![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
180-Day Accumulation Time Under RCRA 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: March 8, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12377-12398]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08mr00-27]
[[Page 12377]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 262
180-Day Accumulation Time Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment Sludges
From the Metal Finishing Industry; Final Rule
[[Page 12378]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 262
[FRL-6547-6]
RIN 2050-AE60
180-Day Accumulation Time Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment
Sludges From the Metal Finishing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the Common Sense Initiative, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is today finalizing a cleaner, cheaper, and
smarter opportunity for environmental protection for the Metal
Finishing industry. EPA is promulgating regulations that allow large
quantity generators of F006 sludges (certain sludges from the treatment
of electroplating wastewaters) up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, as
applicable) to accumulate F006 waste without a hazardous waste storage
permit or interim status, provided that these generators recycle the
F006 through metals recovery and meet certain conditions. On February
1, 1999, EPA proposed the 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable)
accumulation time to address existing economic barriers to the
recycling of F006 waste through metals recovery and to provide large
quantity generators of F006 waste with an incentive to choose metals
recovery instead of treatment and land disposal as their final waste
management option. Today's final rule adopts that proposal, with some
modifications made in response to public comments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on March 8, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket identification
number is F-2000-F06F-FFFFF. 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 members of the public make
appointments by calling (703) 603-9230. Members of the public may copy
a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/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 Kathy Blanton, Office of Solid
Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002, (703)
605-0761, blanton.katherine@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Internet Availability
This rule is available on the Internet. You can find it at: http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006acum.htm
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Purpose and Context of Final Rule
B. Common Sense Initiative (CSI) for the Metal Finishing
Industry and the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT) Committee on Sectors
C. Current Accumulation Time for Large Quantity Generators
III. Rationale for Allowing 180 (or 270) Days to Accumulate F006
Wastes Recycled by Metals Recovery
A. Increased Recycling of F006
B. Protective of Human Health and the Environment
IV. Special Conditions for Accumulating F006 for 180 (or 270) Days
A. Pollution Prevention Practices
B. Metals Recovery
C. Limit on the Amount of F006 Waste That Can Be Accumulated
V. Summary of Final Rule
A. Scope and Applicability
B. Special Conditions for 180-Day (or 270-Day) Accumulation Time
C. Additional Accumulation Time Under Certain Circumstances
1. Transport 200 Miles or More
2. Unforeseen, Temporary, and Uncontrollable Circumstances
D. Summary of Applicable Management Standards
1. Accumulation Units
2. Measures to Ensure Wastes Are Not Accumulated for More Than
180 Days (or 270 Days)
3. Labeling and Marking Accumulation Units
4. Preparedness and Prevention (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart C)
5. Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR Part 265,
Subpart D)
6. Personnel Training (40 CFR 265.16)
7. Waste Analysis and Record Keeping (40 CFR 268.7(a)(5))
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorization
VII. Effective Date
VIII. Technical Correction
IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: Determination of Significance
1. Methodology of Regulatory Impact Analysis
2. Results
a. Volume Results
b. Cost Results
3. Economic Impact Results
a. Benefits Assessment
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et. seq.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
J. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office
I. Authority
These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections
2002 and 3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912
and 6922.
II. Background
A. Purpose and Context of Final Rule
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to
promulgate standards for generators 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. On February 1, 1999, in an effort
to promote the legitimate materials recovery of F006 hazardous wastes
(sludges from the treatment of electroplating wastewaters) and to
reduce the volume of F006 that is land disposed, EPA proposed to allow
large quantity generators of F006 up to 180 days (or
[[Page 12379]]
270 days in certain circumstances) to accumulate F006 on-site without a
RCRA permit or interim status, if the F006 waste would be recycled
through metals recovery and if the generators complied with certain
conditions while the F006 was being accumulated on-site (64 FR 4818).
Today's final rule adopts that proposal, with some modifications made
in response to public comments.
Today's final rule allows large quantity generators of F006 waste
up to 180 days (or 270 days in certain circumstances) 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 this final rule, F006 wastes that are
not destined for metals recovery would not be eligible for the 180-day
(or 270-day, as applicable) 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 (or 270-day, as
applicable) on-site accumulation of F006 are the same as those that
currently apply to 90-day on-site accumulation.
Currently, generators who generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a calendar month (i.e., large quantity generators
(LQGs)) 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 have indicated that this 90-day accumulation limit restricts
their ability to generate a large enough volume of F006 sludge to make
recycling economically feasible when compared to treatment and land
disposal. This is principally due to: (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 longer distances
to metals recovery facilities and shipment of partial truckloads) and
(2) the surcharge that metals recovery facilities generally charge
generators and waste brokers managing small quantities of F006 waste.
In this final rule, EPA is allowing large quantity generators of
F006 electroplating sludge to accumulate F006 waste on-site for up to
180 days (or 270 days under certain circumstances) in tanks,
containers, or containment buildings without a RCRA permit or interim
status, if the generator: (1) implements pollution prevention practices
that reduce the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant entering F006 or otherwise released into the environment
prior to its recycling, (2) recycles the F006 waste through metals
recovery, (3) accumulates no more than 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste
on-site at any one time, and (4) complies with the applicable
management standards in the rule. This proposal does not change any
other requirements applicable to generators of hazardous waste. Large
quantity generators of F006 are only required to meet the conditions of
today's rule if they accumulate F006 on-site, without a RCRA permit or
interim status, for more than 90 days. However, the conditions of
today's rule must be met for the entire accumulation period. Large
quantity generators of F006 who accumulate waste for 90 days or less
without a RCRA permit or interim status may continue to comply with the
conditions of 40 CFR 262.34(a).
EPA is basing this final rule in part on discussions and
information gathered as part of 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 this final rule only affects the amount of
time large quantity generators of F006 waste may accumulate that waste
on-site, without a RCRA permit or interim status, prior to having it
processed for metals recovery. At this time, EPA is making no other
changes to the hazardous waste management standards governing generator
activities. All other provisions governing large quantity generators
under 40 CFR part 262 (e.g. unit specific standards, recordkeeping and
reporting, and manifesting requirements) remain unchanged and in effect
for large quantity generators of F006 waste.
B. Common Sense Initiative (CSI) for the Metal Finishing Industry and
the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT) Committee on Sectors
This final rule is an outgrowth of activities conducted under the
EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) for the metal finishing industry
sector. These activities, including further work on F006 issues, are
continuing as part of the Agency's Standing Committee on Sectors of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT).
The CSI, an innovative approach to environmental protection and
pollution prevention, was established on October 17, 1994, through a
charter pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The goal
of the CSI was to use multi-stakeholder 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
offered excellent opportunities to test and refine CSI concepts, to
create environmental solutions that could operate across industries,
and to identify opportunities to expand CSI concepts to other relevant
industries.
CSI was organized through an advisory committee referred to as the
``CSI Council'' that was 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 established a
subcommittee of stakeholders to look for cleaner, cheaper, and smarter
opportunities for environmental protection in that sector. Sector
subcommittees and work groups met frequently to develop and discuss
various projects, policy recommendations, and other issues. Sector
options, proposals, issues, and data were forwarded to the CSI Council
for further action. The CSI Council considered matters from the sector
subcommittees and made recommendations to the Administrator. The CSI
process produced better, tailored environmental protection strategies
that were developed, in part, by the regulated community, in concert
with regulatory agencies and public interest groups.
Since beginning their work in January 1995 the sector subcommittees
developed nearly 40 projects involving more than 150 stakeholders who
actively participated in sector subcommittees and subcommittee
workgroups. Some of the projects were specific to individual sectors.
Other projects explored solutions to common issues such as alternative
flexible regulatory systems, pollution prevention, reporting,
compliance, permitting, and environmental technology.
This final rule stems primarily from CSI efforts in the metal
finishing industry sector. The metal finishing industry consists of
more than eight thousand ``captive'' metal finishers that
[[Page 12380]]
operate within larger manufacturing facilities and operate within the
financial structure of a larger company, as well as more than three
thousand ``job shops'' (i.e. independent metal plating firms that
complete jobs on contract). Seventy-one percent of job shops employ
fewer than 20 employees and operate with limited capital and personnel.
The industry is geographically diverse and is most 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 had 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 included the American
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, the National Association
of Metal Finishers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (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 subcommittee 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 (known as the Strategic Goals
Program). The goals address resource utilization, hazardous emissions,
economic paybacks, and compliance costs.
As a means towards meeting these goals, the metal finishing
subcommittee endorsed 14 projects and supported 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.
The focus of today's rule, allowing large quantity generators of F006
waste to accumulate the sludge for up to 180 days (or 270 days, as
applicable), is an enabling action identified that would remove some
unnecessary barriers to recycling and would promote the goals of the
CSI effort. Specifically, the final rule is an outgrowth of the CSI
stakeholders' efforts and is designed to encourage more recycling of
F006 waste through metals recovery.
Another of the enabling actions is a project 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 was a Metal Finishing F006
Benchmark Study issued by EPA in September 1998. This study is included
in the docket for this rulemaking. Phase II of the study is now in
process. This phase involves 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.
The CSI charter expired on February 17, 1999. However, EPA and the
CSI Council felt it was important for EPA to continue to receive
stakeholder input on its progress toward a sector-based approach for
environmental protection. The Agency found that the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) was the
appropriate vehicle to help the Agency incorporate the sector-based
approach to environmental protection into EPA's core functions. The
NACEPT Standing Committee on Sectors' first meeting was April 15-16,
1999, in Washington, DC. The Committee on Sectors' role is to provide
advice and recommendations to the Administrator through the NACEPT
Council. Three of the six CSI Subcommittees (Printing, Petroleum
Refining, and Metal Finishing) have been set up as work groups under
the new NACEPT Standing Committee on Sectors. The Committee on Sectors
will provide the workgroups with a forum to continue their work. Thus,
the metal finishing sector's further work on F006 issues is continuing
under the NACEPT structure. The workgroups are not authorized to advise
EPA directly; they will provide advice to the Standing Committee on
Sectors which, in turn, provides advice and recommendations to the
Administrator through the NACEPT Council.
