Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Manifest)

Stakeholder: Rutgers University Topic: Use of a less complicated shipping document 

for intra-company 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 to each other but not 

in one contiguous location, @.e. Businesses, Colleges 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 storage 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 only one 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 hazardous 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 proper 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 

silver, and also exhibits the characteristic of reactivity due 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 analysis is not required to make this determination, such analysis 

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 generator 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 characteristic 

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 forms. 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 any 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 system is complicated because of the customization 

allowed by EPA. We encourage EPA to finalize the new uniform manifest with no state-optional 

information. Issues 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 supports 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 

system

Comment: TVA encourages the concept of a uniform nationwide electronic manifest system, as 

long as a good implementation plan provides full tracking and has been subjected to public and 

industry review and comment. Additionally, full consideration of impact to technological 

constraints should be given. Major upgrades to computer systems (hardware or software related) 

can require extremely 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 environmental 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 Truly Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest System. The 

goal of establishing a truly uniform national hazardous waste manifest system should be a top 

priority and is a long overdue modification of the hazardous waste transportation scheme.

SOCMA supports EPA’s continued efforts to eliminate the current inconsistencies of the various 

manifest forms among states and support the mandatory use of a single uniform for use in any state 

without regard to the source of the manifest. EPA had already proposed a rule that would greatly

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 complexities and variations

in the manifest system 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 materials as a legitimate means to achieve the mutual 

goal on a uniform national manifest system.

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 

especially 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, many 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 system that would simplify the 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 or 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 years since Congress 

mandated this certification, pollution prevention has become broadly available and widely 

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. Many times there is confusion 

as to which manifest is to be used, especially when 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 correctly 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. One of the 

conditions of §263.30(c) references 49 CFR 171.16 for submitting a written report to DOT under 

certain circumstances. However, the address to send the report listed in §263.30(c)(2) is not 

consistent with the address provided in 49 CFR 171.16. API requests that EPA 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 system 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 greatly reduce the 

paperwork and time burdens associated with the current manifest system, but has yet to finalize 

such. The proposed rule established a new system for obtaining manifest 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 waste 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 provided detailed comments on the 

proposal and reiterates herein the need for EPA to move forward with finalization.

17 comments