**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 “ Tim es 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 frame wo rk for registering generators of hazardous waste, so w aste streams generated by industry can be tracked and reviewed by state and federal regulatory agencies. With these significant positives to the RCRA hazar dous 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 a nd 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 n eed to change fast along with them, and they need to make sense and be w orkable 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 occu r now and in the future. Performance requirements may offer an option to rem edy 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 Washingto n 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 we re qualified for and elected to utilize an EMS approach, the flexibility to desig n a hazardous w aste 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, docum entation, attainment of waste minimization goals and inspections would be articulated and the facility wo uld 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 w aste 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 forim

provement. ConocoPhillips Company concurs that each of these areas warrant some improvement and, in it s 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 develo ped a w eb 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 a nd 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 ru les, 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 a lready under consideration.

Stakeholder: Dominion Pow er Topic: Maintain status quo for several regulations **Comment:** EPA should not impose any new requirements on the following:

- Use of generator knowledge to characterize w aste (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 characterist ics that define solid w aste as hazardous w aste (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 plea sed 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 r egulations, 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 pri or 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 priori ty 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 w ith the current system for waste accumulation. Key components of such an alternative wo uld include relief for removal of excess quantities from satellite accumulation areas, clarification of designation requirements at the “point of generation ” , and revisi ting 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 utiliz e 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 addin g 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 requir em ents 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 intenti ons 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 im proving our generator regulatory program are to foster improved program effectiveness, foster a pollution prevention ste wardship philosophy, and reduce regulatory compliance costs, where practicable. ” Unfortunately, EPA declared off limits a discuss ion 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 effort2 and the c urrent ANPRM are unlikely to have a significant effect. EPA has the opportunity with its proposed rule on the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) 3 to truly “ foster improved program effectiveness, foster a pollution prevention ste wardship philosophy, and reduc e 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, 4 IPC believes that by revi sing the definition of solid w aste 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 mat erials. 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 resource s 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 rulemak ing, 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 tw enty years waste management practices have improved tremendously. Uncontrolled dumping of hazardous industrial wastes has decreased dramatically ...” 5 Ho wever, 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 ov er 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 wa ste, hazardous waste identifications r egulations 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 Mate rials 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 w aste 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 g enerators 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 an d the regulators have developed a w eb 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 regulati on 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 exclusio ns 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 w aste 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 manufactur ing 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 f ederal environmental statutes is a pow erful 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 ef fort 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

• Sim plify 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, o ften voice frustration at the difficulty in understanding environmental regulations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). **The resources EPA currently offers for sm all businesses are helpful, but need to be**  **expanded to give concrete exa**  **mp les 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 mem ber com panies 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 sam e lines, the current structure of the RCRA regulations is extremely com**  **pl ex and difficult to**  **read and understand.** There are too many cross

- references that should be eliminated. As a minimum, the regulation should be w

ritten in “plain English ” style with all cross

- references eliminated or dramatically reduced. **The regulations sh ould also be written so they are performance**  **- based and less prescriptive.**  Performance

based 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 gener**  **ator requirements. Actions taken would be a significant im** **provem ent 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 colle ctive 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 reform** **ing the generator requiremen ts, 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 form**  **at incorporating all previous interpretations.**Stakeholde r: 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 com pany 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 wa ste within the RCRA program. The key objective o f 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 effort s 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 tw enty 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
wa stes. Furthermore, the program has made a significant contribution towards minimizing Sup erfund 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 deve loped a w eb 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 facili**  **ties 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 reg ulate 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 thre**  **e of these objectives are the costs and burdens associated with the reclam ation 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**  **mo re recyc**  **ling might occur** . In addition, the time and expense associated with preparing burdensome reports could be used instead on pollution prevention and wa ste minimization. **EPA must provide generators with greater incentive and certainty for the beneficial**  **recov ery and reuse of hazardous materials. Possible incentives might include a less burdenso**  **me m anifest 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, an d by virtue of RCRA, the definition of hazardous waste, to**  **provide generators with increased opportunities for legitimate recycling by excluding those m aterials**  **recycled or reclaim ed from RCRA jurisdiction.**  EPA states that it is not addressing issues assoc iated with the definition of solid w aste or hazardous w aste 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 improvem ent. **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**  **fram ework to exc**  **lude those materials legitimately recycled or reclaim ed 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 w aste minimization policy mandates. Providing the requisite criteria by which to do so provides for the safeguards dictated by RC RA 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 ” recy cled. 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 un der 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 im provement and appreciates the oppo rtunity to provide input in this regard. How ever, 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 h ave 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 ev aluating the impact and effectiveness of regulations such as RCRA. Without such,**  **meaningful efforts at reform and improvement are difficult if not im possible to realize.** 

Stakeholder: USWAG Topic: Comment: .......As discussed below , **the utilities hav e 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. Am ong other things, we believe this rulem**  **aki ng 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 with**  **out 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 improvement s 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;**
**Clarifyi ng certain applications of the satellite accum**  **ulation 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 ” w astes 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;

**Ta iloring 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 b asis; 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!!!

Comme nt: 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 environm ental benefits.**