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 calendar month (large quantity generators (LQGs)) limit the
amount of time hazardous waste can be accumulated on-site without a
RCRA permit. Under the existing 40 CFR 262.34, LQGs may accumulate any
quantity of 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, LQGs must comply with
certain unit-specific standards for accumulation units (e.g. standards
for tanks, containers, containment buildings, and drip pads), and
standards for marking and labeling, preparedness and prevention,
contingency plan and emergency procedures, personnel training, and land
disposal restrictions (40 CFR 262.34(a)). Large quantity generators may
also petition the EPA Regional Administrator for an extension of 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 promulgating regulations to allow large quantity generators of F006
wastewater treatment sludges to accumulate the waste prior to metals
recovery for up to 180 days (or 270 days in certain circumstances)
without a RCRA permit, provided the generators comply with certain
conditions. Today's final rule makes no changes to the existing
conditions for 90-day accumulation under the current regulations, and
does not in any way re-open those regulations for review.
III. Rationale for Allowing 180 (or 270) Days to Accumulate F006
Wastes Recycled by Metals Recovery
A. Increased Recycling of F006
Today's rule is designed to provide incentives to large quantity
generators of F006 waste to recycle their F006 waste through metals
recovery.
EPA data indicates that about 40 percent of large quantity
generators of F006 waste potentially affected by this final rule
recycle their waste; the remainder use land disposal. EPA believes that
some large quantity generators of F006 may be choosing land disposal
over recycling for economic reasons, since transportation and costs for
recycling by metals recovery can be more expensive for many large
quantity generators of F006 than the costs for land disposal.
Of the estimated 1,934 large quantity generators of F006, an
estimated 1,483
[[Page 12381]]
generally do not generate enough F006 to fill a hazardous waste
transporter truck within 90 days. Because under the current regulations
large quantity generators may only accumulate hazardous waste on-site
without a RCRA permit for 90 days, these 1,483 large quantity
generators must ship partial truck loads. The transportation costs for
these partial truck loads are disproportionately higher than they would
be for full truck loads because 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 load, the cost per unit of F006 waste for
shipping the waste is more for partial loads than full loads (i.e., 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 large quantity generators of F006 waste to accumulate a full
truck load of such waste will therefore decrease the cost per unit of
F006 waste associated with shipping the waste off-site for metals
recovery.
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 generators' sites to metals recovery facilities are
generally greater than to landfills. Accordingly, many generators seek
to minimize shipping costs (which are usually based on a per-mile unit
cost) by finding the nearest RCRA permitted treatment, storage or
disposal facility, which is most often a landfill. Thus, many large
quantity generators may not choose metals recovery for their F006 waste
due to the higher costs associated with longer transport distances to
recycling facilities as compared to landfills.
In order to facilitate more F006 waste metals recovery and less
F006 land disposal, EPA has, in this final rule, provided an
accumulation period of up to 180 days (or 270 days, as applicable) only
if a large quantity generator chooses to recycle F006 for metals
recovery. EPA estimates, based on its analysis of waste generation and
management patterns in the industry, that 1,483 more large quantity
generators of F006 waste will be able to accumulate larger amounts
(some of which will be full truck loads) and ship less frequently
during the 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable) period. Shipping a
fuller truck load of F006 waste will make F006 waste metals recovery
more cost effective for a significant percentage of large quantity
generators who currently land dispose F006, thereby encouraging more
F006 waste metals recovery. Shipping a fuller truck load of F006 waste
will also make F006 waste metals recovery even more cost effective for
large quantity generators who are already recycling F006 waste. In the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rulemaking (available in the docket
for this rulemaking), the Agency estimated that 72% to 89% of the 1,483
generators affected by this rule will take advantage of the flexibility
provided in today's final rule. 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.
In addition, EPA believes that the rationale supporting the 180-day
(or 270-day, as applicable) 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 large quantity
generators to accumulate waste on-site without a RCRA permit or interim
status, partly because such activity was consistent with typical
generator activities. The 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable)
accumulation time in today's rule will facilitate the appropriate
handling of F006 waste by a large quantity generator prior to its being
recycled for metals recovery. EPA believes that accumulating F006 waste
on-site for up to 180 days, or up to 270 days, as applicable (to
facilitate more recycling through metals recovery), is more consistent
with generator activities than with typical treatment, storage, or
disposal facility activities, because the 180-day (or 270-day, as
applicable) accumulation is part of the initial handling and
consolidation of hazardous waste that a generator undertakes prior to
moving that waste on for recovery or for final treatment, storage, or
disposal. Today's proposed rule maintains the rationale of the 90-day
accumulation rule.
B. Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The provisions of today's rule also ensure that on-site
accumulation of F006 for 180 days (or 270 days under certain
circumstances) is protective of human health and the environment. The
same conditions that apply to 90-day accumulation of any hazardous
waste apply to the 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable) accumulation of
F006. The F006 waste must be accumulated in tanks, containers, or
containment buildings that meet applicable management standards.\1\
These units and relevant standards are designed to minimize releases of
hazardous waste to the environment. F006 waste generators commonly
accumulate F006 waste in super sacks (sacks that are reinforced woven
resin and designed to accommodate bulk shipments) or bulk accumulation
containers. These super sack containers are designed to prevent
releases of F006 (see 62 FR 25998, 26013 (1997)). The regulations
governing accumulation of hazardous waste in containers require such
measures as ensuring that the container is closed except when adding or
removing waste, and that the container is never handled in a manner
which may cause it to rupture or leak.\2\ In addition, as with 90-day
accumulation, in order to accumulate F006 on-site for 180 days (or 270
days, as applicable), large quantity generators of F006 are required to
follow personnel training, preparedness and prevention, and contingency
plan and emergency procedure requirements. With these conditions in
place, EPA believes that allowing large quantity generators of F006
waste to accumulate F006 for 180 days (or 270 days as applicable) does
not pose any significantly increased potential harm to human health or
the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Today's final rule does not allow accumulation of F006 waste
on drip pads (as is provided in the existing accumulation
regulations in 40 CFR 262.34) because F006 waste is not managed on
drip pads, nor does the Agency believe that it would be appropriate
to accumulate F006 waste on drip pads.
\2\ 40 CFR 265.173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received a number of comments relating to the Agency's
rationale for taking this action. Some of the key comments and EPA's
responses to these comments are summarized below and in subsequent
sections. The docket for today's rule contains responses to all
comments. EPA received some comments arguing that accumulating F006 on-
site for 180 days (or 270, as applicable) could result in increased
risks to human health and the environment. One commenter suggested that
the longer accumulation time will create more potential for a release
through deterioration, damage, or mismanagement, and that F006 wastes
pose particular risks of harm when accumulated for longer periods
because many of these wastes are corrosive and highly alkaline,
resulting in a higher risk of drum deterioration and leaking if not
properly managed. Another commenter stated that having larger amounts
of F006 on-site may result in increased risks because human or
equipment malfunction may affect more
[[Page 12382]]
than one super sack (container) which will therefore cause a release of
more F006. This commenter was also concerned that the proposal would
allow additional on-site treatment of F006, resulting in increased air
emissions and increased chronic health risks. This commenter believes
that much of the F006 treatment occurs in exempted wastewater treatment
units (WWTUs) and accumulation units subject to subpart CC (which only
addresses volatile organic air emissions), and that EPA should improve
subpart CC standards and/or repeal the WWTU exclusion.
EPA disagrees that accumulating F006 on-site for a longer period of
time, and in greater amounts, will lead to a greater likelihood of
releases, and believes this rule is most likely to result in reduced
releases overall. As discussed above, large quantity generators of F006
operating under the terms of today's rule must comply with the same
unit-specific and general site operation provisions (e.g. personnel
training, contingency planning, emergency response) that apply to
generators operating under the existing 90-day regulations.
The unit-specific standards are not based on the length of time a
hazardous waste is accumulated. Rather, these standards are essentially
the same for small quantity generators of F006 (180-270 day
accumulation), large quantity generators of F006 (90 day accumulation),
and F006 permitted facilities (where the length of time a waste is
stored may be a year or longer). With respect to the general site
operation standards, EPA believes the 90-day accumulation standards are
also sufficient to ensure protection of human health and the
environment for F006 accumulation. In general, these standards require
a generator to evaluate his or her particular site circumstances (which
would include, for example, the length of time the F006 remains on-site
and the total quantity accumulated on-site at any one time) and
implement training, planning, and response measures appropriate to
those circumstances. For example, in order to be in compliance with
Sec. 262.34(g)(4)(v) (which incorporates the existing 90-day general
site operation provisions), generators accumulating F006 on-site under
the terms of today's final rule should consider whether their current
general site operation procedures (e.g. personnel training, contingency
planning, etc.) should be modified in light of having more F006 on-site
than they would under the 90-day limit.
Thus, EPA believes that these provisions are protective of human
health and the environment even when the F006 waste is accumulated for
more than 90 days. If an F006 waste is corrosive (F006 was not listed
as a hazardous waste due to any corrosive characteristics), the Agency
believes that the required inspections will ensure that any
deterioration of containers caused by corrosion will be discovered
prior to any significant release into the environment.
EPA also does not agree that having larger amounts of F006 on-site
is likely to result in increased risks because human or equipment
malfunction may affect more than one super sack (container) which will,
therefore, cause a release of more F006. The F006 Benchmark Study
indicates, and other information confirms, that most generators dewater
F006 into a cake-like material to remove free liquids and to decrease
the costs of accumulation, shipping, recycling and/or disposal. In the
event of a spill of dewatered F006 sludge (e.g., a release caused by a
rip or tear in a super sack), EPA believes the potential risk of harm
to human health and the environment would be low compared to a spill of
a free liquid or dust. Other available information corroborates this
conclusion, indicating that the cake-like consistency of dewatered F006
sludge ensures that a spill of F006 waste, even of multiple containers,
could be contained relatively easily. Spilled dewatered F006 sludge
resulting from a release caused by a rip or tear in a super sack (or
break in another accumulation unit) retains its solid-like consistency
(because it still retains some moisture) and is not likely to run off
as a free liquid or disperse in the wind like a dust, which will also
result in a lower likelihood of air emissions from F006 accumulated on-
site.
