![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
180-Day Accumulation Time for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From the Metal Finishing Industry
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 1, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 20)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4818-4833]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01fe99-26]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 262
[FRL-6227-8]
RIN 2050-AE60
180-Day Accumulation Time for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From
the Metal Finishing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today proposing a cleaner,
cheaper, and smarter opportunity for environmental
[[Page 4819]]
protection for the Metal Finishing Industry. EPA is proposing to allow
generators of F006 waste (sludges from the treatment of electroplating
wastewaters) up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, if applicable) to
accumulate F006 waste without a hazardous waste storage permit or
interim status, provided that these generators meet certain conditions.
The first condition is that F006 waste generators have implemented
pollution prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of
the F006 waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery. The
second condition is that they recycle the F006 waste by metals
recovery. The third condition is that they accumulate no more than
16,000 kilograms of F006 waste at any one time. The final condition is
that they comply with the applicable management standards. EPA believes
that the 180-day accumulation time for F006 waste is protective of
human health and the environment. The 180-day accumulation time would
minimize economic barriers to the recycling of F006 waste through
metals recovery, thus providing generators of F006 waste with an
incentive to choose metals recovery over treatment and land disposal as
their waste management option for F006 waste.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule should be submitted on or
before April 2, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their
comments referencing docket number F-1999-F06P-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington,
VA, address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically to:
rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments in electronic format should also
be identified by the docket number F-1999-F06P-FFFFF. All electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway One,
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The RIC
is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory document at no cost.
Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. The index and some supporting
materials are available electronically. See the Supplementary
Information section for information on accessing them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323.
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this
rulemaking, contact Jeffery S. Hannapel (5304-W), Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8826, hannapel.jeff@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index and some supporting materials are
available on the Internet. Follow these instructions to access the
information electronically: www: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/hazwaste/
gener/f006acum.htm
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/oswer
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a
response to comments document placed in the official record for this
rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically
other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be
garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as
discussed above.
I. Authority
This proposed rule is issued under authority of sections 2002,
3001, 3002, 3003, 3004 and 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 42 U.S.C.
6906, 6912, 6921-6925, 6937 and 6938.
II. Background
A. Purpose and Context for Proposed Rule
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to
promulgate standards for generation of hazardous waste as necessary to
protect human health and the environment. RCRA Section 3002. Section
1003 of RCRA establishes a national objective of ``minimizing the
generation of hazardous waste and the land disposal of hazardous waste
by encouraging process substitutions, materials recovery, properly
conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment.'' In response to these
provisions, EPA has endeavored to develop regulations that promote
legitimate recycling of solid and hazardous waste while protecting
human health and the environment against the development and use of
unsafe or sham recycling practices. Today's proposed rule is an effort
to promote the legitimate metals recovery of F006 wastes and to reduce
the volume of F006 wastes that is land disposed. The Agency is
proposing to provide flexibility in the RCRA regulations governing
accumulation time limits for generators who accumulate wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating operations (i.e., the listed
hazardous waste, F006) and process these sludges for metals recovery.
Today's proposed rule would allow generators of F006 waste up to
180 days to accumulate F006 waste on site, without a RCRA permit or
interim status, as an incentive to encourage metals recovery and
pollution prevention practices for this waste. Under the rule as
proposed today, F006 wastes that are not recycled by metals recovery
would not be eligible for the 180-day accumulation time. In order to
ensure that on-site accumulation of F006 waste is protective of human
health and the environment, the management standards for 180-day on-
site accumulation of F006 waste would be the same as those that
currently apply to 90-day on-site accumulation.
This proposed rule is limited to generators of F006 waste. In 40
CFR 261.31, F006 waste is defined as:
Wastewater treatment sludges generated from electroplating
operations, except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc
plating (segregated
[[Page 4820]]
basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on
carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc, and
aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and
milling of aluminum.
In listing electroplating wastewater treatment sludges as hazardous
waste, EPA identified several hazardous constituents, including
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanides that could
pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment if the
sludge was mismanaged. The potential hazards associated with the
constituents of concern in the sludge and the potential for improper
management of the electroplating wastewater treatment sludges served as
the basis for listing the sludge as the hazardous waste, F006. The
listing status of the waste would not be affected by this proposed
rule.
The physical form of F006 waste can generally be described as a
mixed metal hydroxide wastewater treatment precipitate, which is 24 to
50 percent solids by weight. Other physical forms of this material can
include spent ion exchange columns or iron precipitation solids. F006
sludges may contain metals with commercial value that can be recovered
from the sludges. The metals recovered from these sludges are most
often concentrates and intermediate materials that require further
processing before a commercially usable metal is produced. Often, the
metals contained in these industrial sludges are recovered in the form
of a metal oxide or salt (e.g., lead oxide, lead chloride, lead
sulfate) through High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR), such as
smelting operations.
Currently, generators who generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a calendar month (i.e., large quantity generators)
may accumulate hazardous waste on-site, without having to obtain a RCRA
permit for the on-site accumulation activities, for a period of up to
90 days. Many generators of F006 wastewater treatment sludges indicate
that this 90-day accumulation limit restricts their ability to generate
a large enough volume of F006 sludge to make recycling more
economically feasible when compared to treatment and land disposal.
This is principally because of: (1) The relatively high cost of
transportation of the hazardous sludge from a generator's establishment
to a recycling or smelting facility (due, in part, to the longer
distances to metals recovery facilities and the fact that generators
are shipping partial truck loads) and (2) the surcharge that metals
recovery facilities generally charge generators and waste brokers for
managing small quantities of F006 waste.
In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to allow generators of
F006 electroplating sludge to accumulate F006 waste on site for up to
180 days in tanks, containers or containment buildings without a RCRA
permit, if the generator: (1) Has implemented pollution prevention
practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 waste or that
make the F006 waste more amenable for metals recovery, (2) recycles the
F006 waste through metals recovery, (3) accumulates no more than 16,000
kilograms of F006 waste at any one time, and (4) complies with the
applicable management standards in the rule. This proposal would not
change any other requirements applicable to generators of hazardous
waste. EPA believes that the 180-day accumulation period will allow
generators of F006 waste to ship the waste off site less frequently
(e.g., twice a year rather than four times a year under the existing
90-day accumulation rule), and thereby, reduce the costs associated
with transporting F006 sludges to metals recovery facilities. Because
generators can accumulate F006 waste on site for 180 days only if the
waste is sent off site for metals recovery, EPA expects that the
quantities of F006 waste that are recycled, rather than treated and
land disposed, will increase. F006 waste metals recovery also promotes
resource conservation because metals recovered from the sludges may
serve as alternative feedstocks for primary metals in production and
manufacturing processes.
EPA is basing this proposal, in part, on discussions under the
Agency's Common Sense Initiative for the Metal Finishing Industry. The
Common Sense Initiative, as well as broader changes in the regulation
of F006 waste being considered as part of the Common Sense Initiative,
are discussed in more detail below. The Agency notes that today's
proposed rule only affects the amount of time generators of F006 waste
may accumulate that waste on site, without a RCRA permit, prior to
having it processed for metals recovery. At this time, EPA is proposing
no other changes to the hazardous waste management standards governing
generator activities. All other provisions governing hazardous waste
management activities for large quantity generators under 40 CFR part
262 (e.g., unit specific standards, recordkeeping and reporting, and
manifesting requirements) would remain unchanged and in effect with
respect to large quantity generators of F006 waste.
B. Common Sense Initiative (CSI) for Metal Finishing Industry
Today's proposal is an outgrowth of activities conducted under the
EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI), an innovative approach to
environmental protection and pollution prevention. The CSI was
established on October 17, 1994, through a charter pursuant to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The goal of the CSI is to use
consensus decision-making to recommend policy and program changes to
the CSI Council and the EPA Administrator. EPA selected six industries
to serve as CSI pilot industries: automobile manufacturing, computer
and electronics, iron and steel, metal finishing, petroleum refining,
and printing. These six industries comprise over 11 percent of the U.S.
Gross Domestic Product, employ over 4 million people, and account for
over 12 percent of the toxic releases reported by United States
industry. As such, they offer excellent opportunities to test and
refine CSI concepts, to create environmental solutions that can operate
across industries, and to identify opportunities to expand CSI concepts
to other relevant industries.
CSI is organized through an advisory committee referred to as the
``CSI Council,'' that is comprised of high-level representatives from
various stakeholder groups, including all involved industries. For each
industry, known as a ``sector'' in CSI, the CSI Council establishes a
subcommittee of stakeholders to look for cleaner, cheaper, and smarter
opportunities for environmental protection in that sector. Sector
subcommittees and work groups meet frequently to develop and discuss
progress in various projects, policy considerations, and other issues.
