**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 pos sible 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. Ibelieve 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 f ew of the m ore 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 Chemotherap y a gents, this area of RCRA is often overlooked b y 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 L SC media as if it were non

- radioactive. **PROPOSAL:** The Environmental Protection Age ncy should work with the NRC to achieve consistency

in regulation, allowing all hazardous wastes containing H

- 3 and C

- 14 atconcentrations 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 (b y EPA?) Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Waste del istings Comment: Streamline the ability of states to delist wastes meeting defined standards Stakeholder: Nav y Department Topic: Generators using contractors Comment: Generator Responsibilities for Hazardous Waste Generated b y 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 directl y 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 b y removing regulated materials during demolition or renovation, or b y performing on

- site maintenance of their equipment. We envi sion the new generator category

would work as follows: (1) The contractor would have their own EPA generator ID number that w ould be used for manifesting, waste tracking, and compliance purposes. (2) The contractor would be responsible for all actions rel ated 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 appro ach would place primary

r esponsibility

f or day

- to

- day

m anagement of hazardous wastes m ore clearl y on the corporation or individual actuall y 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 actuall y generating the hazardous waste.
Stakeholder: Nav y 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 accumulationwould be an i mprovement.

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 t o inc lude substances that are an oxidizer as defined in 49 CFR 173.151; yet, wastes that are oxidizers should be accumulated separatel y from those that are ignitable, such as waste fuels which currentl y bear the same D001 Waste Code. L ikewise, D002 should be sp lit so that acids and caustics have different Waste Codes. **Recommendation**

. Modify the waste codes so that incompatible waste ty pes do not have the same waste codes.
Stakeholder: Nav y 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 const ituent concentrations. Recommendation. In addition to the existing delisting petition process, EPA ought to codify a RCRA exit strategy

f or wastes or waste treatment residues contaminated with de minimus amounts of listed wastes. Stakeholder: Nav y 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 a nd yield a salable product. The painted wood with intact paint is ty picall y not a hazardous waste b y 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 chip s. 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 sy stem 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 w aste from removal of legacy

hazardous materials such as lead

- based paint. This Source Code would logicall y be grouped with the codes for “other intermittent events or processes.” **Recommendation.** We recommend EPA provide an additional Source Code for bienni al 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 specificall y 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 co ntaminating 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 le ss 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 Div ision 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% b y weight total suspended solids (TSS)." I was tol d by both regulatory

agencies that Icould 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 materi al 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 th e 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:** Li stings

- U & P Wastes

**Comment:** Regarding th e 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

- particularl y when it come s 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 s till 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 e xpanded satellite accumulation quantities, especiall y 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. Th is would help EPA determine if the alternative standards would be effective in meeting the goals of the program. Stakeholder: P acific NW National Laboratory Topic: Analy sis of state programs Comment: We encourage EPA to study the differences between g enerator regulations in the various a

uthorized 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 co ncerns can require individual states to regulate generators somewhat differentl y. 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 Federall y 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 compre hensive 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 string entl y. 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 Prioriti es 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 strongl y believes th at EPA should make it their highest priority to undertake the broad based reform outlined in the DSW Proposed Rule’s Preamble b y excluding those materials legitimately

recycled or reclaimed from Subtitle C RCRA jurisdiction. Absent such reform, it is reco mmended 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 th is was not reall y a problem, as the rules defined process waters from a pressure cylinder as hazardous waste. Since a wood treater that did any

s ignificant amount of treating in a month could easily p roduce 1000kg of process wastewater, very few wood treat ers 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 dramaticall y. 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 i mproved. With respect to the Universal Waste Rule of Part 273, it is our experience that the proper management of unused hazard ous products (e.g., unused pharmaceuticals) under the current regulatory framework is not effectivel y occurring. The current regulations serve as an impediment to environmentally