In addition, EPA believes the 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable)
accumulation time could 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
(contained in the docket for this rulemaking) indicates 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 (or 270-day, as applicable) 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 final 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.
Finally, EPA does not agree with the comment that today's rule will
lead to additional treatment activities resulting in significantly
increased chronic health risks. For purposes of this discussion, it is
important to distinguish between the treatment of electroplating
wastewater and the treatment of electroplating wastewater treatment
sludge. Most on-site ``treatment'' that occurs at metal finishing sites
is treatment of electroplating wastewaters (not wastewater treatment
sludge) in wastewater treatment units (WWTUs)--exempt units not
affected by this rule. Increased wastewater generation, and subsequent
wastewater treatment, would only be expected to occur as a result of
increased process output (i.e., increased metal finishing activity),
but this rule will not affect process output, nor will it change
generators' treatment of wastewaters. The process output at
electroplating facilities is dictated by market demand for
electroplating services not by any factors related to how long the
electroplater can accumulate the waste on-site. In addition, this rule
does not affect exempt WWTUs. Thus issues related to wastewater
treatment in exempt WWTUs are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA also does not expect significant, if any, increases in
treatment of wastewater treatment sludge as a result of this rule.
Although the commenter is correct that the rule will allow longer
accumulation time, this does not lead to the inference that they will
undertake more treatment. Generators treat electroplating wastewater
treatment sludge for a specific purpose and there is no reason to
believe they would undertake additional treatment activities simply
because they can hold the waste for a longer period of time. First,
data from the F006 Benchmark Study indicate, and other available
information confirms, that most F006 generators already conduct sludge
drying or dewatering. Sludge drying and dewatering reduce the weight of
the sludge and thus are usually conducted to save on transportation,
disposal and recovery costs, which are largely based on weight. Because
transportation and recovery costs for most affected facilities will be
less under the final rule than they are currently, this rulemaking does
not create an additional economic incentive to conduct additional
sludge treatment. Second, this rule will not
[[Page 12383]]
result in increased production at electroplating shops and
consequently, is not expected to increase the volume of electroplating
wastewater sludge generated, or the rate at which it is generated. The
process output at electroplating facilities is dictated by market
demand for electroplating services not by any factors related to how
long the electroplater can accumulate the waste on-site. Third,
electroplaters generally do not have excess space to put in additional
treatment units. If there were excess space, information available to
EPA indicates that plant managers would opt to install additional
production units. Finally, new treatment units would require additional
investment and resources to install and operate, with little clear
benefit to be derived from these added costs, compared to the
advantages of installing additional production equipment.
Although unlikely, if, as a consequence of this rule, a generator
were to conduct any additional on-site treatment of electroplating
wastewater treatment sludge in accumulation units, EPA does not agree
that such treatment will result in increased risk. With the exception
of the changes in accumulation periods contained in the rule, all other
conditions for 90-day accumulation apply. EPA believes the standards
for accumulation which the generator of F006 must meet ensure
protection of human health and the environment, even if the amount of
F006 accumulated (including treatment) on-site increases. In order to
accumulate F006 without a RCRA permit, F006 generators operating under
the terms of this rule must comply with the same unit-specific and
general site operation (e.g., personnel training, contingency planning,
emergency response) provisions that apply to generators of F006
operating under the existing 90-day regulations. The unit-specific
standards are not based on the amount of F006 hazardous waste
accumulated. To the contrary, these standards are essentially the same
for small quantity generators of F006 (180-270 day accumulation), large
quantity generators of F006 (90 day accumulation), and F006 permitted
facilities. The commenter is correct that the 40 CFR part 265 subpart
CC standards do not control inorganic emissions. However, metals, with
the exception of mercury, which is unlikely to be found in significant
concentrations in F006, have a high melting point and low volatility
and are therefore unlikely to release volatile emissions. Thus, EPA
does not agree there will be increased risk from on-site treatment of
F006 in accumulation units simply because generators may accumulate a
greater quantity of F006 under this rule.
Finally, to accumulate F006 under the terms of this rule,
generators must implement pollution prevention measures, which occur
prior to generation of F006. Because some of these pollution prevention
activities are designed to reduce the toxicity of the F006 generated at
a particular facility, they should also result in reduced risks from
any on-site treatment activities.
Some commenters were concerned that sludge drying and dewatering,
which were identified in the proposal as pollution prevention
practices, could increase air emissions. In response to this and other
comments, EPA has narrowed the pollution prevention condition in the
final rule to include ``practices that reduce the amount of any
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants entering F006 or
otherwise released to the environment prior to its recycling.'' This
change, and explanatory language in the preamble (see section IV.A.),
clarifies that sludge drying and dewatering (or any other measure that
merely reduces the volume of the waste) are not considered pollution
prevention for purposes of meeting the pollution prevention condition
of this rule. Thus, as indicated above, EPA does not expect this
activity to increase as a result of this rule.
IV. Special Conditions for Accumulating F006 for 180 (or 270) Days
In today's final rule, large quantity generators of F006 waste are
allowed up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, under certain circumstances)
to accumulate F006 waste on-site in tanks, containers or containment
buildings without a RCRA permit or interim status, provided that the
generator: (1) Has implemented pollution prevention practices that
reduce the amount of any hazardous substances, pollutant, or
contaminant entering F006 or otherwise released into the environment
prior to its recycling, (2) recycles the F006 waste by metals recovery,
(3) accumulates no more than 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste at any one
time, and (4) complies with the applicable management standards in this
rule. A detailed discussion of the first three conditions follows in
the next three subsections of this preamble. Further detail about the
applicable management standards is in Section V.E. of this preamble.
A. Pollution Prevention Practices
The primary goal of today's rule is to encourage more recycling
through metals recovery of F006. It also has the goal of increasing
pollution control measures, prior to the generation of F006, which can
make F006 less hazardous for subsequent management and more amenable
for metals recovery. Thus, today's rule includes a condition that in
order to accumulate the F006 on-site for 180 days (or 270 days, as
applicable), large quantity generators of F006 must implement pollution
prevention practices that reduce the amount of any hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant entering F006 or otherwise released into the
environment prior to its recycling. In response to comments, this
condition of the final rule has been slightly modified from the
proposal. This modification is discussed below.
Within the metal finishing industry, generators 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, ion
exchange systems, and segregation of wastewater streams) 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. Any generator that already has pollution prevention
practices in place which reduce the amount of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants entering F006 or otherwise entering the
environment prior to its recycling would not be required to implement
additional pollution prevention practices.
For example, rinse water reduction techniques reduce the volume of
effluents discharged from metal finishing processes. Drag-out reduction
measures reduce the volume and can reduce the toxicity of effluents
discharged from metal finishing processes. Implementation of these
methods of pollution prevention promotes protection 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.
[[Page 12384]]
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 of can pose potential problems for the
management and handling of recycling residues. Of course, this
relationship between pollution prevention practices and metals recovery
is highly dependent on the specific production process and the
pollution prevention practices that are employed. For example, some
recovery technologies such as ion exchange work better on dilute
wastewaters than on wastewaters with higher metal content.
Chemical substitution pollution prevention measures reduce or
eliminate toxic substances that are 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).
The number and type of pollution prevention measures used by
individual generators 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. EPA encourages
generators 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
generators operating under the provisions of today's rule to implement
chemical substitution pollution prevention measures to reduce or
eliminate 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.
In its proposed rule, EPA placed the following condition in
Sec. 262.34(g)(1) to promote source reduction and recycling of F006
wastes:
``(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.''
EPA requested comment generally on this condition and asked
specifically whether more specific pollution prevention practices
should be included in this rule. One commenter believed that EPA should
be more specific in its pollution prevention condition in order to make
the condition more meaningful. Several other commenters did not believe
that a generator should be required to implement any specific set of
pollution prevention practices in order to qualify for use of the 180-
day (or 270-day, as applicable) accumulation time, and that a generator
that already implements pollution prevention practices should not have
to adopt new ones in order to qualify for the longer accumulation
period. In addition, many commenters felt that the proposal did not
clearly define ``pollution prevention,'' that the proposal allowed
activities that are not source reduction activities (e.g. sludge
dewatering and sludge drying), and that EPA should consider dropping
the pollution prevention requirement altogether (or requiring waste
minimization instead). One commenter questioned how a generator would
demonstrate compliance with this condition.
For purposes of this rule, EPA defines ``pollution prevention'' to
mean the source reduction of metal and other toxic raw materials that
would otherwise enter a waste stream or be released to the environment
prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal. EPA agrees with the
commenters who expressed concern that the proposed condition could
allow activities that would not be source reduction activities. The
wording of the proposed condition (``pollution prevention practices
that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 waste or that make it
more amenable for metals recovery'' (emphasis added)) may have allowed
activities that are clearly not source reduction activities. For
example, activities that merely reduce waste volume, such as sludge
dewatering and sludge drying, do make F006 more amenable for metals
recovery, but they are not considered source reduction, and thus they
are not pollution prevention activities. Table 1, discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule and in today's preamble, illustrates a
large variety of pollution prevention practices that are widely used in
the metal finishing industry to reduce volume or toxicity of materials
that enter the waste stream (i.e. prior to waste generation), and also
make it more amenable to metals recovery. Filter presses, sludge
dewatering and sludge drying practices, incorrectly identified as
pollution prevention measures in the proposed rule, merely remove water
after the F006 is generated to reduce weight and volume and to make the
sludge more amenable to subsequent recovery techniques. Filter presses,
sludge dewatering and sludge drying practices are not consistent with
the widely accepted definition of pollution prevention through source
reduction contained in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.\3\ A
generator using only filter presses, dewatering or sludge drying
practices would not be considered in compliance with the pollution
prevention condition in today's rule. Therefore, in response to this
and other comments, the Agency has modified the regulatory language to
include a more precise description of ``pollution prevention'' and the
scope of activities that may be implemented in accordance with this
condition. Section 262.34(g)(1) has been revised to read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990 (Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990), as amended by Pub. L. 102-389, October
6, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(1) The generator has implemented pollution prevention practices
that reduce the amount of any hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants entering F006 or otherwise released to the environment
prior to its recycling;''
This revised language in today's rule removes the unintended ambiguity
that was contained in the previous language and is consistent with the
definition of pollution prevention through source reduction contained
in the Pollution Prevention Act.