Team options, proposals, issues, and data are forwarded to the CSI
Council for further action. The CSI Council considers matters from the
sector subcommittees and makes recommendations to the Administrator.
The CSI process is producing better, more applicable environmental
protection strategies that are developed, in part, by the regulated
community, and in concert with regulatory agencies and public interest
groups.
Since beginning their work in January 1995, the sector
subcommittees have developed nearly 40 projects involving more than 150
stakeholders who actively participate in sector subcommittees and
subcommittee workgroups. Some of the projects are specific to
individual sectors. Other projects explore solutions to common
[[Page 4821]]
issues such as alternative flexible regulatory systems, pollution
prevention, reporting, compliance, permitting, and environmental
technology.
Today's proposal stems primarily from CSI efforts in the metal
finishing industry sector. The metal finishing industry consists of
more than three thousand ``job shops'' (i.e., independent metal plating
firms that complete jobs on contract), which are mostly small
businesses with limited capital and personnel, and more than eight
thousand ``captive'' metal finishing operations within larger
manufacturing facilities. The industry is geographically diverse, but
concentrated in heavily industrialized states. Because of the cross-
media impacts of their operations, metal finishers face a broad range
of federal, state, and local environmental requirements (especially
with regard to water use and waste disposal).
The CSI metal finishing subcommittee has 24 members representing
metal finishing companies, trade associations, suppliers, environmental
and community groups, organized labor, and state and local governments.
Some of the representative organizations include the American
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, the National Association
of Metal Finishers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the AFL-CIO,
the Barrio Planners of Los Angeles, the Water Environment Federation,
and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. As part of its
work under CSI, the metal finishing sector has developed a set of
ambitious voluntary performance goals to promote pollution prevention
and environmental management beyond what is currently required for the
industry under federal regulations (i.e., the Strategic Goals Program).
The goals address resource utilization, hazardous emissions, economic
pay backs, and compliance costs.
As a means towards meeting these goals, the metal finishing
subcommittee has endorsed 14 projects, and supports an additional CSI
small business sector project. In addition to these 14 projects, the
action plan also contains ``enabling actions'' that all stakeholders
have committed to undertake to help the industry meet the Strategic
Goals. Allowing generators of F006 waste to accumulate the sludge for
up to 180 days is one of the enabling actions to help remove
unnecessary barriers to recycling and to promote the goals of the CSI
effort.
Another one of the enabling actions includes a study conducted by
EPA to examine whether the physical nature of F006 waste has changed as
a result of process improvements in the last twenty years, and if so,
whether some type of regulatory, administrative, or other relief for
the management of F006 waste is warranted. Phase I of this study (i.e.,
sampling of F006 sludge from 30 metal finishing facilities in three
cities) is expected to be completed shortly with the issuance of a
report. Phase II of the study (i.e., identifying additional data needs,
if any, and examining potential regulatory and administrative
strategies that may promote metals recovery of F006 waste, encourage
pollution prevention practices related to the generation of F006 waste,
and reduce or remove possible RCRA barriers to metals recovery of F006
waste) is now in process.
C. Current Accumulation Time for Large Quantity Generators
The current standards under 40 CFR part 262 for generators of
hazardous waste who generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous
waste per month limit the amount of time hazardous waste can be
accumulated without a RCRA permit at the generator's site. Under the
existing 40 CFR 262.34, generators of greater than 1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month may accumulate hazardous waste on site for up
to 90 days without having to obtain a RCRA permit. This provision was
established to provide generators sufficient time in all reasonable
situations for waste accumulation to occur prior to waste management,
without interfering with generator manufacturing processes. 51 FR 25487
(July 14, 1986).
Under the existing 90-day accumulation rule, the generator must
comply with certain unit-specific standards (e.g., tank, container,
containment building, and drip pad standards) for accumulation units,
marking and labeling requirements, preparedness and emergency procedure
requirements, and release response requirements. 40 CFR 262.34(a).
Generators may also petition the EPA Regional Administrator to grant an
extension, up to 30 days, to the 90-day accumulation time limit due to
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances, on a case-by-
case basis under 40 CFR 262.34(b).
As outlined above, and explained below in Section III, the Agency
is proposing to allow generators of F006 wastewater treatment sludges
to accumulate the waste prior to metals recovery for up to 180 days
without a RCRA permit, provided the generators comply with certain
conditions, as explained below. For the reasons explained below, the
Agency believes that the proposed 180-day accumulation time is
appropriate for generators of F006 waste, without interfering with the
generator's manufacturing processes. Today's proposed rule makes no
changes to the requirements for 90-day accumulation under the current
regulations.
D. Current Accumulation Time for Small Quantity Generators
The current federal RCRA regulations governing waste management
requirements for hazardous waste generators provide for accumulation
time limits for generators who generate more than 100 kilograms of
hazardous waste, but less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a
calendar month, who are known as small quantity generators (SQGs).
Section 262.34(d) of 40 CFR provides that SQGs may accumulate hazardous
waste on site for 180 days or less without a permit or without having
interim status, provided that the generator complies with certain
provisions. These existing provisions include a restriction that the
generator never accumulates more than 6,000 kilograms of hazardous
waste on site. In addition, the generator must comply with certain
unit-specific standards (e.g., tank and container standards) for
accumulation units, marking and labeling requirements, preparedness and
emergency procedure requirements, and release response requirements.
The Agency is not proposing in this action to change the current
provisions governing the accumulation time periods for SQGs.
1. Transport More Than 200 Miles
Section 262.34(e) of 40 CFR provides that SQGs who must transport
the waste, or offer the waste for transport, over a distance of 200
miles or more for off-site treatment, storage, disposal or recycling
may accumulate hazardous waste on site for 270 days or less, without a
permit or having interim status. Again, the generator must comply with
certain unit-specific standards for accumulation units (e.g., tank and
container standards), marking and labeling requirements, preparedness
and emergency procedure requirements, and release response
requirements.
The Agency is not proposing, as part of today's proposal, to change
the current provisions governing the accumulation time periods for SQGs
that must transport the waste greater than 200 miles for treatment,
storage, disposal, or recycling.
[[Page 4822]]
2. Unforeseen, Temporary, and Uncontrollable Circumstances
There may be instances, due to unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances, in which SQGs may need to accumulate
hazardous wastes on site for a greater period of time than 180 days (or
270 days if the generator must transport waste more than 200 miles for
off-site management). In such cases, the generator may petition the EPA
Regional Administrator to grant an extension, up to 30 days, to the
accumulation time limit due to unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances, on a case-by-case basis under 40 CFR
262.34(f). Today's proposed rule makes no changes to this provision for
SQGs.
III. Discussion
A. Overview of Proposed Rule
1. Proposed Approach
Under the current regulatory scheme (i.e., the 90-day accumulation
time limit), many generators of F006 waste do not send their F006 waste
off site for metals recovery due to economic reasons. Today's rule
provides generators of F006 waste with incentives to minimize costs
associated with off-site metals recovery so that these generators will
be more likely to choose metals recovery over treatment and land
disposal as their management option for F006 waste.
Of the approximately 6,000 generators of F006 waste in the metal
finishing industry, at least an estimated 1,317 generators produce F006
waste in amounts that exceed the regulatory requirements for small
quantity generators. Nonetheless, the amounts generated by this group
of 1,317 metal finishers are generally not enough for a full truck load
within 90 days. These generators are required to ship the F006 waste
off site within 90 days (otherwise a RCRA storage permit would be
required for the facility), so their shipments are partial truck loads.
The transportation costs for these partial loads are disproportionately
higher than they would be for full loads. There is generally some fixed
cost associated with having a truck pick up a load of F006 waste
regardless of whether the truck is picking up a partial or full load.
For the fixed cost portion of the truck, the cost per unit of F006
waste for shipping the waste is more for partial loads than full loads
(e.g., the cost per unit of F006 waste for the fixed cost portion of
the truck is twice as much for a half-filled truck compared to a full
truck). Allowing generators of F006 waste to accumulate a full truck
load of F006 waste would, therefore, decrease the cost per unit of F006
waste associated with shipping F006 waste off site for metals recovery.
