Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(General /Overarching Comments)

Stakeholder: Northeastern University Topic: General Comment

Comment: It is clear RCRA has been an effective and important regulation. Since promulgation, there have been no 

new uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal facilities created on the scale such as “Love Canal” or “Times Beach”. 

RCRA has done an excellent job of categorizing hazardous waste; ensuring appropriate waste streams can be 

properly identified, managed and disposed of. RCRA has also set up an excellent framework for registering 

generators of hazardous waste, so waste streams generated by industry can be tracked and reviewed by state and 

federal regulatory agencies.

With these significant positives to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation comes some negatives. The regulation is 

extremely prescriptive, confusing and inflexible. Although the regulation has prevented large uncontrolled 

hazardous waste disposal facilities, such things as small spills, improper management and contamination continue to 

be found at many small facilities and sites throughout the nation. The regulation was also originally tailored for 

ndustrial and manufacturing facilities, resulting in many requirements being difficult and problematic at higher

education institutions.

It has been my observation that up until the last few years, there has been an unwillingness and reluctance within 

EPA to address the problems with this regulation. In a world that is changing all the time, regulations sometimes 

need to change fast along with them, and they need to make sense and be workable in the regulated community. 

RCRA isn’t broke, however EPA needs to move more quickly and efficiently so this regulation can keep can keep 

up with changes and problems that occur now and in the future. Performance requirements may offer an option to 

remedy some of the problems with RCRA and many people in higher education have been promoting them......

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Scope of regulations

Comment: Most generators are not supported by environmental managers, and therefore view regulations as a maze 

of complex issues that they confront when regulatory inspections are completed. The specific regulations need to 

be closely reviewed to include only those that have a defined, incremental environmental benefit. 

Stakeholder: Conoco Phillips Topic: A performance-based approach is more appropriate

Comment: ....ConocoPhillips Company participated in the May 13th public meeting at EPA Headquarters in 

Washington D.C. and, with others, articulated the use of an Environmental Management System (EMS) as a 

potential alternative for compliance with RCRA principles. For generators that were qualified for and elected to 

utilize an EMS approach, the flexibility to design a hazardous waste management structure that is appropriate to an 

individual facility and is protective of human health and the environment is appealing. Tailored standards for the 

accumulation of hazardous waste, management of containers, training, documentation, attainment of waste 

minimization goals and inspections would be articulated and the facility would be held accountable for compliance. 

The RCRA program, which has used a command and control regulatory approach, has played a major role to ensure 

the proper management of hazardous waste over the course of the past 20 years, but an evaluation of program 

requirements is overdue. While the command and control approach may have been necessary in the 1980’s, a 

performance-based approach is more appropriate for the current decade.

ConocoPhillips Company strongly supports EPA’s initiative to determine if changes to the generator program are 

warranted. EPA has stated that they will develop and implement a hazardous waste strategy with the goals of 

fostering improved program effectiveness, fostering a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and reducing 

compliance cost, where practicable. ConocoPhillips Company believes that hazardous waste management 

approaches have matured over the past several decades of RCRA regulation, which warrants evaluation of the 

RCRA generator program. EPA, in its ANPRM (69 FR 21803 (cols. 2 & 3), has identified 12 areas for 
improvement. ConocoPhillips Company concurs that each of these areas warrant some improvement and, in its 

response to item 10 below, identifies those program areas th at should be given top priority.

Although there are sections within generator requirements that are conflicting, outdated or duplicative, the regulated 

community and the regulators have developed a web of interpretations that allow facilities to operate in compliance. 

In approaching any changes to the program, EPA must be careful not to completely negate these interpretations. 

Where feasible, EPA should make changes in the regulatory language and not regulate through guidance. So much 

of the RCRA regulatory program is through interpretations and guidance; it would be much easier for the regulated 

community, regardless of the size or sophistication of the facility, for regulation to be via the rules, not guidance.