EPA agrees with commenters who warn against requiring a specific
set of pollution prevention practices. The technical and economic
variables that affect the feasibility of using one or more specific
pollution prevention practices at a particular generator's site are so
broad and complex that EPA does not believe it is possible or
appropriate to specify by rule any particular approach for all
generators. The best approach for one generator may be quite different
than the best approach for
[[Page 12385]]
another generator, and the Agency believes it is important to allow
generators the flexibility to maximize the effectiveness of their
pollution prevention activities by selecting and designing the approach
that best fits their specific situation. Under today's rule, large
quantity generators of F006 waste may implement pollution prevention
practices that are best suited to their specific metal finishing
processes and plating operations. It is important to note that EPA
believes that generators that are already implementing pollution
prevention practices should not have to adopt new pollution prevention
practices to comply with this rule. However, the Agency encourages, but
does not require, metal finishers to thoroughly explore additional
available pollution prevention techniques and to implement those that
most effectively reduce the amount of any hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant in F006 prior to onsite recycling activities
that occur after the sludge is generated (e.g. dewatering and sludge
drying).
EPA believes it is overly broad to refer to the pollution
prevention condition of today's rule as ``waste minimization.'' Waste
minimization includes both source reduction and recycling. By using the
term ``pollution prevention,'' EPA intends to capture only one element
of ``waste minimization,'' i.e. source reduction, which is consistent
with the definition contained in the Pollution Prevention Act. As
mentioned previously, this requirement was included in the rule because
pollution prevention measures can make F006 less hazardous for
subsequent management and possibly more amenable for metals recovery.
Today's rule, therefore, retains the condition that generators must
implement pollution prevention measures.
Regarding what kind of demonstration must be made to verify
compliance with the pollution prevention condition, the final rule does
not include any recordkeeping or reporting requirements specific to
this condition. Generators accumulating F006 on-site under the terms of
this rule should be prepared to demonstrate, at the request of EPA or
the State, that they are implementing pollution prevention measures for
F006. Such a demonstration could include, for example, indicating to
the requesting official particular technologies or process changes that
have been installed to reduce the amount of toxic materials entering
the on-site wastewater treatment system or directly discharging into
navigable waters. EPA believes it is relatively simple to determine
through discussion or direct observation whether a particular facility
is using pollution prevention technologies. The Metal Finishing
Workgroup, for example, used a checklist to profile operations in 29
facilities (which is available in the docket for this rule). Also, many
State pollution prevention and compliance assistance offices have
developed checklists for assessing pollution prevention activities,
particularly for metal finishing operations (see, for example, http://
www.p2.org). Consequently, EPA believes regulated industry can easily
identify what practices would qualify as pollution prevention, and that
EPA and State field inspectors, compliance assistance personnel, and
pollution prevention technical assistance staff can easily determine
whether or not companies are using pollution prevention in compliance
with this rule.
Table 1.--Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Pollution prevention benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Operating Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove cadmium and zinc anodes from --Eliminates cadmium/zinc buildup
bath when it is idle. Anode causing decanting of solution due
baskets can be placed on removable to galvanic cell set up between
bars that are lifted from tank by steel anode basket and cadmium/
an overhead hoist. zinc anodes.
--Maintains bath within narrow Cd/
Zn concentration providing more
predictable plating results.
Eliminate obsolete processes and/or --Reduces risks associated with
unused or infrequently used hazardous chemicals.
processes. --Creates floor space to add
countercurrent rinses or other P2
methods.
--Creates safer and cleaner working
environment.
Waste stream segregation of contact --Eliminates dilution of process
and non-contact wastewaters. water prior to treatment which can
increase treatment efficiency.
--Reduces treatment reagent usage
and operating costs.
Establish written procedures for --Prevents discarding process
bath make-up and additions. Limit solutions due to incorrect
chemical handling to trained formulations or contamination.
personnel. Keep tank addition logs. --Improves plating solution and
work quality consistency.
--Improves shop safety.
Install overflow alarms on all --Minimizes potential for
process tanks to prevent tank catastrophic loss of process
overflow when adding water to make solutions via overflow.
up for evaporative losses. --Prevents loss of expensive
chemicals.
Conductivity and pH measurement --Identifies process solution
instruments and alarm system for overflows and leaks before total
detecting significant chemical loss occurs.
losses. --Alerts treatment operators to
potential upset condition.
--Reduces losses of expensive
plating solutions.
Control material purchases to --Reduces hazardous waste
minimize obsolete material generation.
disposal. --Reduces chemical purchases.
Use process baths to maximum extent --Prevents discarding of solutions
possible before discarding. prematurely.
Eliminate dump schedules. Perform --Reduces chemical costs.
more frequent chemical analysis. --Improves work quality with
chemical adjustments of baths.
Reduce bath dumps by using --Extends bath life.
filtration to remove suspended --Reduces solid waste generation by
solids contamination. reusing filter cartridges.
--Improves bath performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process/Chemical Substitution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitute cyanide baths with --Eliminates use of CN.
alkaline baths when possible.
[[Page 12386]]
Substitute trivalent chromium for --Reduces/eliminates use of
hexavalent chromium when product hexavalent chromium.
specifications allow.
Eliminate use of cadmium plating if --Elminates the use of cadmium.
product specifications allow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drag-Out Reduction Methods That Reduce Waste Generation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install fog rinses or sprays over --Can inexpensively recover a
process tanks to remove drag out substantial portion of drag out
as rack/part exits bath. and does not require additional
tankage.
--Reduces pollutant mass loading on
treatment processes, treatment
reagent usage, and resultant
sludge generation.
Minimize the formation of drag out --May improve treatment operation/
by: redesigning parts and racks/ removal efficiency.
barrels to avoid cup shapes, etc. --Reduces chemical purchases and
that hold solution; properly overall operating costs.
racking parts; and reducing rack/
part withdraw speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rinse Water Reduction Methods That Reduce Waste Generation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install flow restrictors to control --Reduces water and aids in
the flow rate of water. reducing variability in wastewater
flow.
--Is very inexpensive to purchase
and install.
Install conductivity or timer rinse --Coordinates water use and
controls to match rinse water production when properly
needs with use. implemented.
--Provides automatic control of
water use.
Use counter-current rinse --Can achieve major water
arrangement with two to four tanks reduction.
in series depending on drag-out --Has high impact on water bills.
rate. --May reduce the size of recovery/
treatment equipment that is
needed.
Track water use with flow meters --Identifies problem areas
and accumulators. Keep logs on including inefficient processes or
water use for individual personnel.
operations. --Helps management to determine
cost for individual plating
processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Metals Recovery
This final rule is designed to create an incentive for large
quantity generators of F006 waste to choose recycling through metals
recovery instead of treatment and land disposal as their final waste
management option for F006 waste. As discussed in Section III.A., EPA
is providing 180 days (or 270 days under certain circumstances) for
accumulation to eliminate the impediment to F006 recycling created by
the 90-day limit for on-site accumulation. The longer accumulation
period is available only if the accumulated F006 waste is recycled
through metals recovery. In response to comments, EPA has made one
change to this requirement from the proposal.
As proposed, only large quantity generators of F006 who send the
F006 waste off-site for metals recovery (as well as meeting the other
conditions) would have been allowed 180 days (or 270 days, as
applicable) to accumulate those wastes on-site. At the time of
proposal, the Agency stated that, although reduced transportation costs
would not affect on-site metals recovery, there may be other problems
related to on-site metals recovery that a longer accumulation period
could address. For example, it may be necessary to accumulate enough
F006 waste to make some type of on-site batch metals recovery process
more cost effective. The Agency, therefore, requested comment on
whether large quantity generators who recycle their F006 on-site by
metals recovery should also be allowed 180 days to accumulate those
wastes on-site.
The Agency received several comments on the proposal in favor of
including large quantity generators of F006 who recycle through on-site
metals recovery. Some pointed out that the decrease in transportation
of F006 waste over highways may lessen overall potential risks to human
health and the environment. One commenter stated that on-site recovery
methods may prove environmentally superior to off-site methods, but
that some recovery methods could result in increased cross-media
impacts which may not be adequately controlled by the standards imposed
by the proposal. This commenter suggested that EPA should further
investigate these and other issues rather than expand the rule.
After considering these comments, EPA has decided to modify the
rule to include large quantity generators of F006 who recycle F006 on-
site for metals recovery. EPA is not currently aware of any generators
who are presently performing metals recovery on-site. Members of the
metal finishing industry stated during the CSI process that, due to
space considerations at their electroplating sites, installation of on-
site metals recovery equipment would be unlikely, and, if space did
become available, they would be more likely to install extra
electroplating equipment rather than recycling equipment. While EPA
does not have any data indicating whether on-site recycling will
increase, the Agency is concerned that a rule providing a longer
accumulation period only for off-site metals recovery may inadvertently
create an incentive against utilizing, and thereby discourage the
development of, on-site metals recovery. This result may be of
particular importance because, as some commenters suggested, on-site
metals recovery may be environmentally superior to off-site metals
recovery. The Agency believes that the technologies that would be
employed for on-site recycling of F006 would be the same as those
presently used for off-site recycling of F006 that are appropriate for
small volumes. Also, the unit-specific regulatory controls would be the
same. The Agency further believes that the recycling of F006 through
metals recovery on-site may be more protective overall of human health
and the environment because it will require less transportation of the
F006, and transportation-related activities have been the cause of most
of the F006 releases to date. In addition, including on-site recovery
in today's rule is consistent with the primary goal of encouraging
recycling over treatment and land disposal. Because the 180-day
accumulation period would only be available for large quantity
generators who recycle F006 for metals recovery, and we are not aware
that on-site metals recovery is currently occurring or contemplated,
EPA expects that generators who are not sending F006 off-site for
metals recovery would only
[[Page 12387]]
take advantage of the 180-day accumulation period where it would
actually facilitate on-site metals recovery. Therefore, today's final
rule allows large quantity generators of F006 180 days (or 270 days, as
applicable) to accumulate those wastes prior to metals recovery
performed either on-site (i.e., at the generator's site) or off-site,
provided all other conditions of today's final rule are met. The
standards for 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable) accumulation included
in today's rule will ensure that on-site accumulation is protective of
human health and the environment, whether that accumulation precedes
on-site or off-site metals recovery. Only the amount of time large
quantity generators may accumulate F006 (without a permit or interim
status) on-site if they are recycling F006 on-site for metals recovery
is affected by today's final rule.