Similarly, smelters often charge generators proportionately more
for small loads of F006 waste (due, in part, to the fixed
administrative and transportation costs associated with handling such
small loads).<SUP>1</SUP> Accordingly, the cost per unit of F006 waste
sent to a smelter is more for small loads of F006 waste than for larger
loads. Allowing generators of F006 waste to accumulate more F006 waste
would, therefore, decrease the cost per unit of F006 associated with
sending F006 waste to a smelter for metals recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NCMS/NAMF Pollution Control Assessment, para. 4 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, because of the usual per mile charge for
transportation, transporting wastes longer distances costs more.
Accordingly, many facilities seek to minimize shipping costs by finding
the nearest RCRA permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility,
which is most often a landfill. In the United States, there are
significantly more landfills than metals recovery facilities that
handle F006 wastes. Because there are fewer recycling facilities in the
U.S. that can recover metals from F006 waste than landfills that accept
F006 waste for disposal, the distances from generator's facilities to
metals recovery facilities are generally greater than to landfills.
Thus, many generators may not choose metals recovery for their F006
waste due to the higher costs associated with having to transport these
wastes longer distances to recycling facilities as compared to
landfills.
Under this proposed rule, generators of F006 waste would be allowed
to accumulate the waste on site in tanks, containers, or containment
buildings for 180 days or less without a RCRA permit, only if they meet
the pollution prevention, metals recovery, and 16,000 kilogram
accumulation limit conditions of the rule. An accumulation time of 180
days was chosen because it provided sufficient time for most of the
F006 waste generators affected by this proposed rule to accumulate a
full truck load of F006 waste. Metal finishing stakeholders in the CSI
process also indicated that the 180-day (or the 270-day, if applicable)
accumulation time would be sufficient time to accumulate F006 waste on
site and make metals recovery a more cost effective management option
for F006 waste. EPA requests comments on whether 180 days (or 270 days,
if applicable) is the appropriate accumulation time for F006 waste. The
proposed rule would reduce a generator's overall hazardous waste
transportation costs associated with shipping F006 waste off site for
metals recovery. If a generator can accumulate enough F006 waste to
fill a truck load, then its relative transportation costs would be
less. Specifically, if the generator can store the F006 waste for twice
as long as before (i.e., 180 days as opposed to 90 days), then it would
only have to ship the waste half as many times, thereby decreasing the
associated transportation costs. Thus, with today's proposed rule
generators of F006 waste would have an incentive to send the F006 waste
off site for metals recovery (because generators can accumulate up to
180 days only if the F006 waste is sent off site for metals recovery).
In today's proposed rule, generators of F006 waste would be allowed
up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, if applicable) time to accumulate
F006 waste on site in tanks, containers or containment buildings
without a RCRA permit, provided that the generator: (1) Has implemented
pollution prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of
the F006 waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery, (2)
recycles the F006 waste by metals recovery, (3) accumulates no more
than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste at any one time, and (4) complies
with the applicable management standards in this rule. A brief
discussion of these conditions is provided below.
a. Pollution Prevention Practices
As part of the proposed rule, generators must implement pollution
prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006
waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery. Within the
metal finishing industry, facilities have implemented a variety of
pollution prevention practices including: product substitution, drag-
out and counter-current flow rinse systems, flow restrictors,
evaporation recovery systems, plating bath reuse, filter press, sludge
drying systems, ion exchange systems, and segregation of wastewater
streams. Many companies have implemented pollution prevention measures
to improve process efficiency, cut waste generation and waste
management costs, and improve compliance. Table 1 summarizes several
categories of pollution prevention practices that are commonly used
within the metal finishing industry. These practices reduce the volume
and toxicity of the F006 waste generated or make the F006 waste more
amenable for metals recovery, albeit in varying degrees.
[[Page 4823]]
Individual pollution prevention measures may reduce the toxicity or
the volume of F006 waste generated from wastewater treatment. For
example, rinse water reduction techniques reduce the volume of
effluents discharged from metal finishing process. Drag-out reduction
measures reduce the volume and can reduce the toxicity of effluents
discharged from metal finishing processes. Implementation of these
pollution prevention practices is protective of human health and the
environment because the F006 sludge produced is reduced in volume or
toxicity. Pollution prevention measures such as these may, however,
also increase the concentration of pollutants in F006 sludge, including
recyclable metals (e.g., copper, zinc, nickel) and non-recyclable toxic
pollutants (e.g., cyanide, cadmium). Increasing the concentration of
recoverable metals in F006 sludge can increase the sludge's value as a
secondary material, but increasing the concentration of non-recyclable
pollutants (e.g., cyanide, cadmium), which pass through the recovery
process and must be properly managed and disposed in the environment,
can pose potential problems for the management and handling of
recycling residues.
Chemical substitution pollution prevention measures reduce or
eliminate toxic substances used in the plating process and found in the
wastes, and therefore, are desirable from an environmental perspective,
wherever they can appropriately be applied. For example, trivalent
chromium can be substituted for highly toxic hexavalent chromium in a
few applications. In many applications, this substitution may not be
possible. Many metal finishers have reduced or eliminated cyanide and
cadmium use by substituting other materials, or by ceasing certain
plating operations. Chemical substitution pollution prevention
practices are generally more protective of human health and the
environment because they eliminate or reduce the amount of toxic
pollutants in the sludge, and produce sludge that is more amenable for
metals recovery (by reducing the amount of non-recyclable toxic
pollutants in the sludge).
Pollution prevention practices protect human health and the
environment because they reduce the volume and toxicity of F006 sludge
and make it more amenable for metals recovery. For example, dewatering
F006 sludge makes the waste safer to manage (reduction in free liquids
in waste reduces the potential for releases into the environment in the
event of a spill) and more amenable for metals recovery (because
smelters generally have a moisture limit for incoming secondary
materials such as F006 waste). In addition, chemical substitution
pollution prevention measures can reduce, or eliminate, the toxic
substances that do not get recycled in the metals recovery processes.
Based on available data, EPA believes that most metal finishing
facilities have implemented at least one pollution prevention measure
and many facilities have implemented several. The number and category
of pollution prevention measures used at individual facilities vary
broadly. The most common pollution prevention measures include drag-out
and rinse water reduction methods, which may improve effluent quality
and the amount of metals recovered from F006 sludge. The data available
to EPA suggest that chemical substitution pollution prevention measures
are used less frequently than rinse water and drag-out reduction
techniques.
Today's proposed rule provides an incentive to encourage more
metals recovery and less land disposal of F006 wastes by allowing 180
days to accumulate F006 waste, but only for those generators of F006
waste who recycle the F006 waste by metals recovery and have
implemented pollution prevention practices that reduce the volume or
toxicity of F006 waste or that make it more amenable for metals
recovery. At the same time, EPA wishes to encourage facilities to make
greater progress in reducing the quantity of non-recyclable toxic
pollutants that pass through recovery processes and are ultimately
disposed of in landfills. The Agency, therefore, urges facilities
(although not specifically required by the proposed rule) to implement
at least one chemical substitution pollution prevention measure that
reduces or eliminates the amount of toxic pollutants (e.g., cadmium,
cyanide, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, or halogenated or chlorinated
solvents) contained in F006 sludge that are not economically
recoverable from F006 waste. Nonetheless, any facility that already has
pollution prevention practices in place that meet the requirements of
this proposed rule would not be required to implement additional
pollution prevention practices.
The Agency believes that a general condition requiring pollution
prevention practices as part of the proposed rule is preferable to a
more specific pollution prevention requirement. The technical and
economic variables that affect the feasibility of using one or more
specific pollution prevention practices at a particular facility are so
broad and complex that it would not be possible to specify by rule the
best approach for all facilities. Accordingly, the Agency believes that
it is appropriate to allow the facilities that want the 180-day
accumulation time to implement pollution prevention practices that are
best suited to individual facilities, based on their specific metal
finishing processes and plating operations. With this approach,
facilities can implement those pollution prevention practices that best
facilitate metals recovery and protect human health and the
environment. EPA requests comments on the general condition requiring
pollution prevention practices and whether more specific pollution
prevention requirements should be part of this rule.
The proposed rule requires both metals recovery and pollution
prevention practices as conditions to accumulate F006 waste on site for
up to 180 days without a RCRA storage permit. The rationale for the
pollution prevention requirement is to encourage generators to make the
F006 waste less hazardous for subsequent management and more amenable
for metals recovery. While both pollution prevention and metals
recovery are laudable goals, there is a potential tension between
pollution prevention practices and metals recovery. For example, if a
pollution prevention practice is successful in eliminating, or
significantly reducing, the metals in the metal finishing waste stream,
then the resulting F006 sludge could have relatively low metal values
and could be less amenable to metals recovery. Of course, this tension
between pollution prevention practices and metals recovery is highly
dependent on the specific pollution prevention practice that is
employed. For example, some recovery technologies such as ion exchange
work better on dilute wastewaters than on wastewaters with higher metal
content.
