[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4818-4833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2323]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 262

[FRL-6227-8]
RIN 2050-AE60


180-Day Accumulation Time for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From 
the Metal Finishing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As part of the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today proposing a cleaner, 
cheaper, and smarter opportunity for environmental

[[Page 4819]]

protection for the Metal Finishing Industry. EPA is proposing to allow 
generators of F006 waste (sludges from the treatment of electroplating 
wastewaters) up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, if applicable) to 
accumulate F006 waste without a hazardous waste storage permit or 
interim status, provided that these generators meet certain conditions. 
The first condition is that F006 waste generators have implemented 
pollution prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of 
the F006 waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery. The 
second condition is that they recycle the F006 waste by metals 
recovery. The third condition is that they accumulate no more than 
16,000 kilograms of F006 waste at any one time. The final condition is 
that they comply with the applicable management standards. EPA believes 
that the 180-day accumulation time for F006 waste is protective of 
human health and the environment. The 180-day accumulation time would 
minimize economic barriers to the recycling of F006 waste through 
metals recovery, thus providing generators of F006 waste with an 
incentive to choose metals recovery over treatment and land disposal as 
their waste management option for F006 waste.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule should be submitted on or 
before April 2, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-1999-F06P-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, 
VA, address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: 
[email protected]. Comments in electronic format should also 
be identified by the docket number F-1999-F06P-FFFFF. All electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption.
    Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential 
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be 
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20460.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway One, 
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The RIC 
is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal 
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public 
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a 
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory document at no cost. 
Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. The index and some supporting 
materials are available electronically. See the Supplementary 
Information section for information on accessing them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing 
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323.
    For more detailed information on specific aspects of this 
rulemaking, contact Jeffery S. Hannapel (5304-W), Office of Solid 
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8826, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index and some supporting materials are 
available on the Internet. Follow these instructions to access the 
information electronically: www: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/hazwaste/
gener/f006acum.htm

FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/oswer
    The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically 
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also 
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record 
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the 
beginning of this document.
    EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or 
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a 
response to comments document placed in the official record for this 
rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically 
other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be 
garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as 
discussed above.

I. Authority

    This proposed rule is issued under authority of sections 2002, 
3001, 3002, 3003, 3004 and 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and as 
amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 42 U.S.C. 
6906, 6912, 6921-6925, 6937 and 6938.

II. Background

A. Purpose and Context for Proposed Rule

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to 
promulgate standards for generation of hazardous waste as necessary to 
protect human health and the environment. RCRA Section 3002. Section 
1003 of RCRA establishes a national objective of ``minimizing the 
generation of hazardous waste and the land disposal of hazardous waste 
by encouraging process substitutions, materials recovery, properly 
conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment.'' In response to these 
provisions, EPA has endeavored to develop regulations that promote 
legitimate recycling of solid and hazardous waste while protecting 
human health and the environment against the development and use of 
unsafe or sham recycling practices. Today's proposed rule is an effort 
to promote the legitimate metals recovery of F006 wastes and to reduce 
the volume of F006 wastes that is land disposed. The Agency is 
proposing to provide flexibility in the RCRA regulations governing 
accumulation time limits for generators who accumulate wastewater 
treatment sludges from electroplating operations (i.e., the listed 
hazardous waste, F006) and process these sludges for metals recovery.
    Today's proposed rule would allow generators of F006 waste up to 
180 days to accumulate F006 waste on site, without a RCRA permit or 
interim status, as an incentive to encourage metals recovery and 
pollution prevention practices for this waste. Under the rule as 
proposed today, F006 wastes that are not recycled by metals recovery 
would not be eligible for the 180-day accumulation time. In order to 
ensure that on-site accumulation of F006 waste is protective of human 
health and the environment, the management standards for 180-day on-
site accumulation of F006 waste would be the same as those that 
currently apply to 90-day on-site accumulation.
    This proposed rule is limited to generators of F006 waste. In 40 
CFR 261.31, F006 waste is defined as:

    Wastewater treatment sludges generated from electroplating 
operations, except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric acid 
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc 
plating (segregated

[[Page 4820]]

basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on 
carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc, and 
aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and 
milling of aluminum.