EPA received several comments on other issues related to the metals
recovery condition of the rule. Several commenters sought clarification
of whether F006 must be sent directly to a metals recovery facility in
order to meet the metals recovery condition of the rule. Specifically,
questions were raised regarding intermediate processors, waste brokers,
and other intermediate handlers. Additionally, some commenters
questioned whether facilities that recycle wastes into animal feed or
soil amendments and primary metals smelters are considered metals
recovery facilities.
In response, EPA notes that the proposed condition that F006 must
be ``sent off-site for metals recovery'' did not require that F006 be
sent directly from the generator to the metals recovery facility. It
was never EPA's intent to preclude generators from sending F006 for
metals recovery by way of intermediate handlers (e.g., persons
conducting transportation, intermediate storage, repackaging or
reshipping) or intermediate processors (e.g., persons conducting pre-
metals recovery processing steps). Rather, EPA believes including such
multi-step management processes in the rule will ensure that the
largest number of generators are able to take advantage of the rule,
and that the amount of F006 recycled is maximized. The Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) conducted in support of the proposed rule
included both metal recovery facilities and intermediate processors as
shipment destinations when estimating transportation and other costs.
Specifically, data used in the model that estimated transportation
costs was based on observed shipments to metals recovery from the 1995
Biennial Report Survey. These observations included both shipments
directly to metals recovery facilities and to intermediate processors
who subsequently ship to metals recovery facilities. Similarly, the
cost model used fees charged both by metals recovery facilities and by
intermediate processors. The RIA demonstrates that generators who are
able to accumulate larger loads of F006 will experience lower
transportation costs and administrative costs whether they are shipping
directly to a metals recovery facility or to an intermediate processor.
Since the transportation patterns would be the same, the same
transportation cost analysis would also apply to intermediate handlers
who simply repackage or consolidate F006 prior to delivery to a metals
recovery facility.
Today's rule retains this metals recovery condition essentially as
proposed (it has been modified to include on-site metals recovery).
Specifically, EPA considers F006 sent by a generator to an intermediate
processor to be sent for ``metals recovery'' if the intermediate
processor then sends the processed material to a facility which
extracts the metals (such as a smelter or a metallurgical extraction
facility). For purposes of this rule, EPA defines an intermediate
processor as a recycler who handles the F006 after the generator and
before the ultimate metals extraction facility (e.g., the smelter) and
who makes the F006 more amenable for metals recovery through processes
such as drying, blending, and/or concentrating. Large quantity
generators of F006 who perform intermediate processing activities on-
site before sending the waste to a metals reclamation facility are also
allowed up to 180 days (or 270 days, if applicable) to accumulate that
waste under today's final rule. However, generators performing
intermediate processing on-site who need to hold the waste after the
accumulation period has expired are required to have a RCRA permit.
In response to the question of whether primary metals smelters and
facilities that recycle wastes into animal feed or soil amendments are
considered metals recovery facilities, under EPA regulations, recycling
is defined as either the use, reuse or reclamation of a material (40
CFR 261.1(c)(7)). EPA defines reclamation as either recovery of a
useful product or regeneration of a product for its original use (40
CFR 261.1(c)(4). Under EPA's hazardous waste regulations, recovery is
defined as the recovery of distinct components of a secondary material
as separate end products (40 CFR 261.1(c)(5)(i)). Examples of recovery
and regeneration are recovering copper from electroplating sludge like
F006 or regenerating a spent solvent for its original use. When
distinct components, such as metals, are not separated from the
material in which they are constituents, recovery has not occurred.
Thus, if F006 were to be incorporated directly into either animal feed
or fertilizer without first separating the metals, this would not
constitute metals recovery. Therefore, F006 sent for this type of
recycling would not be sent for ``metals recovery.'' However, as long
as legitimate metals recovery occurs (i.e., distinct components of the
F006 waste are recovered as separate end products) the rule would
apply, regardless of the ultimate use of the end products.
Regarding primary metals smelters, one commenter appeared to be
unclear about whether F006 processed at smelters was considered to be
used or reused as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a
product, or used or reused as an effective substitute for a commercial
product (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i) and (ii)). If F006 were used or
reused in these ways, it would not be considered a solid or hazardous
waste and would therefore would not be subject to hazardous waste
managements controls, including use of a hazardous waste manifest.
However, the Agency believes that these use/reuse exemptions do not
apply to F006 sent to a primary smelter for metals recovery.
40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i) specifically provides that materials are not
considered to be used or reused as an ingredient in an industrial
process to make a product if they are being reclaimed. 40 CFR
261.1(c)(5)(i) provides additionally that materials will not satisfy
the ``use as an ingredient'' exclusion of 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i) ``if
distinct components of the material are recovered as separate end
products (as when metals are recovered from metal-containing secondary
materials.)'' For these reasons, EPA is today clarifying that F006 sent
to a smelter is generally not eligible for the exclusions at 40 CFR
261.2(e)(1)(i) and 261.2(e)(1)(ii) since the purpose of sending F006 to
a smelter is to recover its metal components. The material would
therefore generally be considered a solid and hazardous waste and
subject to all applicable RCRA hazardous waste management controls
(including use of a hazardous waste manifest).
Another commenter on the metals recovery condition of the rule
stated that neither the proposal nor the existing regulatory framework
are structured so that only legitimate materials recovery is
encouraged. According to this commenter, under the
[[Page 12388]]
existing framework legitimacy determinations are largely self-
implementing and misuse will not be avoided until there are clear and
more objective legitimacy criteria and/or there is greater and more
timely review of the legitimacy claims.
The same commenter stated that several factors result in an
implementation structure incapable of ensuring that the materials
recovery practices employed under the proposal will be legitimate.
These include the wide variety of F006 operations; the wide array of
constituents in the wastes (many of which would not be recycled); the
lack of generator resources; and the lack of Agency oversight. In
addition, according to the commenter, nothing in the proposal requires
the generator to segregate waste streams so that toxics ``along for the
ride'' are minimized.
EPA agrees that recovery of materials from F006 wastes, like any
recovery of materials, must be legitimate to prevent participants from
disposing of materials rather than actually recovering and reusing
them. EPA also agrees that this rule will encourage F006 recovery
operations.
EPA, however, does not agree that its current rules and policies to
prevent ``sham'' recycling operations are insufficient. For example,
the Agency has adequately described the F006 legitimacy criteria in
existing regulatory and policy documents (see discussion below). In
addition, any revision to the criteria is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. EPA has promulgated many rules that encourage recycling
which rely on the existing policy and regulatory structure to ensure
that the recycling involves legitimate reuse of materials. See, for
example, the conditional exemption for secondary materials used for
recovery within the primary mineral processing industry in 40 CFR
261.4(a)(16) (which requires that materials be ``legitimately
recycled'' without promulgating new rules to define the term). Although
EPA acknowledges that this scheme is complex, EPA believes that
recycling, under current regulatory restraints and policy, is
beneficial, and its regulations have long reflected this. The commenter
has not presented any data or examples showing that the current
approach is generally inadequate, nor has the commenter submitted any
information showing that factors unique to F006 recovery operations
make the current approach less effective or less suitable than it is
for other wastes.
EPA has existing policy guidance on legitimacy (see discussions at
53 FR 522 (January 8, 1988), 54 FR 17013 (May 6, 1987), 50 FR 638
(January 4, 1985) and F006 Recycling Memo, signed by Sylvia Lowrance on
April 26, 1989). As described in this guidance, evaluating legitimacy
can in some cases require complex analysis of site specific
characteristics and factors to determine whether the secondary material
is ``commodity-like.'' The presence of toxics ``along for the ride'' is
a factor in this determination. EPA currently believes that determining
whether recycling processes are legitimate requires case-by-case
evaluations of many factors that vary depending on the specific
materials and processes used. EPA does acknowledge that such
evaluations are often complex and time-consuming since F006 wastes and
recovery operations involve a fairly wide variety of materials and
operations which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, the commenter did not present any specific proposal
for improving assessment of the legitimacy of F006 recovery operations
that could be applied in this rulemaking. It would be difficult (if not
impossible) to evaluate F006 legitimacy generically rather than on a
case-by-case basis. EPA is not aware of any information undercutting
its longstanding view that this case-by-case approach has been
effective at ensuring legitimate recycling. In the regulatory language
being promulgated in this final rule (see new Sec. 262.34(g)(2)), EPA
has added the word ``legitimate'' to clarify that the F006 must be
processed using legitimate recycling in order to meet this condition of
the rule. The addition of the word ``legitimate'' does not change any
existing Agency regulations or policies on recycling, but merely
emphasizes the Agency's intent.