- sound and cost

- effective “take back” programs and “reverse distribution” faci lities. For example, the regulated community i s 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 b y human effort and which has not been put to use. Examp les 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 bein g 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 locati on for consolidation, segregation and further shipment to a disposal location, without the first location having to comply w ith the hazardous waste regulations, including the use of a hazardous waste manifest. Initial generators would be required to meet c ertain standards such as generall y 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 leav e 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 compl y 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. T he Department is in the earl y s tages of adding discarded unused commercial products to its Universal Waste Rule regula tions.
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 sy stem 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 eas y 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 1 7, 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 OnL ine Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA continue to operate the “RCRA Online” program and the a ssociated 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 u se 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 b y the regul ated community

. Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Set priorities Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA prioritize pollution prevention programs to target reductions of p ersistent, bioaccumulative, and toxics (PBTs) to reduce impacts on human health an d 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 s erve as an “on ramp” to the NEPT. Burden reductions and pollution prevention/recycling benefits could be achieved through additional By

- Product S ynergy 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 providemore 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 cale ndar 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 rolli**  **ng 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.**  Inthe 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 opt ions 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 dr aft 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 th is type of situation.** 

Stakeholder: DOE Topic: RCRA OnL ine 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. T he Department encourages the EPA to continue providing current information and guidance via RCRA Online.

Stakeholder: DOE Topic: EMSs Comment: A s the EPA is aware, Executive Order 13148, “Greening the Government Though Leadership in Environmental Manageme nt,” requires all federal agencies to implement EMSs at appropriate agency

facilities by

December 31, 2005. A ccordingl y, DOE has developed a directive (DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection Program ) that requires DOE facilities to implement EMSs as part o f existing Integrated Safety M anagement Sy stems (I SMS). **DOE notes**  **the EMSs implemented at the Department’s facilities have and will continue to improve environmental performance at those facilities.**  **T he EPA could provide additional incentive**  **for faciliti es 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 th e 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 b y 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 laboratori**  **es, some flexibility in treating hazardous wastes. T**  **reatment 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**  **lim its 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

- scal e treatment on some ty pes 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 regul ations 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 way s 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)]. D OE believes the Washington State TBG program has been effective in reducing the dependence of haz ardous 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 highway s. T o assure broad and consistent implementation by

r egulators and eligible generators, DOE encourages the EPA to provide greater clarification within both regulations and guidance on permissible generator treatment, especially with re spect 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.**  USWAGbelieves 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 onl y those PCB wastes that are hazardous under the toxicity characteristic (“TC”) for spec ified 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, properl y 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 o f 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 e xpansion would potentially bring within the scope of RCRA’s Subtitle C hazardous waste s ys tem 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. B ecause 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 b y applying RCRA to PCB

- containing wastes a lready full y 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 specificall y tailored to deal with the problem of widely dispersed waste generation and the timely disposal of a chemical that is no longer commercially produced. T he confusion that could result from the addition of requirements under a separate regulatory disposal s ys tem, 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 full y protective of human health and the environment: ........If the dual regulation of PCB/hazardous wastes under RCRA and TSCA wa s 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. B ased on USWA G member participation in similar phase

- out initiatives at the Regional level, we respectfull y suggest that critical to the success of an y voluntary effort

– where companies are being asked to prematurel y dispose of otherwise valuable and perfectly functio nal equipment and materials

– is the elimination of any unnecessary

regulatory

burdens. B y 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. T he 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, th ere 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. A s EPA acknowledged when first promulgating the rule in 1990, TSCA’s management and disposal regulations already provide fully protectiv e controls for PCB

- containing wastes and subjecting such wastes to RCRA controls is not only duplicative, but also creates regulatory and practical complications. T his is true for all PCB

- containing wastes subject to RCRA’s hazardous waste rules

– not onl y those that are hazardous for the TC organic constituents. T herefore, 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 an y w astewater treatment plant sludge that results from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. This designation typicall y arises at an automobile or truck assembl y plant when an aluminum part (of an y size) is added to a frame that is sent through the paint shop’s phosphate sy stem. 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 changi ng the chemical composition. Members of the automobile industry h ave been working on a resolution to the FO 19 problem for at least a decade. Various attempts in the earl y and mid