While EPA has been seeking to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden on generators, its progress is 

excruciatingly slow. EPA should make every effort to promulgate, as quickly as possible, the existing burden 

reduction measures already under consideration.

Stakeholder: Dominion Power Topic: Maintain status quo for several regulations

Comment: EPA should not impose any new requirements on the following:

- Use of generator knowledge to characterize waste (40 CFR 262.11 (c)(2)

- Use of manifest to track shipments (40 CFR 262.20)

- Drum labeling (satellite accumulation and storage) 40 CFR 262.31 and 262.34 (c)(1) (ii)

- Used oil exemption from RCRA (40 CFR 279)

- Universal waste program (40 CFR 273)

- List of toxicity characteristics that define solid waste as hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.24)

Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Frustration: Fourth time stakeholders have responded 

to requests for input on these types of changes to the RCRA 

program. Where’s the beef?

Comment: SOCMA is pleased that EPA is undertaking a review of the effectiveness and efficiencies of the 

hazardous waste generator regulations. As noted above and in prior comments, SOCMA believes that there are a 

number of regulatory modifications that could streamline these regulations, while also sustaining the effectiveness of 

the current program. SOCMA urges EPA to move forward and to take final action on the range of long-standing 

recordkeeping and regulatory issues that have been thoroughly considered and addressed in prior initiatives. Quite 

simply stated, this is the fourth time stakeholders have responded to requests for input on these types of changes to 

the RCRA program. It is time for EPA to finally take action and demonstrate its commitment to modify and clarify 

the specific regulatory provisions that are consistently identified and acknowledged as unproductive, confusing, 

duplicative or burdensome. 

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: Priority Items

Comment: We recommend the following as priority items for EPA’s consideration. Some of these 

recommendations address more than one of the comments offered above.

1. Development of an alternative generator accumulation system for laboratories and other generators that have 

similar compliance issues with the current system for waste accumulation. Key components of such an alternative 

would include relief for removal of excess quantities from satellite accumulation areas, clarification of designation 

requirements at the “point of generation”, and revisiting the definition of key terms such as “closed at all times” to 

enable continuous generation processes to operate normally. Many of these issues are explored in the Howard

Hughes Medical Institute study previously cited. This system may be able to utilize the alternative standards 

developed by the Project XL described in 40 CFR 262 Subpart J as a guideline. 

2. Allow generators to conduct treatment in satellite accumulation areas on a nationwide basis rather than deferring 

to the states, possibly by adding some or all of the relevant requirements for 90-day areas to such operations. 

3. Revise the regulations to allow accumulation in accordance with requirements such as the Uniform Fire Code.
4. Consider wider implementation of secondary containment requirements for 90- day accumulation areas in 

conjunction with modification of some 90-day area requirements, such as self-implementing 30-day extensions of 

the 90-day clock.

Stakeholder: IPC Topic: General

Comment: While IPC supports the agency’s intentions to evaluate and improve the RCRA Generator Standards, we 

are concerned that this approach, as delineated by EPA’s ANPRM, is overly circumscribed and unlikely to be an 

effective use of the agency’s limited resources.

EPA states in the ANPRM, “The goals of improving our generator regulatory program are to foster improved 

program effectiveness, foster a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and reduce regulatory compliance 

costs, where practicable.” Unfortunately, EPA declared off limits a discussion of the very issues that would allow 

the agency to achieve these goals: the overly burdensome regulation of the reclamation and reuse of hazardous 

materials.1 EPA’s regulation of all secondary materials as hazardous waste has led to a situation where recovery and 

reclamation of hazardous materials is more expensive than disposal and subsequent use of virgin materials. Until 

EPA addresses this fundamental flaw in the RCRA program, all other efforts, including the RCRA Burden 

Reduction effort2and the current ANPRM are unlikely to have a significant effect.