Another issue raised by this commenter was that less legitimate
recycling would occur as a result of the pollution prevention condition
because there will be more toxics ``along for the ride.'' EPA
acknowledges that it is possible that some pollution prevention
practices that increase the concentration of non-recoverable toxics in
the waste may be implemented under this rule, but the amount of non-
recoverable toxics in the wastes (as opposed to the concentration of
such toxics) will not increase. However, the Agency encourages metal
finishers to carefully and thoughtfully select pollution prevention
practices that will reduce levels of toxics that are not recovered,
based on the specifics of their processes and design. The Agency also
encourages implementing agencies to actively discuss the issues with
metal finishers and to assist them, where possible, in choosing
pollution prevention technologies. However, whether less legitimate
recycling will occur depends on the pollution prevention technology
used and the composition of the F006 sludge. As discussed previously,
legitimacy determinations are better made on a case-by-case basis, and
it is possible that in a situation where an F006 sludge contains a very
high concentration of non-recoverable toxic constituents, the Agency
could decide that it is not a legitimate recycling scenario under its
existing policies on legitimacy.
Finally, given that most recycling processes generate residues, the
Agency notes that generators may want to discuss the management of any
residues from recycling operations with the recyclers to ensure that
they are managed properly and to avoid any future liability from
improper management (e.g., under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)).
C. Limit on the Amount of F006 Waste That Can Be Accumulated
As discussed above, the purpose of today's rule is to remove an
existing regulatory impediment to increased recycling of F006. The
current 90-day limit on accumulating waste without a RCRA permit is
preventing some large quantity generators of F006 from choosing
recycling as a final waste management option. Although large quantity
generators are not currently subject to any limits on how much waste
they can accumulate on-site at any one time, many generators' process
generation rates are such that they do not accumulate sufficient
quantities of F006 to make recycling the waste a cost-effective option.
EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the flexibility provided
by today's rule to what is reasonably necessary to advance the
recycling objectives of the proposal. For this reason, the proposal,
and today's final rule, include a limit on the total amount of F006
waste that may be accumulated on-site at any time. In response to
comments, EPA has modified this portion of the rule from the proposal.
In the proposed rule, the Agency proposed setting a limit of 16,000
kilograms of F006 that could be accumulated on-site. The Agency
proposed this limit because we believed that this amount was
approximately the size of a truckload used to transport bulk solids.
EPA requested comment on whether it was appropriate to impose any
quantity limit to the on-site accumulation of F006 and whether
[[Page 12389]]
16,000 kg was an appropriate limit (as opposed to a different amount).
EPA received several comments on these issues. One commenter felt
that the limit should be 6,000 kg, which is consistent with the
quantity limit for small quantity generators. All other commenters on
this issue stated that 16,000 kilograms did not accurately reflect the
true size of a truckload for bulk solids (the physical form in which
F006 is most commonly transported) based on experience with
transportation of F006. In response, although EPA believes it is
appropriate to limit the amount of F006 that can be accumulated on-site
at any one time, EPA does not believe that the provisions for small
quantity generators necessitate a similar 6,000 kg limit for large
quantity generators, nor is it an appropriate amount in light of the
recycling objectives of the rule. In addition, EPA proposed the 16,000
kg limit believing that it accurately represented a full truckload. In
considering the comments disputing this assumption, the Agency
investigated the issue further, and located existing information \4\
which is consistent with many commenters' views on the weight of bulk
solids that can be shipped in a full truckload. According to this
confirmatory information, 20,000 kg is more representative of the full
amount of bulk solids that would fill a truck. As discussed above, the
purpose of the quantity limit is to delineate the minimum amount
reasonably necessary to advance the recycling objectives of the
proposal. Therefore, since the main goal of this final rule is to allow
large quantity generators of F006 to accumulate enough F006 to
facilitate the most economically efficient off-site shipment, the
Agency has modified the rule to allow 20,000 kilograms of F006 to be
accumulated on-site within the 180-day (or 270-day, as applicable)
accumulation period in order to accomplish the maximum recycling
benefit under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory Enforcement (DPRA, SAIC),
Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance,
September 1997, p. 5-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a generator has accumulated 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste
(regardless of whether the waste has been accumulated for less than 180
days, or 270 days if applicable), the generator is required to ship the
F006 waste off-site for metals recovery, conduct metals recovery on-
site, obtain an exception to the quantity limit under 40 CFR 262.34(i),
or obtain a RCRA permit.
The Agency also requested comments on whether the accumulation
limit should apply to the total quantity of F006 waste accumulated on-
site or to the quantity of each separate mono-metal F006 waste stream
(or other F006 waste streams segregated on the basis of metal content)
that must be sent off-site to different metals recovery facilities.
This request was based on the idea that a F006 generator could make
F006 waste more amenable for metals recovery by generating mono-metal
sludges.
EPA received several comments concerning the accumulation of mono-
metal F006 sludges. Some commenters opposed expanding the proposal in
this way, citing, among other things, concerns with increased risk and
enforcement challenges. EPA also received comments requesting that the
Agency apply the accumulation limit to each separate mono-metal F006
sludge generated at a site to facilitate metals recovery from each of
these mono-metal sludges. The Agency encourages segregation of waste
streams to make wastes more amenable to metals recovery, and does not
believe that doing so would necessarily increase risks. However, at
this time, the Agency does not have a standard for differentiating
among the different types of F006 wastes, and none of the commenters
suggested any such standard. Without further information, it would be
extremely difficult to develop a standard that would be effective and
implementable. For example, no definition exists for what constitutes a
mono- or bi-metal sludge or how one F006 waste sludge differs
compositionally from another F006 waste sludge (i.e., what levels of
other metals would be acceptable). Lacking such definitions or
standards, it would not be possible at this time for the Agency to
develop a regulatory provision allowing separate accumulation quantity
limits for different F006 waste types. In addition, implementing and
enforcing a separate accumulation limit for different types of F006
wastes would impose a significant burden on both generators and
regulators with little or no corresponding benefit.
Finally, data from the F006 Benchmark Study shows, and other
available information confirms, that very few metal finishers currently
utilize separate wastewater treatment units to generate sludges that
are compositionally different to improve recovery (e.g., mono- or bi-
metal sludges). Thus, at this time EPA believes that very few
generators would benefit from separate limits for separate mono-metal
sludges (or other sludges that differ from one another by composition).
Past discussions with metal finishers in the CSI effort (as well as
observations at metal finishing plants) corroborate this conclusion,
indicating that most small metal finishing shops generally do not have
the space or capital to install separate wastewater treatment units,
filter presses or containers in which to manage mono-metal sludges.
Thus, although the Agency strongly encourages segregation of waste
types to improve the recyclability of F006, for the reasons discussed
above the quantity limit in the final rule applies to the total amount
of F006 accumulated on-site at any one time, as was proposed.
V. Summary of Final Rule
A. Scope and Applicability
This final rule is limited to large quantity generators of F006
waste who accumulate F006 on-site for more than 90 days without a RCRA
permit or interim status.
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 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 and 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 hazardous waste F006. The listing
status of the waste is not affected by this final 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
[[Page 12390]]
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.
Any large quantity generator (generators of 1,000 kilograms or more
of hazardous waste per calendar month) who generates F006 may
accumulate the F006 waste generated on-site for up to 180 days (or 270
days, under certain circumstances) without a RCRA permit or interim
status, provided they meet the conditions of this final rule. Large
quantity generators of F006 are only required to meet the conditions of
today's rule if they accumulate F006 on-site, without a RCRA permit or
interim status, for more than 90 days; however, the conditions of
today's rule must be met for the entire accumulation period. In
response to comments, EPA has modified the regulatory language to
clarify that 40 CFR 262.34(g), (h), and (i) apply only to generators
who accumulate F006 on-site for more than 90 days, but not more than
180 (or 270) days. Any large quantity generator who generates some
quantity of F006 hazardous waste may accumulate the F006 waste under
the terms of today's final rule. The 180-day (or 270-day, if
applicable) accumulation time, however, is only applicable to the F006
waste destined for metals recovery. Other hazardous waste accumulated
on-site (including any F006 which will not be recycled by metals
recovery) must be accumulated in accordance with the existing
provisions for large quantity generators (e.g. 262.34(a), or parts 264,
265, and 270).
Currently, large quantity generators are allowed only 90 days to
accumulate hazardous wastes on-site without a RCRA permit, and there is
no limit on the amount of hazardous waste that can be accumulated on-
site within that 90-day time period. In order to accumulate hazardous
waste on-site without a RCRA permit, these large quantity generators
must also comply with a number of unit-specific standards (e.g., tank
and container standards), and standards for marking and labeling,
preparedness and prevention, contingency plan and emergency procedures,
personnel training, and land disposal restrictions, in order to
accumulate hazardous waste on-site without a RCRA permit. The Agency is
not changing any of the existing regulations applicable to large
quantity generators in today's final rule, except to allow 180 days (or
270 days, as applicable) for accumulation of F006 wastes with a
corresponding limit of 20,000 kilograms on the amount of F006 waste
that may be accumulated on-site at one time. Large quantity generators
of F006 must still comply with the standards required for all large
quantity generators to accumulate hazardous waste on-site without a
permit: unit-specific standards (e.g., tank and container standards)
for accumulation units; marking and labeling, preparedness and
prevention, contingency plan and emergency procedures, personnel
training, and land disposal restrictions. These conditions are
explained in more detail below in Section V. E. of this preamble.
Today's final rule does not apply to small quantity generators of
hazardous waste (between 100-1000 kg per calendar month) and we have
added language to the rule to clarify this. Currently, small quantity
generators are allowed 180 days to accumulate hazardous wastes on-site
without a RCRA permit or interim status. However, the existing
regulations do not allow small quantity generators to accumulate more
than 6,000 kilograms of hazardous waste on-site at any one time without
a RCRA storage permit. Small quantity generators accumulating hazardous
waste without a RCRA permit must also comply with unit-specific and
general facility standards that are similar to those for large quantity
generators. Today's final rule does not change any of the provisions
currently applicable to small quantity generators accumulating
hazardous waste without a permit.
The Agency believes that there is no need to specifically allow
small quantity generators to take advantage of the benefits of today's
final rule. First, these generators are already allowed to accumulate
their waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days, if applicable);
thus, the 180-day time limit of today's rule is unnecessary for them.