As alluded to above, the metal finishing industry can implement a
wide variety of pollution prevention practices. Some pollution
prevention practices can actually enhance the metals recovery process
by concentrating metals in the F006 waste or by segregating waste
streams into mono-metal or bi-metal sludges that can be more amenable
to metals recovery. The use of several pollution prevention measures
such as rinse water reduction techniques, chemical substitution, and
waste stream separation can produce a sludge that is less hazardous to
manage and more amenable to metals recovery. The Agency believes that
requiring both
[[Page 4824]]
pollution prevention practices and metals recovery as conditions for
the 180-day accumulation time is compatible with environmentally
responsible metal finishing, is consistent with efforts of the metal
finishing industry to improve F006 sludge quality (i.e., reduce the
toxicity of the sludge and make it more amenable to metals recovery),
and is protective of human health and the environment. The Agency
requests comments on how pollution prevention practices and metals
recovery can best be used together to promote environmentally sound
metals recovery and to protect human health and the environment.
Table 1.--Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Pollution prevention benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Operating Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove cadmium and zinc anodes from <bullet> Eliminates cadmium/
bath when it is idle. Anode baskets zinc buildup causing decanting
can be placed on removable anode bars of solution due to galvanic
that are lifted from tank by an cell set up between steel
overhead hoist. anode basket and cadmium/zinc
anodes.
<bullet> Maintains bath within
narrow Cd/Zn concentration
providing more predictable
plating results.
Eliminate obsolete processes and/or <bullet> Reduces risks
unused or infrequently used processes. associated with hazardous
chemicals.
<bullet> Creates floor space to
add countercurrent rinses or
other P2 methods.
<bullet> Creates safer and
cleaner working environment.
Waste stream segregation of contact and <bullet> Eliminates dilution of
non-contact wastewaters. process water prior to
treatment which can increase
treatment efficiency.
<bullet> Reduces treatment
reagent usage and operating
costs.
Establish written procedures for bath <bullet> Prevents discarding
make-up and additions. Limit chemical process solutions due to
handling to trained personnel. Keep incorrect formulations or
tank addition logs. contamination.
<bullet> Improves plating
solution and work quality
consistency.
<bullet> Improves shop safety.
Install overflow alarms on all process <bullet> Minimizes potential
tanks to prevent tank overflow when for catastrophic loss of
adding water to make up for process solution via overflow.
evaporative losses.
<bullet> Prevents loss of
expensive chemicals.
Conductivity and pH measurement <bullet> Identifies process
instruments and alarm system for solution overflows and leaks
detecting significant chemical losses. before total loss occurs.
<bullet> Alerts treatment
operators to potential upset
condition.
<bullet> Reduces losses of
expensive plating solutions.
Control material purchases to minimize <bullet> Reduces hazardous
obsolete material disposal. waste generation.
<bullet> Reduces chemical
purchases.
Use process baths to maximum extent <bullet> Prevents discarding of
possible before discarding. Eliminate solutions prematurely.
dump schedules. Perform more frequent
chemical analysis.
<bullet> Reduces chemical
costs.
<bullet> Improves work quality
with chemical adjustments of
baths.
Reduce bath dumps by using filtration <bullet> Extends bath life.
to remove suspended solids
contamination.
<bullet> Reduces solid waste
generation by reusing filter
cartridges.
<bullet> Improves bath
performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process/Chemical Substitution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitute cyanide baths with alkaline <bullet> Eliminates use of CN.
baths when possible.
Substitute trivalent chromium for <bullet> Reduces/eliminates use
hexavalent chromium when product of hexavalent chromium.
specifications allow.
Eliminate use of cadmium plating if <bullet> Eliminates the use of
product specifications allow. cadmium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drag-Out Reduction Methods That Reduce Waste Generation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install fog rinses or sprays over <bullet> Can inexpensively
process tanks to remove drag out as recover a substantial portion
rack/part exits bath. of drag out and does not
require additional tankage.
Minimize the formation of drag out by: <bullet> Reduces pollutant mass
redesigning parts and racks/barrels to loading on treatment
avoid cup shapes, etc. that hold processes, treatment reagent
solution; properly racking parts; and usage, and resultant sludge
reducing rack/part withdraw speed. generation.
<bullet> May improve treatment
operation/removal efficiency.
<bullet> Reduces chemical
purchases and overall
operating costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rinse Water Reduction Methods That Reduce Waste Generation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install flow restrictors to control the <bullet> Reduces water use and
flow rate of water. aids in reducing variability
in wastewater flow.
<bullet> Is very inexpensive to
purchase and install.
Install conductivity or timer rinse <bullet> Coordinates water use
controls to match rinse water needs and production when properly
with use. implemented.
<bullet> Provides automatic
control of water use.
Use counter-current rinse arrangement <bullet> Can achieve major
with two to four tanks in series water reduction.
depending on drag-out rate.
<bullet> Has high impact on
water bills.
[[Page 4825]]
<bullet> May reduce the size of
recovery/treatment equipment
that is needed.
Track water use with flow meters and <bullet> Identifies problem
accumulators. Keep logs on water use areas including inefficient
for individual operations. processes or personnel.
<bullet> Helps management to
determine cost for individual
plating processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCMS/NAMF. Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for
Plating Operations. 1994
b. Metals Recovery
Today's rule would allow the 180-day accumulation time for
generators who store F006 waste on site and recycle F006 waste by
metals recovery off site. Accordingly, the proposed rule supports a
preference of metals recovery over treatment and land disposal for F006
waste by allowing up to 180 days accumulation time only for those
generators who engage in F006 waste metals recovery. The benefit of
this provision would be available only if the accumulated F006 waste is
sent off site for metals recovery, thereby providing an incentive for
recycling of F006 waste over treatment and land disposal. The Agency
requests comments on whether the 180-day accumulation time should be
available only to those F006 waste generators that pursue F006 waste
metals recovery and not to those who manage their F006 waste through
treatment and land disposal.
Today's proposed rule distinguishes between metals recovery that is
done on site or off site. If the metals recovery is done on site, the
generator would not need additional time to accumulate the waste to
reduce shipping costs associated with metals recovery. It may, however,
be necessary to accumulate enough F006 waste to make some type of on-
site batch metals recovery process or other type of on-site metals
recovery more cost effective. Furthermore, if accumulating F006 waste
for 180 days poses little, if any, potential harm to human health and
the environment, as the damage incident history of F006 storage would
suggest (a copy of which is in the docket for this rulemaking), then
allowing 180-day accumulation for both on-site and off-site metals
recovery could be justified. The Agency requests comments on whether
the additional accumulation time should be allowed for both on-site and
off-site metals recovery or, if so, under what circumstances would a
generator need more than 90 days to accumulate F006 waste prior to on-
site metals recovery.
c. Limit on the Amount of F006 Waste That Can Be Accumulated
As stated above, one rationale for allowing the 180-day
accumulation time for F006 waste is to allow generators to accumulate a
full truck load before having to ship it off site. Accordingly, the
proposed rule sets a limit of 16,000 kilograms (approximately 17.6
tons) of F006 waste that can be accumulated on site at any one time.
This amount is equivalent to slightly more than a full truck load of
F006 waste. Once a generator has accumulated a truck load of F006 waste
(regardless of whether the waste has been accumulated for less than 180
days), the generator would be required to ship the F006 waste off site
for metals or to obtain a RCRA storage permit. EPA believes that it is
appropriate to set a quantity limit for accumulation because the permit
exemption should be for the shortest time reasonably necessary to
advance the recycling objectives of the proposal. Also, this is
consistent with the underlying rationale of the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) storage prohibition provision in which generators
may store LDR restricted hazardous wastes in ``tanks, containers or
containment buildings [on site] solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal. * * *.'' (emphasis
added) 40 CFR 268.50. In today's proposed rule, EPA has identified the
quantity of F006 waste necessary to facilitate metals recovery to be
one full truck load (i.e., 16,000 kilograms). The Agency requests
comments on whether a limit on the amount of F006 waste that can be
accumulated is an appropriate condition and, if so, whether the 16,000
kilogram limit is the appropriate limit (as opposed to a different
amount).
