Mathy Stanislaus

About Mathy Stanislaus

Posts by Mathy Stanislaus:

Waste and Materials Tracking Now Available in EPA’s ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager®

By Mathy Stanislaus and Janet McCabe

While you might not think about buildings as polluters, the places where we work, shop and learn offer a significant opportunity to save energy, save water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce waste. The good news is that for many buildings, measuring and tracking energy and water use has become standard operating procedure.

Waste and materials are another story, however. Materials can include items such as furniture, construction materials, and equipment. Up to this point, there hasn’t been an easy or consistent way to track waste in commercial buildings and manufacturing facilities. That’s a problem since these facilities are responsible for nearly half of the 167 million tons of waste that wind up in incinerators or landfills each year.

Material recovery and waste reduction are essential components to the productive and sustainable use of materials across their entire life cycle to conserve resources, reduce waste, slow climate change and minimize the environmental impacts of the materials we use.  EPA’s 2009 report, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices, shows that approximately 42 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with materials management. Since new and existing buildings include materials such as furniture, construction materials and equipment, buildings represent a good opportunity for improvement and GHG reductions in America.

That’s why two years ago EPA began collaborating with leading building owners, managers, and waste haulers to identify key metrics and waste management options to add to ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, the Agency’s popular online energy and water measurement and tracking tool.

Portfolio Manager is actually the industry standard energy measurement and tracking tool for commercial buildings in the United States and Canada. More than 450,000 U.S. buildings, representing over 45 percent of the nation’s commercial building space, have been benchmarked in Portfolio Manager, as well as more than 10,000 buildings in Canada. These buildings are already using the tool to benchmark and improve performance, prioritize investments, and verify reductions in energy and water use across these tens of thousands of buildings.

We’re proud to debut the result of this collaboration. Portfolio Manager now includes a new waste and materials tracking feature. It’s designed in a way that allows for flexibility and basic comparative analysis, recognizing that the type and quality of available waste and materials management data vary widely.

With the addition of waste and materials tracking in Portfolio Manager, building owners and managers can now apply their successful energy management techniques holistically to reduce not only waste, but also the associated carbon footprint that results from landfill decomposition and incineration, as well as the costs of disposal.

Historically, waste management activities haven’t been well measured and tracked in commercial buildings.  However, as we learned from our experience with energy tracking, standardized measurement is the cornerstone of building management practices that drives improvement.

It’s incredibly rewarding when we can work together with businesses and organizations to offer new tools and capabilities that not only help them save money, but also help their communities remain economically competitive and support a healthy environment. We can’t wait to see what innovations lie ahead as owners and managers tap the same wealth of knowledge and creativity they’ve used to reduce energy, water, and greenhouse gas emissions, and apply it to the important issue of managing and reducing waste and materials. To learn more, visit

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Retail Strategy: A New Focus on Hazardous Waste Regulations

By Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus

America’s hazardous waste management program ensures the safe management of hazardous waste from the “cradle to the grave”. Many of these regulations were developed more than three decades ago, so it is important we ensure they continue to effectively protect human health and environment into the future.

These regulations were developed primarily for industrial and manufacturing settings, but apply to any non-household facility generating and managing hazardous waste—including some facilities that may surprise people. For example, hospitals, schools, and retail stores all generate hazardous waste and are subject to our regulations. However, because these types of facilities aren’t industrial in nature, sometimes the design of the hazardous waste regulations can pose compliance challenges. In recent years, we began to explore how we can update these important safeguards for a retail setting and address the potential challenges these regulations present for retail.

An orange prescription bottle lies on its side with its white cap next to it. Small pills spill out from the bottle.You might not think of consumer goods at retail stores as especially hazardous, but some household cleaners, automotive products, batteries and other items meet the definition of hazardous waste when disposed. These goods are important parts of our everyday lives and may require special disposal when they are no longer able to be sold. We want to ensure that these items, if they are not sold and must be disposed, are managed safely and properly.

Recently, EPA and other regulators focused increased attention on the retail sector. Instances of hazardous waste mismanagement and non-compliance by major retailers led us to seek information and solicit feedback by issuing a Retail Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in 2014. Feedback on the NODA, as well as information gathered from our continued engagement with the retail sector and regulatory community, not only increased our understanding of how retailers handle consumer goods that cannot be sold but also shed light on the challenges retailers face when managing goods that are hazardous wastes when disposed.