In listing electroplating wastewater treatment sludges as hazardous 
waste, EPA identified several hazardous constituents, including 
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanides that could 
pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment if the 
sludge was mismanaged. The potential hazards associated with the 
constituents of concern in the sludge and the potential for improper 
management of the electroplating wastewater treatment sludges served as 
the basis for listing the sludge as the hazardous waste, F006. The 
listing status of the waste would not be affected by this proposed 
rule.
    The physical form of F006 waste can generally be described as a 
mixed metal hydroxide wastewater treatment precipitate, which is 24 to 
50 percent solids by weight. Other physical forms of this material can 
include spent ion exchange columns or iron precipitation solids. F006 
sludges may contain metals with commercial value that can be recovered 
from the sludges. The metals recovered from these sludges are most 
often concentrates and intermediate materials that require further 
processing before a commercially usable metal is produced. Often, the 
metals contained in these industrial sludges are recovered in the form 
of a metal oxide or salt (e.g., lead oxide, lead chloride, lead 
sulfate) through High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR), such as 
smelting operations.
    Currently, generators who generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of 
hazardous waste in a calendar month (i.e., large quantity generators) 
may accumulate hazardous waste on-site, without having to obtain a RCRA 
permit for the on-site accumulation activities, for a period of up to 
90 days. Many generators of F006 wastewater treatment sludges indicate 
that this 90-day accumulation limit restricts their ability to generate 
a large enough volume of F006 sludge to make recycling more 
economically feasible when compared to treatment and land disposal. 
This is principally because of: (1) The relatively high cost of 
transportation of the hazardous sludge from a generator's establishment 
to a recycling or smelting facility (due, in part, to the longer 
distances to metals recovery facilities and the fact that generators 
are shipping partial truck loads) and (2) the surcharge that metals 
recovery facilities generally charge generators and waste brokers for 
managing small quantities of F006 waste.
    In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to allow generators of 
F006 electroplating sludge to accumulate F006 waste on site for up to 
180 days in tanks, containers or containment buildings without a RCRA 
permit, if the generator: (1) Has implemented pollution prevention 
practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 waste or that 
make the F006 waste more amenable for metals recovery, (2) recycles the 
F006 waste through metals recovery, (3) accumulates no more than 16,000 
kilograms of F006 waste at any one time, and (4) complies with the 
applicable management standards in the rule. This proposal would not 
change any other requirements applicable to generators of hazardous 
waste. EPA believes that the 180-day accumulation period will allow 
generators of F006 waste to ship the waste off site less frequently 
(e.g., twice a year rather than four times a year under the existing 
90-day accumulation rule), and thereby, reduce the costs associated 
with transporting F006 sludges to metals recovery facilities. Because 
generators can accumulate F006 waste on site for 180 days only if the 
waste is sent off site for metals recovery, EPA expects that the 
quantities of F006 waste that are recycled, rather than treated and 
land disposed, will increase. F006 waste metals recovery also promotes 
resource conservation because metals recovered from the sludges may 
serve as alternative feedstocks for primary metals in production and 
manufacturing processes.
    EPA is basing this proposal, in part, on discussions under the 
Agency's Common Sense Initiative for the Metal Finishing Industry. The 
Common Sense Initiative, as well as broader changes in the regulation 
of F006 waste being considered as part of the Common Sense Initiative, 
are discussed in more detail below. The Agency notes that today's 
proposed rule only affects the amount of time generators of F006 waste 
may accumulate that waste on site, without a RCRA permit, prior to 
having it processed for metals recovery. At this time, EPA is proposing 
no other changes to the hazardous waste management standards governing 
generator activities. All other provisions governing hazardous waste 
management activities for large quantity generators under 40 CFR part 
262 (e.g., unit specific standards, recordkeeping and reporting, and 
manifesting requirements) would remain unchanged and in effect with 
respect to large quantity generators of F006 waste.

