**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Manifest)** 
**Stakeholder:** Rutgers University **Topic:** Use of a less complicated shipping document for intra

- compan y shipments Comment: Current regulation states that a hazardous waste manifest must be used when hazardous waste is transported from a generator location to a designated TSDF (40 CFR 262.20 (a)). Many generators have multiple individual facilities, which are all in close proximity t o each other but not in one contiguous location, @.e. Businesses, Coll eges and Universities). Additionally , not all the locations have 90/180/27O

- Day storage areas or are permitted TSDF's. This creates a situation where some organizations are manifesting waste from a generator location to a designated TSDF strictly for stora ge prior to shipment to an ultimate disposal site. The generator program would be improved if specific generators (i.e.Businesses, Colleges and Universities) were allowed to transport hazardous waste, for storage purposes only , using a less complicated shipping document, such as a Bill of Lading (BOL) instead of a hazardous waste manifest. This would be beneficial for the following two scenarios:

- When two or more generators, under the same ownership are located in close proximity to each other and onl y on e location has an appropriate 90/180/270

- Day storage area.

- When one or more generators and a permitted TSDF are under the same ownership and the storage of hazardous waste is preferred at the TSDF site.
Stakeholder: Johnson & Johnson **Topic:** Manifests

**Comment:** Some kind of manifesting relief. We are unsure how to go about this, but the biggest issue with manifesting is all of the mailings to the various states.
**Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Topic: Manifests -**  **40 CFR 262.11(c) Comment: 40 CFR 262.11(c)**  states that for purposes of compliance with the land disposal restriction regulations in 40 CFR 268, or if the waste is not listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine if the waste exhibits a characteristic of haz ardous waste in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. Under EPA’s regulations, waste numbers are used on biennial Hazardous Waste Reports, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity forms, and land disposal notifications. Under EPA’s proposed regulation for the uniform hazardous waste manifest (66 FR 28240), waste numbers would be required to be used on the manifest, and many states require waste numbers to be included on the current hazardous waste manifests. Block 11 on the current hazardous waste manifest requires the pro per DOT shipping description, which may include waste numbers to identify hazardous substances. If a generator generates F007 waste (nonwastewater) that also exhibits the characteristic of toxicity for arsenic, cadmium and chromium, but not for lead and si lver, and also exhibits the characteristic of reactivity d ue to cyanide content, the following apply : · On the biennial Hazardous Waste Reports and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity forms, only F007 would be required to be listed.· On the proposed manifest form (and most state manifest forms), only F007 would be required to

be listed. · For purposes of 40 CFR 268, the generator must determine if the waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity . Although laboratory anal ys is is not required to make this determination, such analy sis is often conducted to enhance the records required by 40 CFR 262.40(c). Assume that based on this assessment, the waste would also be assigned the waste numbers D004, D006, D007, and D003. On the land disposal notice, the g enerator would have to include F007 and D004, but would not have to include D006, D007, and D003 since the treatment standard for the listed waste number (F007)operates in lieu of the treatment standard for the characteristic waste numbers for D006, D007, and D003, but not for D004.

In most cases, the land disposal notice is sent along with the first manifest. The manifest, including the proper DOT shipping description, would only identify the F007 waste number. The land disposal notice would identify F007 and D004. The waste characterization records would identify F007, D003, D004, D006, and D007. This creates a lot of confusion and apparent discrepancies in hazardous waste records. We recommend that EPA require generators to identify the characte ristic waste number when characteristic hazards are not covered under listings, and that these waste numbers be required to be used consistently on biennial reports, manifests, waste characterization records, and land disposal restriction notification form s. We also recommend that EPA indicate in their listings all of the characteristic numbers that are considered to be represented (instead of just indicating the hazard code); this would make it much easier for purposes of compliance with LDR and identification modified by our suggestion, or EPA could develop a separate table just for identifying redundant waste numbers, for example: If a waste is identified with the following listed waste number from 261.30: F001, Then the following characteristic waste numbers are not required for the purposes of complying with 262.11, 262.20, 262.40, or 268 (or an y other hazardous waste regulations): D019, D039. (NOTE: Table continues with other examples.)
**Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Topic: Manifests -**  **40 CFR 262 Subpart B.**  **Comment: 40 CFR 262 Subpart B.**  The current manifest sy stem is complicated because of the customization allowed b y EPA. We encourage EPA to finalize the new uniform manifest with no state

- optional information. I ssues about choosing the proper state’s manifest and how to complete a manifest when the generation and destination state agencies do not require the same information would be eliminated.
**Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority**  **Topic: Streamlined manifesting requirements**
**Comment: TVA supp orts EPA’s initiative to streamline manifesting requirements. We** **recommend EPA develop provisions for intra -**  **company transport without requirements for**

**waste to be accepted only at a TSDF, except as a final destination. Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley**  **Authority Topic:**  Uniform nationwide electronic manifest sy stem **Comment:** TVA encourages the concept of a uniform nationwide electronic manifest sy stem, as long as a good implementation plan provides full tracking and has been subjected to public and indu stry review and comment. Additionally , full consideration of impact to technological constraints should be given. Major upgrades to computer sy stems (hardware or software related) can require extremel y long lead times to implement (on the order of three to five years).
**Stakeholder:** American Ref

- Fuel **Topic:** Use a national, uniform hazardous waste

manifest **Comment:** Program Improvements: Manifests. Ref

- Fuel believes that companies with multiple facilities in different states would benefit from the use of a national, uniform hazardous waste manifest. We understand that different states often wish to modify their manifests to reflect programs in each state, but some have expanded the documents to several pages, with little or no apparent increased environme ntal benefit. Ref