Furthermore, generators of F006 waste may implement pollution
prevention practices whereby the metal constituents in the F006 sludge
are isolated in separate waste streams (as opposed to an F006 sludge
with several metals which is generally the case). Generating such mono-
metal sludges makes the F006 waste more amenable to metals recovery,
but each of the mono-metal sludges would need to go to different metals
recovery facilities (e.g., chromium F006 sludge to a chromium recovery
facility and copper F006 sludge to a copper smelter). Accordingly, the
Agency asks whether a generator of F006 waste should be allowed to
accumulate quantities of mono-metal F006 sludges that are necessary to
facilitate proper metals recovery of that mono-metal sludge (i.e., up
to 16,000 kilograms of each mono-metal sludge). The Agency requests
comments on whether the 16,000 kilogram accumulation limit should apply
to the total quantity of F006 waste accumulated on site or to the
quantity of separate F006 waste streams such as mono-metal sludges that
must be sent off site to separate metals recovery facilities.
2. Additional Accumulation Time Under Certain Circumstances
a. 200 Miles or More
Under today's proposal, generators of F006 waste would have up to
270 days to accumulate F006 waste on site without a RCRA permit under
certain conditions. If the generator must transport the waste, or offer
the waste for transport, over a distance of 200 miles or more for off-
site metals recovery, the generator would be able to accumulate the
F006 waste on site for up to 270 days without a permit or without
having interim status, provided the generator has implemented pollution
prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006
waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery, recycles the
F006 waste by metals recovery, does not accumulate more than 16,000
kilograms of F006 waste at any one time, and complies with the
applicable management standards in the proposed rule. This provision is
analogous to the provision for small quantity generators in the
existing generator accumulation regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(e).
As with the rest of the proposed provisions of this rule, this
requirement is intended to allow generators sufficient time to
accumulate enough F006 waste to make shipment of this waste off site
more cost effective. Shipping F006 waste to a metals recovery facility
that is located more than 200 miles away would cost more than shipping
F006 waste to a local (i.e.,
[[Page 4826]]
less than 200 miles away) hazardous waste landfill. For those
generators of F006 waste that do not accumulate enough F006 waste to
fill a truck load (i.e., 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste) within 180
days and are located more than 200 miles from a metals recovery
facility, treatment and disposal of the F006 waste in the local
hazardous waste landfill may be the generator's preferred management
option over metals recovery. For those generators of F006 waste that
are located long distances from an appropriate metals recovery
facility, the 270-day accumulation period is reasonable to allow
generators to accumulate more F006 waste for a larger load being
shipped off site. The generator would, however, still be subject to the
pollution prevention condition, the metals recovery requirement, and
the accumulation limit of 16,000 kilograms in this proposed rule.
Accordingly, the 270-day accumulation period will be particularly
helpful for generators of relatively small amounts of F006 waste (i.e.,
those that do not accumulate more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste
in 180 days and that must ship the F006 off site more than 200 miles to
a metals recovery facility) and may allow them to send their F006 waste
to a metals recovery facility rather than to a treatment and disposal
facility. The Agency requests comments on whether this additional
accumulation time is warranted and appropriate for generators of F006
waste who must ship their F006 waste 200 miles or more to an off-site
metals recovery facility.
b. Unforeseen, Temporary, and Uncontrollable Circumstances
This proposed rule also provides for an extension of the
accumulation period, if the generator's F006 waste must remain on site
for longer than 180 days (or 270 days, if applicable) due to
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. The generator
would be able to, under these circumstances, request that the EPA
Regional Administrator or authorized state grant an extension up to 30
days. This provision is intended to provide the generator with some
temporary relief until the unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable
circumstances can be rectified. The Agency has previously identified
the following circumstances as possible rationales for granting this
extension: facility's refusal to accept waste, transportation delays,
or labor strikes. See 47 FR 1248, 1249 (January 11, 1982). These
extensions may, however, be granted at the discretion of the EPA
Regional Administrator or the authorized state on a case-by-case basis.
This provision is analogous to the provision for other generators in
the existing regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(b).
Because the proposed rule sets an accumulation limit of 16,000
kilograms of F006 waste that can be accumulated on site at any one
time, the proposed rule would also allow a generator to request
permission to accumulate more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste, if
more than 16,000 kilograms must remain on site due to unforeseen,
temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. The rationale that is
applicable for needing additional time to accumulate F006 waste on site
due to unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances would be
equally applicable for accumulating more than the set accumulation
limit of 16,000 kilograms under certain conditions. EPA requests
comments on these extensions due to unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances.
B. Rationale for Proposed Accumulation Rule for F006 Waste
In today's proposed rule, EPA is allowing only generators of F006
waste up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, if applicable) to accumulate
F006 waste on site without a RCRA permit or interim status, provided
that the generator has complied with the requirements of the rule. As
part of the CSI for the Metal Finishing Industry, EPA and the other
participating stakeholders have been examining the generation and
management of F006 waste. Today's proposed rule is a product of the CSI
stakeholders' efforts, has the support of the participating
stakeholders, and is designed to encourage more recycling of F006 waste
through metals recovery.
Given the large number of smaller waste generators in the metal
finishing industry and the fact that F006 waste has recoverable amounts
of metals, the Agency believes that today's proposal will encourage
more recycling of F006 waste. While most F006 sludge contains
recoverable amounts of metals, approximately only 20% of F006 sludge is
currently being recycled through metals recovery. In addition, F006
waste is a diverse waste stream in which a number of different metals
can be found, depending on the plating operations at a facility. The
different metals are often subject to different economic factors (e.g.,
market value of metals) and technical feasibility issues that can
impact metals recovery of F006 waste. Based on the information
presented to the Agency on this matter, EPA believes that metals
recovery will increase if metal finishers are given sufficient time to
accumulate full truck loads of F006 waste on site. Allowing the 180-day
accumulation time for generators of F006 waste should help minimize
economic barriers posed by the existing accumulation rule and is,
therefore, likely to increase F006 waste recycling through metals
recovery.
The 180-day accumulation time proposed in today's rule may be
particularly helpful for generators of relatively small amounts of F006
waste, many of whom are small businesses. These small businesses,
however, generate more than the regulatory limits for small quantity
generators, and therefore, cannot take advantage of the 180-day
accumulation provided for small quantity generators under the existing
federal regulations. In many instances, it is these small businesses
that are not recycling their F006 waste through metals recovery due, in
part, to economic factors (e.g., increased costs associated with metals
recovery). The 180-day accumulation time can make F006 waste metals
recovery more cost effective, particularly for the small businesses
that may generate smaller amounts of F006 waste.
In order to facilitate more F006 waste metals recovery, EPA has, in
this proposed rule, set an accumulation limit (i.e., 16,000 kilograms
of F006 waste) that would, based on waste generation patterns in the
industry, allow generators of F006 waste to accumulate a full truck
load for transport. Having a full load of F006 waste for transport will
make F006 waste metals recovery more cost effective, thereby
encouraging more F006 waste metals recovery. Although the 180-day
accumulation time may allow individual F006 waste generators to
accumulate more F006 waste on site at any one time, the total
cumulative amount of F006 waste that is accumulated on site nationally
at any one time will not increase substantially because of the
accumulation limit. Based on F006 waste generation data, the Agency
expects a slight increase in the cumulative amount of F006 waste
accumulated on site nationally just after 90 days. Many generators will
accumulate a full truck load of F006 waste shortly after 90 days. As
individual generators accumulate the proposed limit of F006 waste
(i.e., 16,000 kilograms), the F006 waste generator would have to ship
that amount off site for metals recovery. At that point (i.e., just
after 90 days) the amount of F006 waste accumulated on site nationally
at any one time would remain relatively constant because the amount of
F006 waste being shipped off site would be roughly equivalent to the
additional amount of F006 waste being
[[Page 4827]]
generated and accumulated during the 180-day (or 270-day, if
applicable) accumulation period. The accumulation limit is designed to
encourage more F006 waste metals recovery (e.g., by allowing
accumulation of a full truck load) and to ensure that the amount of
F006 waste accumulated on site nationally at any one time does not
increase significantly. Accordingly, the 180-day accumulation time,
with the 16,000 kilogram accumulation limit, would not significantly
increase the potential cumulative harm to human health and the
environment resulting from the on-site accumulation of F006 waste.