B. Common Sense Initiative (CSI) for Metal Finishing Industry

    Today's proposal is an outgrowth of activities conducted under the 
EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI), an innovative approach to 
environmental protection and pollution prevention. The CSI was 
established on October 17, 1994, through a charter pursuant to the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The goal of the CSI is to use 
consensus decision-making to recommend policy and program changes to 
the CSI Council and the EPA Administrator. EPA selected six industries 
to serve as CSI pilot industries: automobile manufacturing, computer 
and electronics, iron and steel, metal finishing, petroleum refining, 
and printing. These six industries comprise over 11 percent of the U.S. 
Gross Domestic Product, employ over 4 million people, and account for 
over 12 percent of the toxic releases reported by United States 
industry. As such, they offer excellent opportunities to test and 
refine CSI concepts, to create environmental solutions that can operate 
across industries, and to identify opportunities to expand CSI concepts 
to other relevant industries.
    CSI is organized through an advisory committee referred to as the 
``CSI Council,'' that is comprised of high-level representatives from 
various stakeholder groups, including all involved industries. For each 
industry, known as a ``sector'' in CSI, the CSI Council establishes a 
subcommittee of stakeholders to look for cleaner, cheaper, and smarter 
opportunities for environmental protection in that sector. Sector 
subcommittees and work groups meet frequently to develop and discuss 
progress in various projects, policy considerations, and other issues. 
Team options, proposals, issues, and data are forwarded to the CSI 
Council for further action. The CSI Council considers matters from the 
sector subcommittees and makes recommendations to the Administrator. 
The CSI process is producing better, more applicable environmental 
protection strategies that are developed, in part, by the regulated 
community, and in concert with regulatory agencies and public interest 
groups.
    Since beginning their work in January 1995, the sector 
subcommittees have developed nearly 40 projects involving more than 150 
stakeholders who actively participate in sector subcommittees and 
subcommittee workgroups. Some of the projects are specific to 
individual sectors. Other projects explore solutions to common

[[Page 4821]]

issues such as alternative flexible regulatory systems, pollution 
prevention, reporting, compliance, permitting, and environmental 
technology.
    Today's proposal stems primarily from CSI efforts in the metal 
finishing industry sector. The metal finishing industry consists of 
more than three thousand ``job shops'' (i.e., independent metal plating 
firms that complete jobs on contract), which are mostly small 
businesses with limited capital and personnel, and more than eight 
thousand ``captive'' metal finishing operations within larger 
manufacturing facilities. The industry is geographically diverse, but 
concentrated in heavily industrialized states. Because of the cross-
media impacts of their operations, metal finishers face a broad range 
of federal, state, and local environmental requirements (especially 
with regard to water use and waste disposal).
    The CSI metal finishing subcommittee has 24 members representing 
metal finishing companies, trade associations, suppliers, environmental 
and community groups, organized labor, and state and local governments. 
Some of the representative organizations include the American 
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, the National Association 
of Metal Finishers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the AFL-CIO, 
the Barrio Planners of Los Angeles, the Water Environment Federation, 
and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. As part of its 
work under CSI, the metal finishing sector has developed a set of 
ambitious voluntary performance goals to promote pollution prevention 
and environmental management beyond what is currently required for the 
industry under federal regulations (i.e., the Strategic Goals Program). 
The goals address resource utilization, hazardous emissions, economic 
pay backs, and compliance costs.
    As a means towards meeting these goals, the metal finishing 
subcommittee has endorsed 14 projects, and supports an additional CSI 
small business sector project. In addition to these 14 projects, the 
action plan also contains ``enabling actions'' that all stakeholders 
have committed to undertake to help the industry meet the Strategic 
Goals. Allowing generators of F006 waste to accumulate the sludge for 
up to 180 days is one of the enabling actions to help remove 
unnecessary barriers to recycling and to promote the goals of the CSI 
effort.
    Another one of the enabling actions includes a study conducted by 
EPA to examine whether the physical nature of F006 waste has changed as 
a result of process improvements in the last twenty years, and if so, 
whether some type of regulatory, administrative, or other relief for 
the management of F006 waste is warranted. Phase I of this study (i.e., 
sampling of F006 sludge from 30 metal finishing facilities in three 
cities) is expected to be completed shortly with the issuance of a 
report. Phase II of the study (i.e., identifying additional data needs, 
if any, and examining potential regulatory and administrative 
strategies that may promote metals recovery of F006 waste, encourage 
pollution prevention practices related to the generation of F006 waste, 
and reduce or remove possible RCRA barriers to metals recovery of F006 
waste) is now in process.