I’m excited to announce that we are unveiling a cohesive strategy to address these unique issues and to ensure that retail stores comply with hazardous waste regulations. This strategy takes into account the feedback we received in 2014, as well as our knowledge of how unsalable items are managed in the retail sector. It builds upon regulatory efforts underway, including proposed updates and improvements to existing hazardous waste generator regulations and a proposed set of regulations designed to allow flexibility in the management and disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.

As laid out in the strategy, we’ve taken these actions to ease the burden of managing hazardous wastes in a retail setting while maintaining important protections to human health and the environment, and furthering the President’s goal of reducing regulatory burden across the government (EO 13610). The strategy outlines our next steps, which include:

  • issuing the final generator rule in fall 2016;
  • working on finalizing the pharmaceuticals rule;
  • issuing a guide on recycling aerosol cans;
  • proposing a universal waste rule for aerosol cans; and
  • issuing a policy on reverse distribution and RCRA.

This retail strategy is an important next step in our journey to explore options for reducing management burdens, ensuring compliance with hazardous waste regulations and protecting human health and the environment. Our strategy is available at Take a look. We’re interested in your thoughts as we move forward in partnership with all stakeholders to implement this strategy.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Superfund Investigates Land Pollution from the Past…and Present

By Mathy Stanislaus

On September 7, 2016, we took steps to respond to states, tribes and citizens who asked for our help addressing contaminated sites. In response, we are adding 10 hazardous waste sites to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is our list of more than 1,300 of the most contaminated sites in the country that we are addressing under the Superfund program. Superfund is one of the most important federal programs to improve the health, environment and economy of America’s communities.

As I’ve traveled across the country during my tenure as Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management, I’ve seen firsthand how the mismanagement of contamination and hazardous waste can threaten entire communities. According to census data, approximately 53 million people live within three miles of a Superfund site – roughly 17% of the U.S. population, including 18% of all children in the U.S. under the age of five. Some groups, such as children, pregnant women and the elderly, may be at particular risk. During environmental emergencies, health threats — poisoning, injuries from fires and explosions — are often urgent and immediate. At other sites, health effects of contamination — cancer, birth defects — may be more long term. Under the most difficult circumstances, communities reach out to us to use the Superfund program to protect them from these risks.

We continue to find sites where recent operations have resulted in the mismanagement of contamination that warrant our investigation. In addition to adding 10 sites to the NPL, we are proposing the addition of eight more. Nine of these 18 sites were in operation within the last two decades, including several as recently as the late 2000s. Pollution at these 18 sites came from a variety of sources, including manufacturing, mining, battery recycling and dry cleaning.

One area we are listing on the NPL is the Bonita Peak Mining District in San Juan County, Colorado. Mining began there in the 1870s and continued into the 1990s. The Bonita Peak Superfund site includes 48 sources, comprised of 35 mines (including Gold King Mine) and 13 other mining-related areas. We have drainage data on 32 of these sources and we estimate that they collectively contribute an average of 5.4 million gallons of mine-influenced water per day to the Upper Animas River watershed. This water includes metals such as cadmium, copper, manganese and zinc that threaten the health of the watershed and downstream communities.

More broadly, the addition of the sites to the NPL continues a 35-year history of EPA improving the lives of those who reside on or near Superfund sites. Academic research has shown the cleanup of Superfund sites reduces birth defects of those close to a site by as much as 25 percent. Cleanups involving lead-contaminated soil have contributed to documented reductions in children’s blood-lead levels.

In addition, Superfund cleanups have a positive impact on local economies by enabling the reuse of previously unusable land. More than 850 Superfund sites nationwide have some type of actual or planned reuse underway. Last year, we reviewed 454 Superfund sites supporting use or reuse activities and found they had approximately 3,900 businesses with 108,000 employees and annual sales of more than $29 billion.

As our recent listing demonstrates, land pollution continues to occur from a variety of sources. It is not only an issue at abandoned industrial sites riddled with buried hazardous material, or at waste sites that operated before our nation’s environmental laws were enacted. Land pollution is still an issue — often due to the mismanagement of contaminants from more recent operations. Unfortunately, the Superfund program is needed as much today as in the past to clean up communities from such mismanagement.

Our Superfund program will continue to respond to requests from states, tribes and citizens to investigate all eras of pollution — past and present — to protect communities and hold polluters accountable. I am proud of the work our Superfund program has completed to date, and I encourage you to read more about its 35-year history and its highlights.