The F006 waste would have to be accumulated on site in tanks,
containers, or containment buildings that meet the applicable
management standards.<SUP>2</SUP> These units are designed to minimize
loss of hazardous waste to the environment. These are the same
requirements that currently apply to generators under the existing
accumulation rule. Most F006 waste generators accumulate the F006 waste
in super sacks (sacks that are reinforced woven resin and designed to
accommodate bulk shipments) or bulk storage containers. These super
sack containers are designed to minimize loss to the environment. See
62 FR 25998, 26013 (1997). Allowing generators of F006 waste to
accumulate the waste for a longer period of time in such containers
does not pose any significantly increased potential harm to human
health or the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Today's proposed rule does not allow accumulation of F006
waste in drip pads (as is provided in the existing accumulation
regulations in 40 CFR 262.34) because F006 waste is not managed in
drip pads, nor does the Agency believe that it would be appropriate
to accumulate F006 waste in drip pads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the 180-day accumulation time is expected to decrease
the potential for releases of hazardous constituents from the handling
of F006 waste. A recent review of damage incidents associated with the
management of F006 waste (the damage incidents report was prepared as
background for this proposed rulemaking) suggested that most of the
reported incidents of releases of F006 waste were associated with the
transfer of F006 waste from accumulation to transport vehicle, from
transport vehicle to receiving facility, or while in transport. Because
the 180-day accumulation time will mean that the F006 waste is
transferred from generator to transporter to receiving facility less
often and that fewer shipments of F006 waste will be made, today's rule
should decrease the potential for releases of F006 waste into the
environment. Similarly, workers will be required to handle the F006
waste less often (because transfers will occur less often), thereby
decreasing their potential exposure to the F006 waste.
In the event of a spill of a dewatered F006 sludge during the 180-
day accumulation period (e.g., release caused by a rip or tear in a
super sack), the potential risk of harm to human health and the
environment would appear to be minimal as compared to a spill of a free
liquid or dust. First, with the low moisture content of F006 sludge (a
cake-like material resulting from dewatering), a spill of F006 waste
could be contained relatively easily. Spilled F006 waste generally
retains its shape and is not likely to run off as a free liquid or
disperse in the wind like a dust. Second, the metals recovery
requirement in today's rule would act as an incentive to recover any
spilled F006 waste so that the material can be processed for metals
recovery. Third, under the management standards applicable to the
accumulation units in today's rule, spills and releases of F006 waste
must be contained and remedied as soon as practicable. Accordingly,
today's proposed rule includes sufficient safeguards to minimize the
potential harm to human health and the environment that may be
associated with spills of F006 waste during the 180-day accumulation
period.
When more F006 waste is accumulated at a facility, the potential
exists for bigger releases of F006 waste at a facility. Bigger releases
of F006 waste during the proposed accumulation period would not be
expected because F006 waste is generally accumulated in super sacks. A
bigger release of F006 waste would, therefore, occur only if several
super sacks failed (i.e., ripped or tore) at the same time. The
likelihood of multiple failures of super sacks occurring simultaneously
is fairly remote. In addition, the potential for a bigger release of
F006 waste during the 180-day accumulation period is limited because
the amount of F006 waste that can be accumulated at a facility under
today's rule is restricted to 16,000 kilograms. In contrast, the
existing 90-day accumulation rule has no limit on the amount of
hazardous waste that can be accumulated (and, therefore, no limit on
the amount of hazardous waste that could potentially be released during
the 90-day accumulation period). Accordingly, the potential for bigger
releases of F006 waste during the 180-day accumulation period would
appear to be minimal.
Finally, the 180-day accumulation time in today's rule is
consistent with the rationale for the 90-day accumulation rule. In
promulgating the 90-day accumulation rule, EPA allowed generators to
accumulate waste on site without a RCRA permit or interim status, in
part, because such activity was consistent with typical generator
activities. The 180-day accumulation time in today's proposed rule
would facilitate generators of F006 waste in appropriately managing the
F006 waste off site for metals recovery. EPA believes that accumulating
F006 waste on site up to 180 days (to encourage more recycling through
metals recovery) is more like typical generator activity than typical
treatment, storage, or disposal facility activities, because the 180-
day accumulation is an on-site accumulation activity, prior to waste
management activities. Today's proposed rule maintains the rationale of
the 90-day accumulation rule.
C. Applicable Management Standards
Under today's proposed rule, the same hazardous waste management
requirements governing 90-day on-site accumulation of hazardous waste
under 40 CFR 262.34, other than the length of time that generators of
F006 waste can accumulate the waste on site without a RCRA
permit,<SUP>3</SUP> would apply to 180-day accumulation of F006 waste.
These requirements include technical standards for units used to
accumulate hazardous wastes, recordkeeping standards to document the
length of time hazardous wastes are accumulated and stored on site, and
preparedness and emergency response procedures. The existing management
standards as they would apply to generators of F006 waste under this
proposed rule are summarized below. The Agency requests comments on
these standards only as they apply to 180-day on-site accumulation of
F006 waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Today's proposed rule would not affect any RCRA Subtitle C
requirements for generators of F006 waste, other than the changes to
40 CFR Sec. 262.34 specified in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Accumulation Units
A generator of F006 waste may accumulate the hazardous waste on
site for up to 180 days in specified units without obtaining a RCRA
permit. These accumulation units must comply with the unit-specific
technical standards of 40 CFR Part 265 for containers (subpart I),
tanks (subpart J), and containment buildings (subpart DD).
The unit-specific standards in 40 CFR Part 265 include provisions
for the design, installation and general condition of each unit. The
[[Page 4828]]
requirements governing each type of unit include standards for ensuring
the compatibility of the waste and the unit and special requirements
for ignitable, reactive or incompatible wastes. In addition, there are
provisions for performing inspections to monitor for leaks and
deterioration of the unit and for proper response to and containment of
releases. Generators of F006 waste that comply with the applicable
regulatory requirements may also treat the waste in the accumulation
unit without a RCRA permit during the 180-day accumulation period that
is proposed in today's rule.
2. Documentation of Accumulation Time
Generators of F006 waste must also comply with documentation
requirements to indicate the length of time that wastes remain on site
in accumulation units and to ensure that wastes remain on site for no
more than 180 days from the date the waste is generated. Today's
proposal does not impose documentation requirements for generators of
F006 waste in addition to those already required for generators
accumulating F006 waste up to 90 days under the existing regulations.
3. Labeling and Marking Accumulation Units
Generators of F006 waste are required to mark or label all units
used to accumulate F006 wastes to indicate that the units contain
hazardous waste and to document the date upon which the period of
accumulation began. The labeling and marking requirements specify that
the date upon which accumulation begins must be clearly marked on each
tank or container and that each tank or container used to accumulate
hazardous waste must be labeled with the words ``Hazardous Waste.'' The
Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments for accumulation
units, other than clarifying that these requirements apply to
generators of F006 waste accumulating the waste up to 180 days.
4. Preparedness and Prevention (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart C)
Under today's proposed rule, generators of F006 waste who
accumulate F006 waste on site for up to 180 days must comply with
subpart C of Part 265 which contains requirements for facility
preparedness and prevention. These generator facilities must be
maintained and operated in a manner that minimizes the possibility of
fire, explosion, or any unplanned release of hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents to the environment. The requirements
specify that generator facilities must generally be equipped with
emergency devices, such as an internal communications or alarm system,
a telephone or other device capable of summoning emergency assistance,
and appropriate fire control equipment, unless none of the wastes
handled at the facility require a particular kind of equipment.
Equipment must be tested and maintained, as necessary, to assure its
proper functioning. All persons involved in hazardous waste handling
operations must have immediate access to either an internal or external
alarm or communications equipment, unless such a device is not
required.
Additionally, the generator is also required to maintain sufficient
aisle space to allow for the unobstructed movement of personnel and
equipment to any area of the facility operations in an emergency,
unless aisle space is not needed for any of these purposes. Generators
also must attempt to make arrangements with police, fire departments,
state emergency response teams, and hospitals, as appropriate, to
familiarize these officials with the layout of the generator's site and
the properties of each type of waste handled at the facility in
preparation for the potential need for the services of these
organizations. If state or local authorities decline to enter into such
arrangements, the owner or operator must document the refusal.
The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the
existing preparedness and prevention requirements, other than
clarifying that the existing requirements apply to generators of F006
waste accumulating the waste on site up to 180 days.
5. Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart
D)
Generators of F006 waste who accumulate that waste on site for up
to 180 days under today's proposed rule must comply with the
contingency plan and emergency procedures provisions of 40 CFR part
265, subpart D. A generator's contingency plan must include, where
necessary: a description of the generator's planned response to
emergencies at the facility, any arrangements with local and state
agencies to provide emergency response support, a list of the
facility's emergency response coordinators, a list of the facility's
emergency equipment, and an evacuation plan. Requirements for
distributing and amending the contingency plan are specified. In
addition, a facility emergency coordinator must be either present, or
on call, whenever the facility is in operation.
