive,” should be regulated as a universal waste. 

Similarly, EIA believes that off-specification commercial chemical products that cannot be 

reclaimed should be managed as universal wastes if they are shipped in their original 

packaging and managed in an appropriate and environmentally conscientious manner. 

Finally, EIA cautions EPA to carefully consider the metrics it chooses. The chosen metric 

must encourage proper hazardous waste management. The electronics industry has spent 

many years setting metrics and measuring its environmental performance. A number of 

EIA member companies have entered into XL Projects with EPA. In each such instance, the 

chosen metric often dictates the focus of the project. For example, if EPA uses the number of 

inspections as a metric in evaluating the quality of its hazardous waste program, it will 
encourage hazardous waste inspections, but it may do so at to the detriment of other 

valuable programs, such as its compliance assistance program. It is EIA’s experience that 

what gets measure gets done. Accordingly, EIA recommends that EPA choose its metrics 

carefully. Waste minimization should not be a metric since it tends to punish companies that 

have voluntarily minimized waste in the past and benefits companies that have dragged 

their feet. On the other hand, a facility’s long-term compliance history may be a good metric 

provided the agency’s review of the facility’s operations have been consistent and regular.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Universal Wastes

Comment: Universal Wastes - Some states allow additional waste streams in the universal 

waste program; EPA should consider synchronizing with the states and expanding the 

Federal program to include cathode ray tubes (CRTs), circuit boards and aerosol cans.