C. Current Accumulation Time for Large Quantity Generators

    The current standards under 40 CFR part 262 for generators of 
hazardous waste who generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous 
waste per month limit the amount of time hazardous waste can be 
accumulated without a RCRA permit at the generator's site. Under the 
existing 40 CFR 262.34, generators of greater than 1,000 kilograms of 
hazardous waste per month may accumulate hazardous waste on site for up 
to 90 days without having to obtain a RCRA permit. This provision was 
established to provide generators sufficient time in all reasonable 
situations for waste accumulation to occur prior to waste management, 
without interfering with generator manufacturing processes. 51 FR 25487 
(July 14, 1986).
    Under the existing 90-day accumulation rule, the generator must 
comply with certain unit-specific standards (e.g., tank, container, 
containment building, and drip pad standards) for accumulation units, 
marking and labeling requirements, preparedness and emergency procedure 
requirements, and release response requirements. 40 CFR 262.34(a). 
Generators may also petition the EPA Regional Administrator to grant an 
extension, up to 30 days, to the 90-day accumulation time limit due to 
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances, on a case-by-
case basis under 40 CFR 262.34(b).
    As outlined above, and explained below in Section III, the Agency 
is proposing to allow generators of F006 wastewater treatment sludges 
to accumulate the waste prior to metals recovery for up to 180 days 
without a RCRA permit, provided the generators comply with certain 
conditions, as explained below. For the reasons explained below, the 
Agency believes that the proposed 180-day accumulation time is 
appropriate for generators of F006 waste, without interfering with the 
generator's manufacturing processes. Today's proposed rule makes no 
changes to the requirements for 90-day accumulation under the current 
regulations.

D. Current Accumulation Time for Small Quantity Generators

    The current federal RCRA regulations governing waste management 
requirements for hazardous waste generators provide for accumulation 
time limits for generators who generate more than 100 kilograms of 
hazardous waste, but less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a 
calendar month, who are known as small quantity generators (SQGs). 
Section 262.34(d) of 40 CFR provides that SQGs may accumulate hazardous 
waste on site for 180 days or less without a permit or without having 
interim status, provided that the generator complies with certain 
provisions. These existing provisions include a restriction that the 
generator never accumulates more than 6,000 kilograms of hazardous 
waste on site. In addition, the generator must comply with certain 
unit-specific standards (e.g., tank and container standards) for 
accumulation units, marking and labeling requirements, preparedness and 
emergency procedure requirements, and release response requirements. 
The Agency is not proposing in this action to change the current 
provisions governing the accumulation time periods for SQGs.
1. Transport More Than 200 Miles
    Section 262.34(e) of 40 CFR provides that SQGs who must transport 
the waste, or offer the waste for transport, over a distance of 200 
miles or more for off-site treatment, storage, disposal or recycling 
may accumulate hazardous waste on site for 270 days or less, without a 
permit or having interim status. Again, the generator must comply with 
certain unit-specific standards for accumulation units (e.g., tank and 
container standards), marking and labeling requirements, preparedness 
and emergency procedure requirements, and release response 
requirements.
    The Agency is not proposing, as part of today's proposal, to change 
the current provisions governing the accumulation time periods for SQGs 
that must transport the waste greater than 200 miles for treatment, 
storage, disposal, or recycling.

[[Page 4822]]

2. Unforeseen, Temporary, and Uncontrollable Circumstances
    There may be instances, due to unforeseen, temporary, and 
uncontrollable circumstances, in which SQGs may need to accumulate 
hazardous wastes on site for a greater period of time than 180 days (or 
270 days if the generator must transport waste more than 200 miles for 
off-site management). In such cases, the generator may petition the EPA 
Regional Administrator to grant an extension, up to 30 days, to the 
accumulation time limit due to unforeseen, temporary, and 
uncontrollable circumstances, on a case-by-case basis under 40 CFR 
262.34(f). Today's proposed rule makes no changes to this provision for 
SQGs.