Provisions for emergency procedures specified in subpart D of Part
265 include: immediate notification of employees and local, state, and
Federal authorities of any imminent or actual emergencies, measures to
preclude the spread of fires and explosions to other wastes, proper
management of residues, rehabilitation of emergency equipment and
notification of authorities before operations are resumed, and record
keeping and reporting to EPA on the nature and consequences of any
incident that requires implementing the contingency plan.
The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the
existing contingency plans and emergency procedure requirements, other
than clarifying that the existing requirements apply to generators of
F006 waste accumulating the waste on site up to 180 days.
6. Personnel Training (40 CFR 265.16)
As proposed in today's rule, generators of F006 waste who
accumulate on site for up to 180 days are subject to the provisions for
personnel training in 40 CFR 265.16. These requirements are designed to
ensure that personnel are adequately prepared to manage hazardous waste
and respond to any emergencies that are likely to arise. Personnel
training can be in the form of on-the-job or classroom training, but
must be performed by an instructor who is trained in hazardous waste
management procedures. Personnel training must be performed within six
months of initial employment and must be renewed annually. The owner or
operator of a facility also must maintain records in accordance with 40
CFR 265.16(d) to document completion of the training requirements for
employees. The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the
existing personnel training requirements, other than clarifying that
the existing requirements apply to generators of F006 waste
accumulating the waste on site for up to 180 days.
7. Waste Analysis and Record Keeping (40 CFR 268.7(a)(4))
Under today's proposed rule, generators of F006 wastes who
accumulate F006 waste on site for up to 180 days and treat their wastes
in an accumulation tank, container, or containment building, located at
the generator's site to meet the applicable land disposal treatment
standards under 40 CFR part 268, subpart D, must prepare and follow a
written waste analysis plan. The waste analysis plan
[[Page 4829]]
must describe the procedures the generator will use to comply with the
treatment standards for the waste. The waste analysis plan must be
based upon a chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample
of the generator's waste stream. Hazardous waste generators are
required to submit a copy of their waste analysis plans for hazardous
wastes treated in 180-day accumulation units to either the authorized
state or EPA Regional office prior to conducting treatment. Generators
also are required to retain a copy of the waste analysis plan in the
generator's files.
The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the
generator waste analysis plan or record keeping requirements, other
than clarifying that such standards apply to generators of F006 waste
accumulating the waste on site for up to 180 days.
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to
administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program within the
state. (See 40 CFR part 271 for the standards and requirements for
authorization.) Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, a
state with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program
entirely in lieu of EPA administering the federal program in that
state. The federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized
state and EPA could not issue permits for any facility in the state
that the state was authorized to permit. When new, more stringent
federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the state was obliged
to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames. New federal
requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state
adopted the requirements as state law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed under the HSWA take effect in
authorized states at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized states. EPA is directed to implement HSWA requirements and
prohibitions in an authorized state, including the issuance of permits,
until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as state law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in authorized states until the states
revise their programs and receive authorization for the new provision.
B. Effect of State Authorizations
Today's proposal, if finalized, will promulgate regulations that
are not effective under HSWA in authorized states. This rule would,
therefore, be applicable only in those states that do not have final
authorization.
Authorized states are only required to modify their programs when
EPA promulgates federal regulations that are more stringent or broader
in scope than the authorized state regulations. For those changes that
are less stringent than the federal programs, states are not required
to modify their programs. This is a result of section 3009 of RCRA,
which allows states to impose more stringent regulations than the
federal program. Today's proposal for additional accumulation time for
generators of F006 waste would be considered less stringent than the
existing federal regulations because it allows more than the existing
90 days of accumulation time that is in the existing regulations.
Authorized states are not, therefore, required to modify their programs
to adopt regulations consistent with, and equivalent to, today's
proposal.
Even though states are not required to adopt the additional
accumulation time for generators of F006 waste in today's proposal, EPA
strongly encourages states to do so as quickly as possible. As
discussed above, the proposed rule is intended to encourage and
facilitate recycling of F006 waste. In addition, states have been
participating as stakeholders in the CSI process and efforts are being
made to get as many states as possible to join in on the CSI goals and
implementation programs. States are, therefore, urged to consider the
adoption of today's proposal, when promulgated, and EPA is committed to
making efforts to expedite review of authorized state program revision
applications that incorporate today's proposal.
V. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
Executive Order No. 12866 requires agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant.'' The Order defines a
``significant'' regulatory action as one that ``is likely to result in
a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.''
The Agency estimated the costs of today's final rule to determine
if it is a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order.
The analysis considered compliance costs and economic impacts for F006
wastes affected by this rule. EPA estimates the total cost of the rule
to be a savings in the range of $3.9 to $4.9 million annually, and
concludes that this rule is not economically significant according to
the definition in E.O. 12866. Moreover, the Agency believes that this
rule is not significant because it does not create serious
inconsistency with actions taken or planned by another agency,
materially alter budgetary impact or rights and obligations of
recipients. The Office of Management and Budget, however, has deemed
this rule to be significant for novel policy reasons and has reviewed
this rule.
Detailed discussions of the methodology used for estimating the
costs, economic impacts and the benefits attributable to today's
proposed rule for on-site accumulation of F006 wastes, followed by a
presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results, may be
found in the background document: ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Proposed Rule for a 180-Day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater
Treatment Sludges,'' which was placed in the docket for today's
proposed rule.
1. Methodology Section
The Agency examined reported values for F006 waste generation from
the 1995 Biennial Reporting Systems (BRS) database to estimate the
volumes of F006 waste affected by today's rule, to determine the
national level incremental costs (for both the baseline and post-
regulatory scenarios), economic impacts (including first-order measures
such as the estimated percentage of compliance cost to industry or firm
revenues), and benefits.
[[Page 4830]]
2. Results
a. Volume Results
The BRS database reports that in 1995 there were 1,317 metal
finishing firms potentially affected by today's rule. The data report
that these firms generated 24,000 tons of F006 waste annually that are
eligible to benefit from today's proposed rule. EPA is aware that this
estimate on the number of firms that could benefit from today's
proposal probably underestimates the total number of firms affected by
today's rulemaking. In 1994, EPA estimated that there were
approximately 13,400 metal finishing establishments in the United
States.<SUP>4</SUP> Of the total, approximately 10,000 metal finishing
facilities are estimated to be ``captive'' shops where the metal
finishing operation is contained inside a larger manufacturing
operation. The balance of 3,400 metal finishing facilities are ``job
shops'' or ``independent'' metal finishing operations. Job shops are
usually small businesses that operate on a contract basis. In contrast,
the most recent BRS data only account for about three thousand of this
total. Thus, it is likely that cost savings and benefits associated
with this rulemaking are greater than estimated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S.E.P.A., Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, IEc,
SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY: Promoting Environmental Protection in the
Industrial Sector, Phase 1 Report, June 1994, pp. 4-7, 4-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Cost Results
For today's proposed rule, EPA has estimated a cost savings
associated with a 180-day accumulation time for large quantity
generators of F006 waste. The total incremental savings estimated is
between $3.9 million and $4.9 million per year. These savings result
from being able to reduce the total number of shipments of F006 waste
off-site for recycling. Savings also result from a lower cost per ton
of transportation because generators are able to accumulate more F006
waste for a shipment off site and the cost per unit of F006 waste
transportation (for the fixed cost portion of the transportation) is
less for a full truck as compared to a partial truck load. In addition,
literature reviewed in the development of this rulemaking indicates
that recyclers sometimes assess a surcharge for small volumes of
material due to increased handling and administrative
costs.<SUP>5</SUP> It is possible that a 180-day (or 270-day, if
applicable) accumulation time will allow some F006 waste generators to
reduce this surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ George C. Cushnie Jr., National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences & National Association of Metal Finishers, Pollution
Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations (Ann Arbor,
MI: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 1994), p. 312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Economic Impact Results
To estimate potential economic impacts resulting from today's
proposed rule, EPA has used first order economic impacts measures such
as the estimated cost savings of today's proposed rule as a percentage
of sales/revenues. EPA has applied this measure to affected F006 waste
generators. For affected F006 waste generators, EPA has estimated the
cost savings to be less than one percent of a typical metal finisher's
sales or revenues. More detailed information on this estimate can be
found in the regulatory impact analysis placed into today's docket.
d. Benefits Assessment
The Agency has performed a qualitative benefits assessment for
today's proposed rule. EPA believes that a relatively small, but
significant percentage of total F006 waste generated would be diverted
from land disposal to off-site recycling. This shift from land disposal
to recycling should result in a conservation of natural resources
associated with primary mineral extraction including reduced water,
energy inputs as well as reduced solid waste (e.g., slag, tailings,
overburden) outputs. Other benefits expected from today's proposed rule
include conservation of hazardous waste landfill capacity, reduced
balance of payments for nonferrous mineral commodities, and
conservation of strategic metals <SUP>6</SUP>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information on balance of trade for nonferrous
minerals and conservation of strategic metals, see U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on Metal
Recovery, Environmental Regulation and Hazardous Wastes (Washington
DC, U.S.EPA, 1994), Chapter 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains
EPA's determination.