More information about the September 2016 NPL listing can be found here.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

A Reflection on the Gold King Mine Incident

By Mathy Stanislaus

Today, we are releasing a new publication, One Year After the Gold King Mine Incident: A Retrospective of EPA’s Efforts to Restore and Protect Communities. The report details our efforts — including the projects and groups we have funded — to protect the areas around the Gold King Mine (GKM) and prevent another spill like this from happening at other EPA work sites at mines across the country.

We continue to be accountable for the release, which occurred as a result of our work to investigate the mine. Since the accident, we have dedicated more than $29 million to respond to the release and to provide for continued monitoring in the area. Over the past year, we have remained committed to distilling important lessons from the incident, and are working on a more permanent solution to acid mine drainage in the Upper Animas Watershed. We have improved and tested stakeholder notification lists, instituted a headquarters review and state consultation process for all mine work plans prior to starting work at a site, provided grant assistance to foster collaboration and help support state and tribal water quality management programs,  and are developing a national report on best practices for hardrock mine remediation. We have worked with communities within the Bonita Peak Mining District area for many years on long-term solutions to address the estimated discharge of more than 5 million gallons per day of acidic mine influenced water to the Upper Animas River watershed. In April, we proposed a Superfund National Priorities Listing for the Bonita Peak Mining District (which includes Gold King Mine) and are working to finalize the listing this fall.

As Assistant Administrator for our Office of Land and Emergency Management, I can say that tackling the national environmental issue of abandoned mines is one of the toughest challenges we face. There are no overarching federal statutes or regulations for addressing the environmental contamination from abandoned hardrock mines. When requested by state or tribal partners, our Superfund program has been used to investigate and remediate abandoned mines that present a high risk to human and environmental health.  A 2015 Government Accountability Office report estimates that we spend anywhere from 7 to 52 times more at mining sites than at other types of Superfund sites.

Overall, the scale of this problem is striking. There are at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the western U.S. states and Alaska. Water draining from these types of mines and mine tailings are often highly acidic and release heavy metals such as zinc, lead, cadmium, copper and aluminum into the groundwater and surface waters the public relies on for drinking, agricultural irrigation and recreation.

The legacy of abandoned hardrock mines continues to be a source of complex challenges for our and the other federal and state agencies working to address this impact over the long-term. We thank all of our federal, tribal, state and local partners for their contributions to this first year of work following the GKM incident. We are strongly committed to working together to achieve long-term solutions to prevent future releases and protect our vital water resources. For more information, please visit:


Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

A Call to Action to Reduce Food Loss and Waste

By Mathy Stanislaus

Last November I co-hosted the Food Recovery Summit, bringing businesses, non-profits, governments, and community groups together in Charleston, South Carolina to reduce the problem of wasted food. There are successful efforts underway across the country that tackle wasted food – saving money, feeding the hungry, and acting on climate change.

Mathy CharlestonEPA and the US Department of Agriculture announced an ambitious national goal of reducing food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030. To reach our goal, we will need to harness and amplify these best practices and creative thinking. This effort is a triple win for the environment, economy, and social well-being of those who are the least fortunate among us.

Large piles of food in a field with a stack of boxes next to them.We worked with numerous stakeholders to gather some of the best thinking into a resulting summary we are releasing today: U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal: A Call to Action by Stakeholders. This Call to Action records the demonstrated practices of leaders throughout the food industry, divided into the categories of production, manufacturing, retail, consumers, recovery and regulators. As its name suggests, this summary is a call to action, calling the leaders of these sectors to take the best practices, innovative ideas, and key strategies within it and, not only put them to use locally, but to scale up their efforts nationwide.

This Call to Action contains key focus areas, opportunities, demonstrated practices and suggested actions identified by experts in the private and public sector. Just a few of the innovative practices inside A Call to Action include:

  • farmers starting ugly produce markets and offering gleaning opportunities
  • manufacturers using technology to make food storage easier and reduce spoilage
  • retailers establishing new networks to bring excess catered or unsold food to those who need it most
  • communities setting up composting programs to keep food out of landfills
  • advocacy groups and faith-based organizations creating recipe books, volunteer opportunities, tips and apps for consumers
  • universities educating students through strategies like starting tray-less dining, offering taste tests and sharing the results of their waste audits.

Everyone has a part to play to help us reach our goal, from families to the largest food producers. The Call to Action is a first step towards creating a pathway to get us there.