EPA has the opportunity with its proposed rule on the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW)3to truly “foster improved 

program effectiveness, foster a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and reduce regulatory compliance 

costs.” Without pursuing the broad based reform discussed in the preamble to the DSW rule, IPC believes EPA will 

be unable to achieve these goals. As discussed in our submitted comments on the DSW rule,4IPC believes that by 

revising the definition of solid waste to identify certain recyclable hazardous secondary materials as not discarded 

and thus no longer a “waste” and subject to regulation under RCRA, EPA would provide greater incentive for 

recovery and reuse of beneficial materials. IPC therefore encourages EPA 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. 

IPC believes EPA’s limited resources would be better spent by focusing on core program issues, such as those that 

the DSW rule could address, rather than the narrowly circumscribed and fairly insignificant issues discussed in this 

ANPRM. Nevertheless, should EPA wish to pursue this rulemaking, IPC offers the following comments in response 

to the agency’s request for information.

In this section, EPA asks if the existing RCRA hazardous waste generator regulatory program is meeting its goal of 

protecting human health and the environment. As EPA has already stated in previous publications, the answer to 

this question is yes: “In these past twenty years waste management practices have improved tremendously. 

Uncontrolled dumping of hazardous industrial wastes has decreased dramatically...”5 However, this achievement 

has been realized only at the cost of a high regulatory burden and consumption of natural resources, much of it 

reinforced by the unintended incentives of the RCRA regulatory system that reward the disposal of hazardous 

materials over reclamation and recovery.

Regarding the question of whether the regulations are easy to understand, the proliferation of RCRA training courses 

 

1

Page 21803 of the ANPRM states, “We are not addressing issues associated with the definition of solid 

waste, hazardous waste identifications regulations associated with listings and characteristics, or export 

provisions.”

2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative; 

Notice of Data Availability (68 FR 61662)

5 US EPA, Office of Solid Waste. “Beyond RCRA, Waste and Materials 

Management in the Year 2020.” EPA530-R-02-009. April 2003.
and like publications are strongly indicative that the regulations are not easy to understand.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Program Effectiveness

Comment: The cradle-to-grave concept of the existing hazardous waste generator program has significantly 

contributed to meeting the program goals of protecting human health and the environment. During the last twenty

years, many generators have instituted programs that successfully prevent spills and accidents and ensure the safe 

management of hazardous wastes. Furthermore, the program has made a significant contribution towards 

minimizing Superfund liabilities for generators of hazardous waste.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Program Improvement

As mentioned before, the RCRA generator program has been very effective. Although there are sections that are 

conflicting, outdated or duplicative, the regulated community and the regulators have developed a web of 

interpretations that allows facilities to operate in compliance. In approaching any changes to the program, EPA 

must be careful not to negate all of these interpretations. Any significant changes to the generator program could 

force facilities to revisit all of their regulatory determinations and interpretations, which is a significant effort with 

potentially little or no net benefit. Additionally, PhRMA requests that wherever possible, EPA make changes in the 

regulatory language and not regulate through guidance. So much of the RCRA regulatory program is through 

interpretations and guidance; it would be much easier for the regulated community, regardless of the size or 

sophistication of the facility, for regulation to be via the rules, not guidance. Additionally, EPA-issued guidance 

does not hold the same sway with state regulators as regulatory language. 

As stated before, there are several sections of the RCRA generator regulations that are conflicting, outdated, and/or 

duplicative. Some areas that PhRMA believes are in need of revision are described below (listed in order of 

appearance in the regulations): 

262.11(d) – PhRMA recommends that EPA add a reference to part 279, since there are also some exclusions or 

restrictions in the Used Oil regulations that could apply.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Program Effectiveness

Comment: Clearly the RCRA regulatory program has met the primary goal of protecting human health and the 

environment through an intense focus on waste management and minimization. It is important that our efforts to 

minimize “waste” not weaken these effective regulatory protections. Generator regulations apply only to wastes. 