Second, the Agency believes that any small quantity generators who
generate hazardous waste at a rate which would cause them to exceed
their existing 6,000 kilogram on-site accumulation limit will actually
be large quantity generators, and therefore will be able to take
advantage of the flexibility in this final rule for accumulating larger
quantities of F006, as long as they meet the conditions of today's
rule.
B. Special Conditions for 180-Day (or 270-Day ) Accumulation Time
Today's rule includes several conditions that do not typically
apply to the accumulation of hazardous waste by large quantity
generators. These conditions are that the generator: (1) Has
implemented pollution prevention practices that reduce the amount of
any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants entering F006 or
otherwise released to the environment prior to its recycling, (2)
recycles the F006 waste by metals recovery, and (3) accumulates no more
than 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste at any one time. EPA has included
these conditions in the rule to ensure that the recycling objectives of
this rule are met, and to ensure that the flexibility provided by
today's rule is limited to that which is reasonably necessary to
achieve those recycling objectives. Each of these conditions is
discussed in further detail in Section IV above.
C. Additional Accumulation Time Under Certain Circumstances
1. Transport 200 Miles or More
Under today's final rule, large quantity generators of F006 waste
have up to 270 days to accumulate F006 waste on-site without a RCRA
permit or interim status if the generator must transport the waste, or
offer the waste for transport, a distance of 200 miles or more for off-
site metals recovery. The generator must still meet the other
conditions of today's rule--i.e., implement pollution prevention
practices that reduce the amount of any hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants entering F006 or otherwise released to the
environment prior to its recycling, recycle the F006 waste by metals
recovery, not accumulate more than 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste at
any one time, and comply with the applicable management standards in
the proposed rule.
As with the other provisions of this final rule, this provision is
intended to allow large quantity generators sufficient time to
accumulate enough F006 waste to make recycling this waste by metals
recovery more cost effective. Shipping F006 waste to a metals recovery
facility that is located more than 200 miles away will cost more than
shipping F006 waste to a local (i.e., less than 200 miles away)
hazardous waste landfill. For those large quantity generators of F006
waste that do not accumulate enough F006 waste to fill a truck load
(i.e., 20,000 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
a less expensive management option than metals recovery. For those
large quantity generators of F006 waste that are located long distances
from a metals recovery
[[Page 12391]]
facility, allowing up to 270 days for accumulation is reasonable to
allow generators to accumulate more F006 waste to get closer to a full
truckload for off-site shipment. The 270-day accumulation period will
be particularly helpful for large quantity generators of relatively
small amounts of F006 waste (i.e., those that do not accumulate more
than 20,000 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 provide them with an incentive to send their F006 waste to a metals
recovery facility rather than to a treatment and disposal facility.
2. Unforeseen, Temporary, and Uncontrollable Circumstances
Today's final 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. Under these
circumstances, the generator may request that the EPA Regional
Administrator or authorized state grant an extension of 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: a facility's refusal to accept waste, transportation delays,
or labor strikes (see 47 FR 1248, 1249, January 11, 1982). These
extensions will be granted at the discretion of the EPA Regional
Administrator or the authorized state on a case-by-case basis. This
provision is the same as the provision for large quantity generators in
the existing regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(b).
In addition to this extension to the time limit, exceptions to the
quantity limit are also available at the EPA Regional Administrator's
discretion. Because this final rule sets an accumulation limit of
20,000 kilograms of F006 waste that can be accumulated on-site at any
one time, today's final rule also allows a large quantity generator to
request permission to accumulate more than 20,000 kilograms of F006
waste if more than 20,000 kilograms must remain on-site due to
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. The rationale
for requiring additional time to accumulate F006 waste on-site due to
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances is equally
applicable for accumulating more than 20,000 kilograms under the same
kinds of circumstances.
In response to a comment, the regulatory text in this final rule
has been modified from the proposal to clarify that, in addition to
time limit extensions, accumulation limit exceptions are available.
D. Summary of Applicable Management Standards
Under today's final rule, the same standards applicable to 90-day
on-site accumulation of hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262.34, other than
the length of time that large quantity generators of F006 waste can
accumulate the waste on-site without a RCRA permit,\5\ apply to 180-day
(or 270-day, as applicable) accumulation of F006 waste. These include
technical standards for units used to accumulate hazardous wastes,
recordkeeping standards to document the length of time hazardous wastes
are accumulated on-site, preparedness and emergency response
procedures, and personnel training. While EPA is not changing any of
these existing standards in today's rulemaking, the Agency would like
to note that in order to be in compliance with Sec. 262.34(g)(4)(v)
(which incorporates the existing general site operation provisions),
generators accumulating F006 on-site under the terms of today's rule
may need to consider whether their current general site operation
procedures (e.g., personnel training, contingency planning) should be
modified in light of having more F006 on-site than they would under the
90-day limit. The existing management standards as they apply to large
quantity generators of F006 waste under this final rule are summarized
below. The Agency is not making any changes or amendments to these
standards in today's final rule, other than clarifying that these
standards apply to large quantity generators of F006 accumulating the
waste up to 180 days (or 270 days where applicable) without a RCRA
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Today's final rule will not affect any RCRA Subtitle C
requirements for generators of F006 waste, other than the changes to
40 CFR 262.34 specified in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Accumulation Units
A large quantity generator of F006 waste may only accumulate the
F006 waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days, if applicable) in
tanks, containers, or containment buildings which comply with the unit-
specific technical standards of 40 CFR part 265 for containers (subpart
I), tanks (subpart J), and containment buildings (subpart DD). In
addition, generators accumulating F006 in containers or tanks must also
comply with the air emission standards of 40 CFR part 265, subparts AA,
BB, and CC.
The unit-specific standards in 40 CFR part 265 include provisions
for the design, installation and general condition of each unit. The
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. For example, the container standards specify that a container
holding hazardous waste must always be closed except when adding or
removing waste and also that the container must not be handled in a
manner which may cause it to rupture or leak. As with 90-day
accumulation, large quantity generators of F006 waste that comply with
the applicable regulatory provisions may treat the waste in the
accumulation unit without a RCRA permit during the 180-day (or 270-day,
if applicable) accumulation period (see 51 FR 10168, March 24, 1986).
2. Measures to Ensure Wastes Are Not Accumulated for More Than 180 Days
(or 270 Days)
Large quantity generators of F006 waste operating under the terms
of today's rule must also comply with provisions which indicate that
the length of time the wastes remain on-site in certain accumulation
units must not exceed 180 days (or 270 days if applicable) from the
date the waste is generated. For those accumulating F006 in containers,
the date upon which each period of accumulation begins must be clearly
marked and visible for inspection on each container. Those who choose
to accumulate F006 in containment buildings must, among other things,
develop a written description of the procedures to ensure that each
waste volume remains in the unit for no more than 180 days (or 270
days, as applicable). Today's final rule does not impose documentation
standards for generators of F006 waste in addition to those already
required for large quantity generators accumulating F006 waste up to 90
days under the existing regulations (see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)).
EPA recognizes that there may be circumstances under which a
generator may discover that he will not be able to recycle F006 waste
that he has accumulated on-site for more than 90 days in anticipation
of recycling. The
[[Page 12392]]
generator may then be forced to send this material for disposal. In
those instances EPA encourages self-disclosure of this violation to the
appropriate regulatory agency under the terms of either the Policy on
Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses (June 10, 1996) or
Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and
Prevention of Violations (the ``audit policy,'' December 22, 1995).
Many states have adopted similar policies for self-disclosed
violations. The generator should be prepared to demonstrate that the
F006 waste was accumulated for more than 90 days based on a good faith
belief that he would be able to send it to a recycling facility.
3. Labeling and Marking Accumulation Units
Large quantity generators of F006 waste operating under the terms
of today's rule are required to clearly label or mark each tank or
container used to accumulate hazardous waste with the words ``Hazardous
Waste.''
4. Preparedness and Prevention (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart C)
Under today's final rule, large quantity generators of F006 waste
who accumulate F006 waste on-site under the terms of today's rule for
up to 180 days (or 270 days, as applicable) must comply with subpart C
of part 265 which contains standards 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 standards 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 generation site requires 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, large quantity generators are 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.
Large quantity 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 site 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.
5. Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart
D)
Large quantity generators of F006 waste who accumulate that waste
on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days, as applicable) under the terms
of today's final rule must comply with the contingency plan and
emergency procedures provisions of 40 CFR part 265, subpart D. A large
quantity 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 generator's emergency
response coordinators, a list of the generator'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
recordkeeping and reporting to EPA on the nature and consequences of
any incident that requires implementing the contingency plan.
6. Personnel Training (40 CFR 265.16)
As finalized in today's rule, large quantity generators of F006
waste who accumulate that waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270
days, as applicable) under the terms of today's rule 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 generator's owner or operator also must maintain records
in accordance with 40 CFR 265.16(d) to document completion of the
training requirements for employees.
7. Waste Analysis and Record Keeping (40 CFR 268.7(a)(5))
Under today's final rule, large quantity generators of F006 wastes
who accumulate F006 waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days, as
applicable) under the terms of today's rule and who treat their wastes
in accumulation tanks, containers, or containment buildings 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 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 (or 270-day, as applicable) 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.
VI. 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 maintains 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
[[Page 12393]]
authorized to permit. When new, more stringent federal requirements
were promulgated or enacted, authorized states had to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames, but 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 on State Authorization
Today's final rule will promulgate regulations that are not
effective under HSWA in authorized states. This rule will, 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 final rule for additional accumulation time
for large quantity generators of F006 waste is 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 final rule.
Even though states are not required to adopt the additional
accumulation time for large quantity generators of F006 waste in this
final rule, EPA strongly encourages states to do so as quickly as
possible. As discussed above, this final rule is intended to encourage
and facilitate recycling of F006 waste. In addition, states
participated as stakeholders in the CSI process and presently
participate in the NACEPT Committee on Sectors, and EPA is encouraging
all states to participate in the metal finishing sector projects and
Strategic Goals implementation programs. States are, therefore, urged
to adopt today's final rule, and EPA is committed to making efforts to
expedite review of authorized state program revision applications that
incorporate this final rule.