To check out the U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal: A Call to Action by Stakeholders, visit:

For more on food recovery visit:

To learn how your organization can track food inventories and set food waste prevention goals, visit

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

E-Manifest: Sustaining the e-Manifest National System through User Fees

By Mathy Stanislaus

Recently, I blogged about the selection of members for our e-Manifest Advisory Board, an exciting step in the creation of an electronic system for tracking hazardous waste shipments from “cradle-to-grave.” This system, known as e-Manifest, will improve access to timely hazardous waste shipment data and will reduce burdens associated with the current paper manifest system.

How are we funding this system? In the e-Manifest Act, Congress required that EPA recover all of the costs of developing and operating the system. E-Manifest will be entirely supported by user fees charged to those who use manifests to track shipments of their hazardous wastes. Congress directed EPA to create a system for collecting user fees, which makes lots of sense. After all, the cost of handling and tracking hazardous waste ought to be borne by those who generate it, not the tax payer. After all, maybe they will generate less!

Today, I’m pleased to highlight another important step toward our goal of deploying the e-Manifest system in the spring of 2018. We have released a proposed rule that explains how we propose to establish and revise the system’s user fees. Now it’s your turn; we want your input. We are looking forward to getting informed and insightful public comment. The proposal covers:

  • Who must pay e-Manifest user fees,
  • The types of transactions that will incur fees,
  • The formula we’ll use to set fees,
  • Options for paying fees electronically,
  • A process for periodically revising user fees, and
  • Sanctions for non-payment.

Our proposal plans to levy user fees on the facilities that receive manifested waste shipments, with the fees tailored to whether paper or electronic manifests are submitted to the system. Paper is a lot more expensive to handle and process. At EPA we’re advocates of reduce, reuse, recycle. The bottom line is that we’re trying to set this system up so that paper becomes the choice of last resort. If we are successful the system will be more efficient, cost less and save more.

I encourage you to tell us what you think. Comments on this proposal will be accepted for 60 days following publication of this rule in the Federal Register. EPA is requesting commenters to use the new comment platform, which can be found at Information on the new platform can be found in the Federal Register Notice for the proposed rule, as well as on the EPA e-Manifest proposed rule Web page. You may follow progress on EPA’s development of the e-Manifest system on our website. If you subscribe to the e-Manifest ListServ, you will receive project updates in real time and information about opportunities to provide feedback. EPA will also conduct an upcoming webinar to discuss the user fee proposals under consideration and encourage all interested parties to participate.

Once we’ve reviewed the public comments and feedback from the Advisory Board, EPA will finalize the user fee methodology and establish user fees for the e-Manifest system, which we expect to do in late 2017. We are excited about the strides we are making in realizing this national system, and remain dedicated to maintaining open dialogue and continuing collaboration. For more updates, visit our e-Manifest website.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Developing Green Job Opportunities in Brownfields-Impacted Communities

The first seeds of brownfields job training—and of the brownfields program itself—emerged in the early 1990s, reflecting our growing concern for environmental equity (now known as environmental justice). Back then, we provided funds for the assessment and cleanup of abandoned and potentially contaminated sites through brownfields grants. The funds brought job opportunities to those communities where the assessments and cleanups were taking place, but there was one problem. The jobs were going to environmental professionals from other cities because, more times than not, local residents lacked the environmental training these jobs demanded.

So in 1998, based on the urging of local community and environmental justice leaders, we launched the brownfields job training program. We wanted to help ensure that individuals from communities who had dealt with the high unemployment, poverty, historic disinvestment and health disparities that came along with brownfields, could be qualified to take advantage of the job opportunities created when cleaning up these sites. The program simultaneously served as a ladder of opportunity for residents from some of the most economically distressed communities in America for jobs, and one of the first green jobs programs. That first year, we awarded eleven brownfields job training pilots, and by 1999 the program produced its first 100 graduates.

Since 1998, the program has evolved and is now referred to as the Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training (EWDJT) program. The program provides funding to grantees so they can recruit, train, and place unemployed and severely under-employed individuals from these impacted communities in long-term environmental careers. These individuals are single mothers, low-income individuals, minorities, dislocated workers, tribal residents, ex-offenders, veterans, and other individuals with extreme barriers to employment. At this point, more than 14,700 individuals from communities historically affected by environmental pollution have been trained and more than 10,600 have been placed in environmental jobs throughout the country.