Material should be defined out of the “waste” universe only when the risk of inappropriate management is 

negligible.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Program Improvement

Comment: Conclusion. FDEP suggests that education, compliance assistance and enforcement at aircraft stripping 

and boat manufacturing facilities be a priority project, due to the high toxicity of constituents handled in these 

industries, the turnover rate of operators, and evidence of lack of RCRA knowledge. Fear of liability for cleanup of 

releases under CERCLA and other state and federal environmental statutes is a powerful incentive for generators to 

comply with RCRA. When insurance companies, lenders and landlords conduct audits and require their 

customers/tenants to minimize the possibility of spills, they are effective in the effort to protect human health and 

the environment. Regulator should take care that changes in the RCRA rules do not have the unintended 

consequence of weakening such voluntary oversight efforts. 
Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Program Improvements

Comment: Summary of Comments

• Simplify and streamline hazardous waste generator regulations

• Provide easier access to regulatory assistance

• Streamline hazardous waste determination requirements

• Modify placarding requirements for hazardous waste generators

• Update and streamline container management standards

o Modify hazardous waste tank management standards

o Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements

• Base generator status changes on routine waste generation only

• Update requirements applicable to Large Quantity Generators

o Extend onsite hazardous waste accumulation timeframes

o Replace biennial reporting with automated system

o Eliminate requirement for written job descriptions for employees that

manage hazardous wastes

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) Topic: Program Improvements

Comment: The associations identified above serve the printing industry in many ways, one of which is to act as a 

technical resource for member companies. The small and medium-sized companies, in particular, often voice 

frustration at the difficulty in understanding environmental regulations, including the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). The resources EPA currently offers for small businesses are helpful, but need to be 

expanded to give concrete examples and interpretative guidance. For example, the publication Managing Your 

Hazardous Waste – A Guide for Small Businesses offers basic information, but often refers the reader back to a 

regulatory citation or simply quotes from a regulation. Our member companies tell us their questions usually arise 

when they’re trying to understand something that goes beyond the “basics” but isn’t clear in the regulation itself.

Along those same lines, the current structure of the RCRA regulations is extremely complex and difficult to 

read and understand. There are too many cross-references that should be eliminated. As a minimum, the regulation 

should be written in “plain English” style with all cross-references eliminated or dramatically reduced.

The regulations should also be written so they are performance-based and less prescriptive. Performancebased regulations allow the generator the necessary flexibility to achieve compliance without threatening the 

environment and with less negative impact on their business operations.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) Topic: Conclusion

Comment: The GAC appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the RCRA generator requirements. GAC 

fully supports EPA’s effort to simplify, streamline, and clarify the generator requirements. Actions taken 

would be a significant improvement over the current situation. The complexity of the individual requirements as 

well as the structure of the regulations themselves continues to be a great source of frustration for our

collective members. In addition, EPA needs to reduce redundant requirements that are imposed by other regulatory 

agencies as it will reduce the generator’s overall compliance burden. As EPA considers its approach to addressing 

reforming the generator requirements, it should examine the approach taken by OSHA when they revised 

their injury and illness recordkeeping requirements. OSHA wrote the new rules in plain English using a 

question and answer format incorporating all previous interpretations.
Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute 

(API) 

Topic: Program Effectiveness 

Comment: API appreciates the request for comments on the effectiveness of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generator regulatory program. API and member company representatives 

attended the public meetings held by the Agency on this activity. 

Since the initiation of the RCRA program generators have developed significant experience in managing hazardous 

waste within the RCRA program. The key objective of RCRA, to prevent adding to the list of abandoned 

contaminated sites with significant environmental challenges, has largely been met. For many generators of 

hazardous waste, including members of API, achieving this goal has resulted in frustrating efforts to deal with 

unclear and overly prescriptive requirements. The Agency practice of providing guidance as questions arose has 

reached the point where the guidance itself is often viewed as unhelpful and sometimes contradictory.