VII. Effective Date
This final rule is effective immediately. Section 3010(b)(1) of
RCRA allows EPA to promulgate an immediately effective rule where the
Administrator finds that the regulated community does not need
additional time to come into compliance with the rule. Similarly, the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provides for an immediate effective
date for rules that relieve a restriction (see 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).
This rule does not impose any requirements on the regulated
community; rather, the rule provides flexibility in the regulations
with which the regulated community is required to comply. The Agency
finds that the regulated community does not need six months to come
into compliance.
VIII. Technical Correction
The Agency is correcting a reference to section 268 that appears in
Sec. 262.34(a)(4). Sec. 262.34(a) identifies the conditions under which
a generator may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days without
a permit and refers to the Land Disposal Restriction Testing, Tracking
and Recordkeeping Requirements for generators in Sec. 268.7(a). The LDR
Phase IV Rule, finalized on May 12, 1997 (62 FR 26091), changed the
numbering of Sec. 268.7(a) so that what used to be Sec. 268.7(a)(4)
became Sec. 268.7(a)(5). However, the corresponding reference to this
section in 262.34(a)(4) was not changed. Therefore the Agency is making
this correction today. A similar correction in the accumulation time
regulations for Small Quantity Generators (generators of over 100
kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar
month) in Sec. 262.34(d)(4) was finalized on May 11, 1999 (64 FR
25414). In the proposed rule, Sec. 262.34(g)(v) included this same
incorrect reference. In the final rule this has been changed to refer
to Sec. 268.7(a)(5) instead.
IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: Determination of Significance
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51,735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``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 a 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 thereof; 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 $4.2 million to $5.3 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, or
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, the 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 is placed in the docket for today's final
rule. A summary of this methodology and the results follows.
1. Methodology of Regulatory Impact Analysis
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
[[Page 12394]]
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.
EPA evaluated two options in completing the economic analysis for
this rule. The first option (hereafter Option 1) evaluated a maximum
accumulation of 17.7 tons (16,000 kg) of material in a 180-day time
period (or 270 days if the modeled shipment exceed 200 miles). The
second option (hereafter Option 2) evaluated a maximum accumulation of
22 tons (20,000 kg) in a 180-day time period (or 270 days if the
modeled shipment exceeded 200 miles). The second option was added based
on information (presented by commenters and confirmed by the Agency)
that a 20 to 22 ton load more accurately represented a full truck load.
2. Results
a. Volume Results
The BRS database reports that in 1995 there were 1,483 metal
finishing firms potentially affected by today's rule. The data report
that these firms generated 35,976 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. Information available from other sources indicates
that there are more than 11,000 metal finishing establishments in the
United States. For example, one source estimates that there are 8,000
``captive'' shops (where the metal finishing operation is contained
inside a larger manufacturing operation) and 3,000 ``job shops'' or
``independent'' metal finishing operations (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.
b. Cost Results
For today's final rule, EPA has estimated a cost savings associated
with a 180-day accumulation time (or 270 days where transport distance
exceeds 200 miles) for large quantity generators of F006 waste. The
total annual incremental savings is estimated to be between $3.9
million and $5.0 million for Option 1 and $4.2 million and $5.3 million
for Option 2.\6\ These savings may result from reducing the total
number of shipments of F006 waste off-site for recycling. Savings also
may 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.\7\ It is possible that a 180-day (or
270-day, if applicable) accumulation time will allow some F006 waste
generators to reduce this surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This range of estimated savings results from uncertainty
surrounding a number of other factors that affect a generator's
ability and interest in sending F006 to either recycling or
landfilling. These factors include: (1) The metal value of sludge,
(2) the proximity to the nearest landfill, (3) the presence of tramp
constituents in the sludge, (4) real or perceived risk of Superfund
liability, (5) the ability of several generators to accumulate a
full truck load in less than 90 days, and other factors. For more
information, see Section 2.3 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
this final rule.
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 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.
a. Benefits Assessment
The Agency has performed a qualitative benefits assessment for
today's final 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 and
energy inputs as well as reduced solid waste outputs (e.g., slag,
tailings, and overburden). 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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
D.C., U.S.EPA, 1994), Chapter 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has
fewer than 1000, 750, or 500 employees per firm depending upon the SIC
code the firm is primarily classified in; \9\ (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ F006 is generated by manufacturing firms across a number of
SIC codes including 3471, Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,
Anodizing and Coloring; 3672, Printed Circuit Boards and other
manufacturing SICs. The Small Business Administration has classified
firms in the manufacturing sector (SIC Codes 20-39) as small
businesses within the sector based on the number of employees per
firm. The classification system uses either 500, 750 or 1000
employees depending upon which SIC code. See Small Business Size
Standards, 61 FR 3280, 3289 (January 31, 1996). Thus, to determine
if a generator of F006 is a small business, the primary SIC code of
the firm would have to be determined. Most independent
electroplaters or ``job shops'' are in the 3471 SIC code which has a
size standard of 500 employees. Captive platers (those plating
operations within a larger manufacturing operation) will have size
standards of either 500, 750 or 1000 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, we have determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the
[[Page 12395]]
impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility
analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities
subject to the rule. Data indicate that virtually all independent
electroplaters or job shops are small entities.\10\ Captive shops
contain both large and small entities. Data on captive plating
operations is, however, more limited. The regulatory impact analysis
completed for this final rule indicated that of 3,296 job shops, all
but 2 are small entities. BRS data indicates that a total of 1,934
plating facilities, including both captive and independent operations,
generate F006 waste and 1,483 of these firms are potentially affected
by today's rule. Although the BRS data does not indicate what
proportion of these affected generators are small entities, it is
likely that the majority of these affected generators are small
entities, because the plating firms most likely to be affected by this
final rule generate the smallest quantities of F006 (which is related
to both facility size and product output). This final rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because today's final rule would relieve regulatory burden for
metal finishers and captive operations by allowing them up to 180 days
(or 270 days under certain circumstances) instead of 90 days to
accumulate F006 wastes on-site. The Agency estimates that this final
rule would lead to an overall cost savings in the range of $4.2 to $5.3
million annually. The rule does not impose new burdens on small
entities. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See U.S.E.P.A. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Regulatory Impact Analysis of 180-day Accumulation Time
for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges, September 30, 1999, p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this final 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 was 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); Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW;
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 final rule do not constitute a
substantive or material modification to the information collection
requirements. This final rule will not change any of the information
collection requirements that are currently applicable to large quantity
generators of F006 waste that accumulate the waste on-site. The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this final rule are
identical to the 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 final 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) recordkeeping 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; to 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; to adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; to
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of
information; and to 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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 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.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
[[Page 12396]]
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. 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. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same
reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The term ``policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule imposes no
intergovernmental obligations on States. As discussed in Section VI
(State Authority), today's rule is less stringent than the existing
federal RCRA program; therefore, authorized states are not required to
modify their programs to adopt regulations consistent with, and
equivalent to, today's final rule. States that do not have a final
authorized RCRA program also have no regulatory obligations as a result
of today's rule because EPA will be responsible for implementing this
rule in non-authorized states. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials in developing this
rule. The CSI metal finishing subcommittee included members
representing state and local governments. Please refer to Section II.B.
of this preamble for further information on the role of the CSI metal
finishing subcommittee in developing this rule.
F. 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.''
This final rule does not create a mandate for 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.
G. 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 final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045, because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and
the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health
risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
Because this rulemaking retains current waste management standards
for large quantity generators accumulating hazardous wastes on-site
without a permit (40 CFR 262.34), EPA believes that the new 180-day (or
270-day, where applicable) accumulation period will not result in
increased exposures to children. These provisions are discussed in
detail in Section V.E. of this rule. EPA believes that these provisions
are protective of human health and the environment and minimize the
likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste held in these units.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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
final rulemaking does not involve
[[Page 12397]]
technical standards. EPA has not, therefore, used any voluntary
consensus standards.
I. 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 final 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 final rule retains provisions for large quantity generators of
F006 waste to accumulate 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.
These provisions are discussed in further detail in Section V.E. of
this rule. 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.
J. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)) as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to the publication of this rule in this Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on March 8, 2000.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 1, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 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. Section 262.34 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) and
adding new paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 262.34 Accumulation time.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) The generator complies with the requirements for owners or
operators in Subparts C and D in 40 CFR part 265, with Sec. 265.16, and
with 40 CFR 268.7(a)(5).
* * * * *
(g) A generator who generates 1,000 kilograms or greater of
hazardous waste per calendar month who also generates wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating operations that meet the listing
description for the RCRA hazardous waste code F006, may accumulate F006
waste on-site for more than 90 days, but not more than 180 days without
a permit or without having interim status provided that:
(1) The generator has implemented pollution prevention practices
that reduce the amount of any hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants entering F006 or otherwise released to the environment
prior to its recycling;
(2) The F006 waste is legitimately recycled through metals
recovery;
(3) No more than 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste is accumulated on-
site at any one time; and
(4) The F006 waste is managed in accordance with the following:
(i) The F006 waste is placed:
(A) In containers and the generator complies with the applicable
requirements of subparts I, AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR part 265; and/or
(B) In tanks and the generator complies with the applicable
requirements of subparts J, AA, BB, and CC 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 must 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 generator is complying with the procedures; 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)(5).
(h) A generator who generates 1,000 kilograms or greater of
hazardous waste per calendar month who also generates wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating operations that meet the listing
description for the 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 more than 90 days, but not more than
270 days without a permit or without having interim status if the
generator complies with the
[[Page 12398]]
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section.
(i) A generator accumulating F006 in accordance with paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this section 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 20,000
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 an exception to the 20,000 kilogram accumulation limit. Such
extensions and exceptions 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 20,000 kilograms of F006 waste must remain on-site due to
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. An extension
of up to 30 days or an exception to the accumulation limit may be
granted at the discretion of the Regional Administrator on a case-by-
case basis.
[FR Doc. 00-5503 Filed 3-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P