- I 990’s met with little success except to further document the impact of thi s 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 a dministrative 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 f

or 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 onl y 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

l abor expenses, **EPA should**  **develop a p**  **rovision that**  **allo ws**  **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: Allian ce 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 packag e 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. A ccordingl y, DOE has developed a dire ctive (DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection Program ) that requires DOE facilities to implement EMSs as part of existing Integrated Safety M anagement Sy stems (I SMS). **DOE notes**  **the EMSs implemented at the Department’s facilities have and will continue to i mprove**  **environmental performance at those facilities. T**  **he 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 f requency 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 nationallaboratories and technology centers, as well as other research laboratories operated b y other federal agencies.**TECHNICAL/Compliance ASSISTANCE**

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Technical assistance
Comment: Additional self

- help training programs/compliance tools/abbreviated environmental management s ys tems/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 properl y. The DE

- DNREC also believes it is the intent of the majority of those governed b y the regu lations 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 alway s achieved. While EPA has taken steps to assist with regulat ory 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 h ave 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 regulatio ns. 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: P**  **acific NW National Laboratory**  **Topic: RCRA Online**

Comment: 262 General: The RCRA Online service provided by E PA has become an indispensable tool for generator compliance. The ready availability of this broad body of knowledge has aided PNNLand 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) similarl y available.

**Stakeholder: P**  **acific 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 f

rom responses to questions raised by the regulated community , not from EPAinitiatives 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 dev elopment of compliant programs for management of the waste they generate. Perhaps EPA could team with and/or benchmark authorized state programs to develop a sy stem of proactive communication w ith 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. H owever, the RCRA Hotline is still a valuable resource that should be maintained for the regulatory community. A dditionally , EPA needs to cont inue 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 wi th one another. T he 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. F or example, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico has not adopted an y of the changes in RCRA regulations since 1987. T he current burden is on the generator to comply with all of the requirements of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and the federal regulations. A lso, this same issue exists in states that hav e RCRA authority

. F or 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. E PA should explore way s, with stakeholder input, to increase availability of c ompliance assistance information and tools to the regu lated 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 b y consultants, for routine questio ns and perhaps make available Agency

regulatory

experts for more complicated issues and for answering interpretive questions.

BLASTING GRIT
Stakeholder: CBL Industrial Services Topic: Blasting gritComment: 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 earl y 9 0’s, certain DOT’s began to require the use of a recyclable grit blasting process in an atte mpt 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. Theoreticall y, fewer tons of hazardous waste would be gene rated when using these recyclable grit s ys tems. These s ys tems were, and remain very expensive. Many

state DOT’s require their painting contractors to invest in these capital

- intensive blast sy stems by specifying their use. This practice has been since the earl y 1990’s. It should be noted that although these sy stems 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 l evel 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 minimizatio n Blasting grit
Comment: Ihave 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 p roactive programs that se rve to “raise the bar” or in some way encourage further hazardous waste minimization or complete prevention. In fact, one northeastern state DOT recently i ndicated that they could not use any

other s ys tem than recyclable blasting s ys tems because of this fe deral 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 s ys tems 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 clearl y 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 c ontinued the same program they p ut in place 15 ye ars 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 a ppears little is being done on hazardous wastemanagement 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

i t 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 Solutio n It is probabl y r easonable 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: P ro o f th at th e g e n e rat o r h a s a w a s t e m inimization program in place; A r ep o rt i n g r e qu i r e m e nt s h o w i n g a n e t c h an g e i n un i t h az ard o u s w a s t e g e n e rat i o n r at e s ye ar t o ye ar (Data already

being collected in the Biennial Reports). EPA could simply measure and compare the amount of hazardous waste be ing 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.
M o n i t o ri n g w a s t e r e du c t i o n r ep o rt s an d a s s e s s i n g a d di t i o n a l f e e s i f w a s t e r e d