It is time to re-evaluate the requirements imposed on hazardous waste generators, now that we have more than 

twenty years of experience generating waste under the RCRA requirements.

API strongly supports EPA’s stated position that they will develop and implement a hazardous waste strategy with 

the goals of fostering improved program effectiveness, fostering a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and 

reducing compliance cost, where practicable. API supplies these comments to support this process. The attached 

document is organized into the following sections.

The Existing Generator Program Is Meeting Its Goal

The cradle-to-grave concept of the existing hazardous waste generator program has significantly contributed to 

meeting the program goals of protecting human health and the environment. Since 1980 many generators have 

instituted programs that successfully prevent spills and accidents and ensure the safe management of hazardous 

wastes. Furthermore, the program has made a significant contribution towards minimizing Superfund liabilities for 

generators of hazardous waste.

As mentioned before, the RCRA generator program has been very effective. Although there are sections that are 

conflicting, outdated or duplicative, the regulated community and the regulators have developed a web of 

interpretations that allows facilities to operate in compliance. In approaching any changes to the program, EPA 

must be careful not to negate all of these interpretations. Any significant changes to the generator program

could force facilities to revisit all of their regulatory determinations and interpretations, which is a significant 

effort with potentially little or no net benefit. Additionally, API requests that wherever possible, EPA make 

changes in the regulatory language and not regulate through guidance. So much of the RCRA regulatory 

program is through interpretations and guidance; it would be much easier for the regulated community, 

regardless of the size or sophistication of the facility, for regulation to be via the rules, not guidance. 

Additionally, EPA-issued guidance does not hold the same sway with state regulators as regulatory language. As 

stated before, there are several sections of the RCRA generator regulations that are conflicting, outdated, and/or 

duplicative. 
Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute 

(API) 

Topic: Program Priorities

Comment: Realizing that EPA will not be able to address all stakeholder concerns immediately, API requests the 

Agency tackle the evaluation of the generator program with the following priority:

1. Address those improvement opportunities identified in the proposal and comments to EPA’s “Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative”, 67 FR 2518 (January 17, 2002) and 68 FR 

61662 

(October 29, 2003).

2. Evaluate practical and clear requirements for satellite accumulation.

3. Remove, or at a minimum rewrite, the RCRA air emission standards found at

40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, & CC.

Stakeholder: National Paint and Coatings 

Association (NPCA)

Topic: Program Improvement

Comment: EPA’s goals under the ANPR are to “foster improved program effectiveness, a pollution prevention 

stewardship philosophy, and reduced compliance costs, where practicable.” The single greatest barrier to the 

realization of all three of these objectives are the costs and burdens associated with the reclamation of 

hazardous wastes. According to EPA’s 2002 TRI data release nearly 37% of wastes were recycled - if 

additional burden reductions and incentives were available much more recycling might occur. In addition, the 

time and expense associated with preparing burdensome reports could be used instead on pollution prevention and 

waste minimization. EPA must provide generators with greater incentive and certainty for the beneficial 

recovery and reuse of hazardous materials. Possible incentives might include a less burdensome manifest and 

reduced/elimination of biennial and TRI reporting. To this end, EPA has already proposed a rulemaking that 

would revise the definition of solid waste, and by virtue of RCRA, the definition of hazardous waste, to 

provide generators with increased opportunities for legitimate recycling by excluding those materials 

recycled or reclaimed from RCRA jurisdiction. EPA states that it is not addressing issues associated with the 

definition of solid waste or hazardous waste identification regulations with this ANPR, but NPCA posits that 

without such, EPA can not genuinely evaluate the effectiveness of RCRA’s generator program nor identify areas for 

potential improvement.

NOTE: Footnotes not included.

NPCA therefore encourages EPA to adopt the broad based reform outlined in the proposed rule, entitled 

Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste, defining legitimate recycling within the RCRA regulatory 

framework to exclude those materials legitimately recycled or reclaimed from Subtitle C RCRA jurisdiction. 