- Fuel supports the concepts proposed in the EPA’s May 22, 2001 proposal for uniform manifests.
**Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic:**  Use a national, uniform hazardous waste manifest **Comment:** SOCMA Supports Use of A Trul y Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Sy stem. The goal of establishing a truly uniform national hazardous waste manifest s ys tem should be a top priority and is a long overdue modification of the hazardous waste transportation scheme. SOCMA supports EPA’s continued eff orts to eliminate the current inconsistencies of the various manifest forms among states and support the mandatory u se of a single uniform for use in an y s tate without regard to the source of the manifest. EPA had already proposed a rule that would greatl y reduce the paperwork and time burdens associated with the current manifest system, but it has yet to be finalized. SOCMA provided comments on the proposal and met with EPA twice and continues to urge EPA to come out with a final rule. The current complexi ties and variations in the manifest sy stem are unnecessary , add no value and, in fact, are a significant burden on interstate commerce. SOCMA urges EPA to work more forcefully with DOT to give full effect to the state preemption doctrine for hazardous mat erials as a legitimate means to achieve the mutual goal on a uniform national manifest sy stem.
**Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic:**  The absence of the hazardous waste numbers and other pertinent information**Comment:** The absence of the hazardous waste numbers and other pertinent information from

manifests makes tracking of specific types of wastes from cradle to grave difficult. This is especiall y true when wastes are shipped to an intermediary treatment facility located in another state, before final treatment, and/or disposal. For example, DOT regulations require hazardous waste numbers on manifests. However, man y of the applicable hazardous waste numbers and waste codes are often missing from the manifest forms.
**Stakeholder:** Pacific NW National Laboratory **Topic:** Support finalization of the changes to the Uniform Hazardous

**Comment:** 262.20: We support finalization of the changes to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest program proposed in the 5/22/2001 Federal Register. In particular, we encourage EPA to move toward use of a single, easily acquired manifest form while retaining origination and/or destination states’ ability to require additional information on the form. We also support the development of an electronic manifest sy stem that would simplify th e task of preparation and tracking of these important documents.
**Stakeholder:** Pacific NW National Laboratory **Topic: Manifest certification**
Comment: 262.20(a): Question the value of certification that the company has a pollution prevention program on the manifest. In companies of size, certification of a manifest is performed by staff that may

have little or no responsibility for policy

development. While such staff may be aware of a pollution prevention program at their company , they may not be able o r qualified to determine if it meets all of the requirements specified in the certification. EPA has made several accommodations concerning this certification in the past.13 In the 20 ye ars since Congress mandated this certification, pollution prevention h as become broadl y available and widel y utilized. The value of the certification is no longer evident, and we encourage EPA to consider removing it. This change would require Congress to remove the statutory requirement for the certification found at 42 USC 6922(b).
Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Clarify 262.23(b) Comment: 262.23(b)

- For clarity, PhRMA recommends that EPA insert the wording "except as provided in paragraphs (c) & (d) of this section" to 262.23(b).
Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Part 262 Subpart B Comment: Part 262 Subpart B

- Manifest. FDEP proposes that Subpart B be renamed “Pre

- Transportation Requirements.” 40 CFR 262.30, 262.31 and 262.32 should be moved to this newly renamed Subpart B.Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition

(GAC) Topic: Use a single uniform manifest

Comment: In support of paperwork reduction, **the GAC strongly encourages the use of a single uniform manifest that can be used universally across all states.**  Man y ti mes there is confusion as to whi ch manifest is to be used, especiall y wh en hazardous waste is shipped to another state for treatment, recycling, or disposal. Some states have modified the basic manifest and each of these nuances makes it difficult to correctl y complete the appropriate manifest.
Stakeholder: API Topic: Incorrect DOT address
Comment: The regulations (§262.20(f)) require a generator, under certain situations involving release of hazardous waste from a transport vehicle, to comply with §263.30. O ne of the conditions of §263.30(c) references 49 CFR 171.16 for submitting a written report to DOT under certain circumstances. H owever, the address to send the report listed in §263.30(c)(2) is not consistent with the address provided in 49 CFR 171.16. APIrequests that EP A remove the actual address from §263.30(c)(2), and **replace it with a reference to the DOT regulations (49 CFR 171.16) where the current address is listed.** 

Stakeholder: API Topic: Out of date citations **Comment: The regulations (§262.23(b)) should be appended at the end of the section with**  **“except as provided in paragraphs (c) & (d) of this section.” This clarifies that (b) is not applicable to the specific water and rail shipments described in paragraphs (c) and (d).** 

Stakeholder: National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) Topic: Eliminate the current inconsistencies of the various manifest forms among states Comment: The goal of a truly uniform hazardous waste manifest s ys tem across all states is the ideal. Therefore, NPCA supports eliminating the current inconsistencies of the various manifest forms among states and providing for one form for use in any state without regard to the source of the manifest. A one manifest system would simplify the process and would not add any risk to the “cradle to grave” tracking process. EPA has already proposed a rule that would greatl y r educe the paperwork and time burdens associated with the current m anifest sy stem, but has yet to finalize such. **The proposed rule established a new system for obtaining m anifest forms, including**  **the elimination**  **of variability**  **among states**  **as to**  **which forms**  **should be**  **used, where**  **to obtain**  **them, and how to use them. It proposed procedures for rejected loads and residues which would improve the tracking of these hazardous was**  **te shipments and provide needed clarification of the requirements for such. Further, it proposed a uniform electronic** 

**manifest system that would significantly reduce the cost and burden associated with the hazardous waste manifest system under RCRA. NPCA p**  **rovided detailed comments on the proposal**  **and reiterates herein the need for EPA to move forward with finalization.**

17 comments