The EWDJT program is intended to not only help revitalize the land, but also transform the lives of those living on it. It is with great pleasure that we announce today the selection of 18 new entities that are aiming to do just that. We are awarding approximately $3.5 million in new EWDJT grants. We see this investment as a great way to more directly involve affected communities in their own revitalization.

View this year’s EWDJT selections

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Superfund is Making a Visible Difference

By Mathy Stanislaus

Thirty-five years ago, the Superfund program was created to clean up sites where hazardous releases have occurred or might occur.  At some of these sites, there are potential long-term human health effects from contamination, such as cancers, birth defects, or respiratory issues. Contaminated sites can also cause long-term harm to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources if not addressed and managed.  At other sites, the risk might be more immediate in the form of fires and explosions.  By implementing the Superfund statute with the help of residents, and collaboration with state, tribal and local officials, we can restore these sites that threaten the health and environment of communities across the country.  That is why we recently added five sites, and proposed adding an additional eight to the National Priorities List (NPL).

During the last seven years leading our Office of Land and Emergency Management, I have seen first-hand the benefit of the Superfund program and how it invests in and transforms environmentally blighted sites into community assets.  The Superfund program is an excellent example of collaboration and public partnership.  For example, in downtown Corinna, Maine at the Eastland Woolen Mill site, a former 22-acre textile mill left extensive soil, groundwater and drinking water contamination, making the area a challenge for the community to develop.  The Town of Corinna took action and obtained a grant from us to develop a plan for the area.  Working with the town officials and community the Corinna Village Center reuse plan was completed.  When the work was finished, what once stood as a contaminated industrial site was a revived landscape complete with features including a restored downtown, recreational trail, river walk, and a community bandstand for events.

This success story isn’t limited to Corinna, or the state of Maine; it’s one that I’ve observed in hundreds of cities and towns across the country.  In addition to aesthetic and health benefits, research has shown that the cleanup of these sites can result in increased property values of between 18.6 – 24.5 percent for the surrounding areas as compared to their pre-NPL proposal values.  This creates economic vitality for areas that were previously challenged with the threat of contamination. We also found that last year 454 of our national clean-up sites in reuse supported 3,900 businesses, which employed more than 108,000 workers and generated annual sales of $29 billion. These workers also earned a combined income of $7.8 billion.  It’s all of these benefits that make lasting visible differences in our communities and demonstrate the impact of the Superfund program.  We will continue to work with communities across the country to address contaminated sites which will provide benefits to those areas for generations to come.  If you would like more information about the Superfund program, please visit

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Permission to Build? Why Well-Maintained Hazardous Waste Permits are Good for the Environment, Good for our Communities, and Good for Business

By Mathy Stanislaus

We all know this principle: that which is built, also must be maintained. This applies to the houses and buildings we live in, the bridges and roads we travel, and the infrastructure that provides us reliable electricity and clean water. And it also applies to the facilities that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste – including the operating conditions and requirements at manufacturing facilities that also manage hazardous waste (treatment, storage, or disposal facilities). These requirements are maintained in their hazardous waste permits.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), facilities that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste must obtain a hazardous waste permit in order to ensure safe management of those wastes (i.e., ensuring tanks have secondary containment and will not leak). RCRA regulations for general permitting standards have been in place for over 30 years, and the majority of hazardous waste facilities have been properly permitted by their state or EPA regulating authority. However, as our new Permit Modification Report describes, the initial permit tells only the beginning of the story of a RCRA permit.

Now that most of these facilities already have their initial permits, the bulk of RCRA hazardous waste permitting activity has shifted to tasks that maintain and modify these permits. Permit modifications enable improved operational efficiency, economic development, and environmental protection at hazardous waste facilities. Throughout the modification process, effective and meaningful public participation keeps the local community abreast of ongoing changes at the facility. Public participation also helps inform facility managers, as well as the regulating agency, of public concerns.

Permittees request changes to their permits to keep pace with evolving business practices, technology, cleanup decisions, and regulations. Timely permit modifications ensure that these changes maintain protection of human health and the environment. These modifications can help with the cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater, increase recycling, reuse and sustainable materials management, reduce corresponding waste streams, minimize fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions and have economic benefits for the facility. At the same time, companies can keep pace with changes in the market place and bolster their competitiveness.

The 1,429 facilities permitted under RCRA and identified in the Permit Modification Report employ approximately 100,000 people and generate close to $400 billion in annual revenue. On average, states approve approximately 800 RCRA permit modifications annually. Details on that estimate are in our Permit Modification Report.