III. Discussion

A. Overview of Proposed Rule

1. Proposed Approach
    Under the current regulatory scheme (i.e., the 90-day accumulation 
time limit), many generators of F006 waste do not send their F006 waste 
off site for metals recovery due to economic reasons. Today's rule 
provides generators of F006 waste with incentives to minimize costs 
associated with off-site metals recovery so that these generators will 
be more likely to choose metals recovery over treatment and land 
disposal as their management option for F006 waste.
    Of the approximately 6,000 generators of F006 waste in the metal 
finishing industry, at least an estimated 1,317 generators produce F006 
waste in amounts that exceed the regulatory requirements for small 
quantity generators. Nonetheless, the amounts generated by this group 
of 1,317 metal finishers are generally not enough for a full truck load 
within 90 days. These generators are required to ship the F006 waste 
off site within 90 days (otherwise a RCRA storage permit would be 
required for the facility), so their shipments are partial truck loads. 
The transportation costs for these partial loads are disproportionately 
higher than they would be for full loads. There is generally some fixed 
cost associated with having a truck pick up a load of F006 waste 
regardless of whether the truck is picking up a partial or full load. 
For the fixed cost portion of the truck, the cost per unit of F006 
waste for shipping the waste is more for partial loads than full loads 
(e.g., the cost per unit of F006 waste for the fixed cost portion of 
the truck is twice as much for a half-filled truck compared to a full 
truck). Allowing generators of F006 waste to accumulate a full truck 
load of F006 waste would, therefore, decrease the cost per unit of F006 
waste associated with shipping F006 waste off site for metals recovery.
    Similarly, smelters often charge generators proportionately more 
for small loads of F006 waste (due, in part, to the fixed 
administrative and transportation costs associated with handling such 
small loads).1 Accordingly, the cost per unit of F006 waste 
sent to a smelter is more for small loads of F006 waste than for larger 
loads. Allowing generators of F006 waste to accumulate more F006 waste 
would, therefore, decrease the cost per unit of F006 associated with 
sending F006 waste to a smelter for metals recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NCMS/NAMF Pollution Control Assessment, para. 4 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because of the usual per mile charge for 
transportation, transporting wastes longer distances costs more. 
Accordingly, many facilities seek to minimize shipping costs by finding 
the nearest RCRA permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility, 
which is most often a landfill. In the United States, there are 
significantly more landfills than metals recovery facilities that 
handle F006 wastes. Because there are fewer recycling facilities in the 
U.S. that can recover metals from F006 waste than landfills that accept 
F006 waste for disposal, the distances from generator's facilities to 
metals recovery facilities are generally greater than to landfills. 
Thus, many generators may not choose metals recovery for their F006 
waste due to the higher costs associated with having to transport these 
wastes longer distances to recycling facilities as compared to 
landfills.
    Under this proposed rule, generators of F006 waste would be allowed 
to accumulate the waste on site in tanks, containers, or containment 
buildings for 180 days or less without a RCRA permit, only if they meet 
the pollution prevention, metals recovery, and 16,000 kilogram 
accumulation limit conditions of the rule. An accumulation time of 180 
days was chosen because it provided sufficient time for most of the 
F006 waste generators affected by this proposed rule to accumulate a 
full truck load of F006 waste. Metal finishing stakeholders in the CSI 
process also indicated that the 180-day (or the 270-day, if applicable) 
accumulation time would be sufficient time to accumulate F006 waste on 
site and make metals recovery a more cost effective management option 
for F006 waste. EPA requests comments on whether 180 days (or 270 days, 
if applicable) is the appropriate accumulation time for F006 waste. The 
proposed rule would reduce a generator's overall hazardous waste 
transportation costs associated with shipping F006 waste off site for 
metals recovery. If a generator can accumulate enough F006 waste to 
fill a truck load, then its relative transportation costs would be 
less. Specifically, if the generator can store the F006 waste for twice 
as long as before (i.e., 180 days as opposed to 90 days), then it would 
only have to ship the waste half as many times, thereby decreasing the 
associated transportation costs. Thus, with today's proposed rule 
generators of F006 waste would have an incentive to send the F006 waste 
off site for metals recovery (because generators can accumulate up to 
180 days only if the F006 waste is sent off site for metals recovery).
    In today's proposed rule, generators of F006 waste would be allowed 
up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, if applicable) time to accumulate 
F006 waste on site in tanks, containers or containment buildings 
without a RCRA permit, provided that the generator: (1) Has implemented 
pollution prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of 
the F006 waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery, (2) 
recycles the F006 waste by metals recovery, (3) accumulates no more 
than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste at any one time, and (4) complies 
with the applicable management standards in this rule. A brief 
discussion of these conditions is provided below.