u c t i o n 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 wast e. 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 ye ars, but a majority of the state DOT’s still require recyclable blast s ys tems and dispose of the residues in Subtitle C landfills. The largest barrier to elimination of this hazardous waste generation practice appears to be an o verall resistan ce to change b y the structure owners (DOT’s) and contractors (both cogenerators of the waste) who already use the recycled grit s ys tems. They believe the problem was solved by minimizing the volume of hazardous waste in the earl y 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, particularl y when the DOT’s believe they addressed the problem in the earl y 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 ty pically exceed the regulatory threshold for lead when tested using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), and the waste generated b y removing these coati ngs through abrasive blasting must be managed ashazardous for the characteristic of toxicity . I f the underlying steel is intact, we can rehabilitate a

bridge by r emoving the old, deteriorating, lead

- based coating through abrasive (sand) blasting, and repainting the structure with environmentally friendly coating s ys tems. 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 onl y 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 i n 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 slowl y through our construction areas observe drums o nly a few fee t 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 S ecurity is also a m ajor 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 f enced and are readil y a ccessible. Bridge work i s 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 th is ty

pe of waste in secure and lockable locations, under the control of the DOT’s contractor, would improve public and environmental safety, reduce liability, and greatl y increase our security from accidental or intentional spills of hazardous wastes. We p ropose 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 p ublic 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 Iwould like you to consider. The US Air Force (and other s) 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 retur n it to their supplier who "valuable recycles" this material b y blending it into other plastics (the hazardousmaterials have no benefit so I think it is dilution not valuable recycling). Since the materials are alway s in a production stream and never label ed 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 product s 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 an y environmental efforts and has hurt many reputable companies who would not part ake in such activities. The above explanation is the impression Ihave 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 specificpersonal 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 s ys tems in place. This, b y 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 collaborat e 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 withi n 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 altern ative 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 Fa cilities
**Comment:** The Task Force notes that Performance Track facilities (with environmental management sy stems) ty

pically g o 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: F**  **inancial 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**  **EP D**  **nearly $1**  **million dollars**  **just to remove the waste abandoned at the site. Stakeholder:**  **A STSWMO**  **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 generator s’ liability for subsequent**  **mismanagement of their wastes would help assure that the "cradle**
**- to** 
**- grave" principle is**  **mo re fully practiced and that facilities’ wastes meet the LDR requirements.** 

**Performance**
**- Based Regulations** 

**Stakeholder: State of Delawa re**  **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 becom**  **e 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 a**  **lso 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 g**  **ray area, or where performance has not been fully achieved, but human health ha**  **s 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 require**  **ments of 40 CFR §262.34(a)(3) requiring**  **containers be**  **labeled or**  **ma rked**  **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.**  **I t is only through measuring the**  **effect of the r egulations, 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: De**  **finition 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 recove**  **ry and reclamation of hazardous materials to RCRA regulations.**  **I PC 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 secondar** **y 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). W**  **astewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations, pred**  **ominantly from the metal finishing and circuit board industries represent one of the largest**  **sources in**  **the United**  **States of**  **untapped metal** 
**- bearing**  **secondary ma**  **terial amenable**  **to metals recovery. T**  **he 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.**  **B ecause landfilling and associated**  **treatment are generally less expensive than metals recovery, much me tals** 
**- rich sludge is**  **landfilled, wasting these valuable resources.**

**UNIVERSAL WASTES**
**Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)**  **Topic: Universal Wastes**

**Comment: I**  **n 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 met**  **rics 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 w**  **ith EPA. In each such instance, the chosen**  **metric often**  **dictates the**  **focus of**  **the project.**  **For example, if**  **EPA uses**  **the num**  **ber of**  **inspections as a metric in evaluating the quality of its hazardous waste program, it will encourage hazardous waste inspection**  **s, but it may d**  **o 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 s**  **hould 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 a gency’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.**