There is a wide variability on how many permit modifications a single facility will require, but, if evenly distributed, these facilities need changes to the permit on average about every 18 months, with the more active facilities requesting multiple changes in a single year. This important segment of the economy stands to benefit from responsive permitting programs that can address changes (modifications and renewals) in a timely manner while ensuring those changes are protective of the environment. In order for the permitting programs to remain responsive to modification requests, the state programs need adequate and available resources and staffing.

The public participation aspect of the permit modification process allows communities to be informed and involved, and it ensures that the regulating agency can consider and address local concerns—especially environmental justice concerns. We recommend expanded public participation efforts, such as the use of social media that goes beyond regulatory requirements. For example, greater public outreach may be needed for changes to permits that involve potential off-site impacts to the community, such as air emissions or cleanup of releases that may have migrated off-site. Greater outreach may be warranted when the facility is located in disadvantaged neighborhoods or when the facility is clustered near other industrial facilities and may add to cumulative impacts to adjacent communities. One report from 2007 found that neighborhoods surrounding hazardous waste facilities are 56% people of color compared to 30% people of color in neighborhoods without hazardous waste facilities. Additionally, the report found that poverty rates in neighborhoods with hazardous waste facilities are 1.5 times greater than neighborhoods without hazardous waste facilities.

We have information currently available on our website regarding expanded public participation, and we are updating our RCRA Public Participation Manual to provide further guidance. We will post the draft updated public participation manual for public review, and we will provide notice through our mailing lists. I encourage you—regulators, facilities, and citizens alike—to learn more about the Permit Modification Report and the hazardous waste permitting process. After all, well-maintained hazardous waste permits serve everyone’s need for economic and environmental well-being in the areas we call home.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

E-Manifest: Tapping into America’s Expertise to Build a National System

By Mathy Stanislaus

Last year, I wrote about the progress we’re making on creating an electronic system for tracking hazardous waste shipments. It’s the system that will modernize the nation’s cradle to grave hazardous waste tracking process while saving valuable time, resources, and dollars for industry and states. The e-Manifest program is the vanguard of the Agency-wide e-Enterprise initiative to develop new tools to reduce the reporting burden on regulated entities and provide the Agency, states and the public with easier access to environmental data.

Today I’m pleased to announce another important step toward this goal, the selection of members for our E-Manifest Advisory Board. We chose experts with diverse backgrounds to help ensure that perspectives from manifest users across the country will be incorporated into the recommendations for improving effectiveness of the e-Manifest system.

We followed a robust process to select the Advisory Board members. First, we solicited nominations through a variety of outlets, including the Federal Register, various professional associations, our e-Manifest ListServ, and the Office of Small Business Programs. We received an enthusiastic response from candidates with expertise in information technology and from stakeholders in the sectors affected by the future e-Manifest system, including state governments, transportation, and hazardous waste management. From this excellent slate of nominations, we selected eight members who we believe reflect a wide array of valuable expertise, including:

  • Decades of experience managing hazardous waste at generator, transporter, and hazardous waste management facilities;
  • Vast systems development knowledge, including one contributer to the OnStar Automotive assistive technology; and
  • Hands-on, in-depth experience managing state hazardous waste programs in the states of Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington.

As required by the e-Manifest Act, the Advisory Board will be composed of nine members consisting of the EPA Administrator (or her designee), two members from the information technology sector, three members from state agencies and three members from the regulated community. We are excited to start working with the Advisory Board to gather their thoughts on several complex issues surrounding the development of the e-manifest system, including effectiveness and performance, user fees and processes, regulations and guidance, and outreach to our stakeholders. We will convene the Advisory Board periodically beginning in 2016, and we intend to deploy the e-Manifest system in the spring of 2018.

For those stakeholders who are not part of the Advisory Board, there are several ways you can provide your input and expertise to the e-Manifest system project. Our system development work is focused on ensuring that user requirements are met from day one of national system deployment. To accomplish this, we are conducting user-centered design and development and are utilizing agile software development methodologies. This approach embodies continuous improvement through pilots and testing, using iterative processes, and continued regular engagement with users and stakeholders throughout the process to provide on-going opportunities for input.

I encourage you to follow progress on the development of the e-Manifest system on our website. There, you may also subscribe to the e-Manifest ListServ to receive project updates in real time and information about opportunities to provide feedback. You may also submit your ideas and questions to And finally, once we publish our proposed fee methodology this spring, I encourage you to submit comments on the proposed rule through

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.