As provided in our comments on the rulemaking NPCA believes this can be done without impacting human health 

or the environment. Promoting the legitimate recovery and reuse of secondary materials in lieu of disposal is 

inherent to RCRA and part of EPA’s long-standing pollution prevention and waste minimization policy mandates. 

Providing the requisite criteria by which to do so provides for the safeguards dictated by RCRA while preserving the 

lifecycle benefits of resource recovery. Thus, if EPA is truly committed to improved RCRA generator program 

effectiveness, pollution prevention and reduced compliance costs, it should exclude from RCRA regulation all 

materials that are “legitimately” recycled. Exempting all legitimately recycled hazardous materials from RCRA 

Subtitle C jurisdiction would generally render the following comments moot, however, NPCA provides such to 

specifically reply to EPA’s request for information under the ANPR. 
Stakeholder: National Paint and Coatings 

Association (NPCA)

Topic: Program Improvement

Comment: NPCA applauds EPA for its goal of reviewing and evaluating RCRA’s generator standards for possible 

improvement and appreciates the opportunity to provide input in this regard. However, NPCA believes there are 

numerous efforts, as stated above, that have already been proposed by EPA, which would reduce and in some cases 

eliminate the costs and burdens association with these standards but have yet to be finalized.

Therefore, NPCA urges EPA to finalize those efforts with this rulemaking. A coordinated approach between 

branches within EPA’s Office of Solid Waste as well as between other EPA offices and other federal Agencies 

is needed when evaluating the impact and effectiveness of regulations such as RCRA. Without such, 

meaningful efforts at reform and improvement are difficult if not impossible to realize.

Stakeholder: USWAG Topic: 

Comment: .......As discussed below, the utilities have certain unique compliance issues with the generator 

rules, due primarily to the fact that the nature of utility operations do not lend themselves to the typical 

paradigm of a single fixed-site RCRA generator. Among other things, we believe this rulemaking initiative 

presents the ideal opportunity to correct this unique issue by having EPA reinitiate its earlier rulemaking 

efforts to allow utilities to consolidate hazardous wastes from remote utility locations at a utility central 

collection facility without triggering RCRA’s permit requirements. As EPA itself recognizes, such 

consolidation operations are incidental to utility generator operations and should not trigger RCRA’s permit 

program.

In addition, our comments identify other suggested improvements for the generator regulations, including: 

Expanding the existing exclusion from hazardous waste regulation for TC organic wastes subject 

to regulation under TSCA’s PCB program to include all hazardous wastes subject to 

TSCA’s PCB regulations;

Clarifying certain applications of the satellite accumulation rule, including that (1) there is no bar 

to distinct satellite accumulation areas being located adjacent to one another, (2) a centralized 

satellite accumulation facility can be used to collect “like” wastes that are generated throughout a 

facility, and (3) a satellite accumulation container can change locations as the “point of 

generation” of the wastes being stored in the container moves from point –to point within a 

particular facility; 

 Tailoring the generator rules applicable to “episodic” generation events, including looking to the 

management standards applicable to universal wastes as a guide for the management standards for units used to 

accumulate wastes generated only on an episodic basis; and

Codifying EPA’s long-standing position that generators can treat wastes in generator 

accumulation units under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34.

Note: Footnotes not included.
Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Burden reduction!!!

Comment: Reducing unnecessary burden within the RCRA program for hazardous waste generators is an important 

issue for Alliance members as evidenced by the comments previously submitted on other RCRA proposals. (See 

attached Exhibit B and Exhibit C In addition, the Alliance members support the comments previously submitted by 

General Motors on December 15, 2003 specifically related to burden reduction. (See attached Exhibit D). Finally, 

the Alliance commends EPA for undertaking an analysis of a flawed regulatory program and looks forward 

to working with the agency to reduce burdens and preserve environmental benefits.