Data indicate that virtually all independent electroplaters or job
shops are small entities.<SUP>7</SUP> Captive shops contain both large
and small entities. Data on captive plating operations are, however,
more limited. The regulatory impact analysis completed for this
proposed rule indicated that of 3,296 job shops, all but 2 are small
entities. BRS data indicate that a total of 1,934 plating facilities
including both captive and independent operations generate F006 waste
with 1,317 of these firms affected by this proposed rule. Although the
BRS data do not indicate what proportion of these affected facilities
are small entities, it is likely that the majority of these affected
facilities are small entities, because the plating firms affected by
this proposed rule generate the smallest quantities of F006 (which is
related to both facility size and product output). This proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because today's proposed rule would relieve regulatory
burden for metal finishers and captive operations by allowing them up
to 180 days (instead of 90 days) to accumulate F006 wastes on site. In
addition, the Agency estimates that this proposed rule would lead to an
overall cost savings in the range of $3.9 to $4.9 million annually. The
rule does not impose new burdens on small entities. Therefore, I hereby
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Small Business Size Standards, 61 FR 3280, 3289 (January
31, 1996) stating that manufacturing firms with less than 500
employees are considered to be small entities. See also U.S.E.P.A.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Extending 90 Day Accumulation Rule for F006 Wastewater
Treatment Sludges, May 22, 1998, pp.5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal
[[Page 4831]]
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative, if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. The rule
would not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it
imposes no enforceable duty upon state, tribal or local governments.
States, tribes and local governments would have no compliance costs
under this rule. It is expected that states will adopt similar rules,
and submit those rules for inclusion in their authorized RCRA programs,
but they have no legally enforceable duty to do so. For the same
reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not
expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the
requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
For the reasons described above, today's proposed rule would not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate upon any
state, local, or tribal government; therefore Executive Order 12875
does not apply to this action.
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
For the reasons described above, today's proposed rule does not
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments, nor does it
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
F. Executive Order 13045 : Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that (1) is ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children. If the regulatory action meets both
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is
not subject to E.O. 13045, because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. The Agency does
not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety
risks addressed by this action concern a disproportionate risk to
children.
Because this rulemaking retains current container standards for
generators accumulating hazardous wastes on site without a permit (40
CFR 262.34), EPA believes that the extended 180-day accumulation period
will not result in increased exposures to children. Generators that
accumulate F006 waste on site typically place the waste in containers
such as 55-gallon drums or ``super sacks'' (sacks that are reinforced
woven resin and designed to accommodate bulk shipments). The current
container standards (40 CFR part 265, Subpart I) referenced in the
generator regulations (40 CFR 262.34) require that waste handlers,
including generators, to keep containers in good condition (subject to
remedial action if leaks are found), have containers closed during
usage except when adding or removing waste and inspect the containers
at least weekly. In addition, for these containers, waste handlers are
required under Subpart I to comply with Subpart CC air emission
standards for containers. 40 CFR 265.178, 265.1087. EPA believes that
these container requirements are protective to minimize the likelihood
of exposure to hazardous waste managed in these units.
[[Page 4832]]
G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all populations in the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to
Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the
Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No.
9200.3-17).
Today's proposed rule covers F006 wastes from metal finishing
operations. It is not certain whether the environmental problems
addressed by this rule could disproportionately affect minority or low-
income communities, due to the location of some metal finishing
operations. Metal finishing operations are distributed throughout the
country and many are located within highly populated areas. Because
today's proposed rule retains requirements for F006 waste generators to
store F006 waste in protective Subpart J tanks, Subpart I containers or
Subpart DD container buildings, the Agency does not believe that
today's rule will increase risks from F006 waste. It is, therefore, not
expected to have any disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income communities relative to
affluent or non-minority communities.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2050-0035. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR Control Number
0820.07) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
EPA believes the changes in this proposed rule to the information
collection do not constitute a substantive or material modification.
This proposed rule would not change any of the information collection
requirements that are currently applicable to generators of F006 waste
that accumulate the waste on site. The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of this rule are identical to requirements already
promulgated and covered under the existing Information Collection
Request (ICR). There is no net increase in recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. As a result, the reporting, notification, or
recordkeeping (information) provisions of this rule will not need to be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et. seq.
The Agency estimates total projected burden hours associated with
the information collection requirements of this propped rule to be
approximately 13.19 hours per year for each generator. This is the same
burden associated with the information collection requirements for
large quantity generators who currently accumulate waste on site for
less than 90 days under the existing regulations. These information
collection requirements include: (1) Pre-transport informational
requirements specific to large quantity generators (e.g., personnel
training, contingency planning and emergency procedures, tank systems,
containment buildings, and requests for extension of accumulation
period); (2) air emission standards for process vents; (3) air emission
standards for equipment leaks; and (4) record keeping and reporting.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA
is not, therefore, considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this regulation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Labeling, Packaging and
containers, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: January 22, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR
part 262 as follows:
PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.
2. In Sec. 262.34, add paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 262.34 Accumulation time.
* * * * *
[[Page 4833]]
(g) A generator who generates wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations that meet the listing description for the
RCRA hazardous waste code F006 waste may accumulate F006 waste on site
for 180 days or less without a permit or without having interim status
provided that the generator complies with the following requirements:
(1) The generator has implemented pollution prevention practices
that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 waste or that make it
more amenable for metals recovery;
(2) The F006 waste is sent off site for metals recovery;
(3) No more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste is accumulated on
site at any one time; and
(4) The F006 waste is managed in accordance with the following
requirements:
(i) The F006 waste is placed:
(A) In containers and the generator complies with subpart I of 40
CFR part 265; and/or
(B) In tanks and the generator complies with subpart J of 40 CFR
part 265, except Secs. 265.197(c) and 265.200; and/or
(C) In containment buildings and the generator complies with
subpart DD of 40 CFR part 265, and has placed its professional engineer
certification that the building complies with the design standards
specified in 40 CFR 265.1101 in the facility's operating record prior
to operation of the unit. The owner or operator shall maintain the
following records at the facility:
(1) A written description of procedures to ensure that the F006
waste remains in the unit for no more than 180 days, a written
description of the waste generation and management practices for the
facility showing that they are consistent with the 180-day limit, and
documentation that the procedures are complied with; or
(2) Documentation that the unit is emptied at least once every 180
days.
(ii) In addition, such a generator is exempt from all the
requirements in subparts G and H of 40 CFR part 265, except for
Secs. 265.111 and 265.114.
(iii) The date upon which each period of accumulation begins is
clearly marked and visible for inspection on each container;
(iv) While being accumulated on site, each container and tank is
labeled or marked clearly with the words, ``Hazardous Waste;'' and
(v) The generator complies with the requirements for owners or
operators in subparts C and D in 40 CFR part 265, with 40 CFR 265.16,
and with 40 CFR 268.7(a)(4).
(h) A generator who generates wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations, RCRA hazardous waste code F006, and who must
transport this waste, or offer this waste for transportation, over a
distance of 200 miles or more for off-site metals recovery may
accumulate F006 waste on site for 270 days or less without a permit or
without having interim status provided that the generator complies with
the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section.
(i) A generator who generates wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations, RCRA hazardous waste code F006, who
accumulates F006 waste on site for more than 180 days (or for more than
270 days if the generator must transport this waste, or offer this
waste for transportation, over a distance of 200 miles or more) or who
accumulates more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste on site is an
operator of a storage facility and is subject to the requirements of 40
CFR parts 264 and 265 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR part 270
unless the generator has been granted an extension to the 180-day (or
270-day if applicable) period or the 16,000 kilogram accumulation
limit. Such extensions may be granted by EPA if F006 waste must remain
on site for longer than 180 days (or 270 days if applicable) or if more
than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste must remain on site due to
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. An extension
of the accumulation time up to 30 days or the accumulation limit of
more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste may be granted at the
discretion of the Regional Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
[FR Doc. 99-2323 Filed 1-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P