a. Pollution Prevention Practices

    As part of the proposed rule, generators must implement pollution 
prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 
waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery. Within the 
metal finishing industry, facilities have implemented a variety of 
pollution prevention practices including: product substitution, drag-
out and counter-current flow rinse systems, flow restrictors, 
evaporation recovery systems, plating bath reuse, filter press, sludge 
drying systems, ion exchange systems, and segregation of wastewater 
streams. Many companies have implemented pollution prevention measures 
to improve process efficiency, cut waste generation and waste 
management costs, and improve compliance. Table 1 summarizes several 
categories of pollution prevention practices that are commonly used 
within the metal finishing industry. These practices reduce the volume 
and toxicity of the F006 waste generated or make the F006 waste more 
amenable for metals recovery, albeit in varying degrees.

[[Page 4823]]

    Individual pollution prevention measures may reduce the toxicity or 
the volume of F006 waste generated from wastewater treatment. For 
example, rinse water reduction techniques reduce the volume of 
effluents discharged from metal finishing process. Drag-out reduction 
measures reduce the volume and can reduce the toxicity of effluents 
discharged from metal finishing processes. Implementation of these 
pollution prevention practices is protective of human health and the 
environment because the F006 sludge produced is reduced in volume or 
toxicity. Pollution prevention measures such as these may, however, 
also increase the concentration of pollutants in F006 sludge, including 
recyclable metals (e.g., copper, zinc, nickel) and non-recyclable toxic 
pollutants (e.g., cyanide, cadmium). Increasing the concentration of 
recoverable metals in F006 sludge can increase the sludge's value as a 
secondary material, but increasing the concentration of non-recyclable 
pollutants (e.g., cyanide, cadmium), which pass through the recovery 
process and must be properly managed and disposed in the environment, 
can pose potential problems for the management and handling of 
recycling residues.
    Chemical substitution pollution prevention measures reduce or 
eliminate toxic substances used in the plating process and found in the 
wastes, and therefore, are desirable from an environmental perspective, 
wherever they can appropriately be applied. For example, trivalent 
chromium can be substituted for highly toxic hexavalent chromium in a 
few applications. In many applications, this substitution may not be 
possible. Many metal finishers have reduced or eliminated cyanide and 
cadmium use by substituting other materials, or by ceasing certain 
plating operations. Chemical substitution pollution prevention 
practices are generally more protective of human health and the 
environment because they eliminate or reduce the amount of toxic 
pollutants in the sludge, and produce sludge that is more amenable for 
metals recovery (by reducing the amount of non-recyclable toxic 
pollutants in the sludge).
    Pollution prevention practices protect human health and the 
environment because they reduce the volume and toxicity of F006 sludge 
and make it more amenable for metals recovery. For example, dewatering 
F006 sludge makes the waste safer to manage (reduction in free liquids 
in waste reduces the potential for releases into the environment in the 
event of a spill) and more amenable for metals recovery (because 
smelters generally have a moisture limit for incoming secondary 
materials such as F006 waste). In addition, chemical substitution 
pollution prevention measures can reduce, or eliminate, the toxic 
substances that do not get recycled in the metals recovery processes.
    Based on available data, EPA believes that most metal finishing 
facilities have implemented at least one pollution prevention measure 
and many facilities have implemented several. The number and category 
of pollution prevention measures used at individual facilities vary 
broadly. The most common pollution prevention measures include drag-out 
and rinse water reduction methods, which may improve effluent quality 
and the amount of metals recovered from F006 sludge. The data available 
to EPA suggest that chemical substitution pollution prevention measures 
are used less frequently than rinse water and drag-out reduction 
techniques.
    Today's proposed rule provides an incentive to encourage more 
metals recovery and less land disposal of F006 wastes by allowing 180 
days to accumulate F006 waste, but only for those generators of F006 
waste who recycle the F006 waste by metals recovery and have 
implemented pollution prevention practices that reduce the volume or 
toxicity of F006 waste or that make it more amenable for metals 
recovery. At the same time, EPA wishes to encourage facilities to make 
greater progress in reducing the quantity of non-recyclable toxic 
pollutants that pass through recovery processes and are ultimately 
disposed of in landfills. The Agency, therefore, urges facilities 
(although not specifically required by the proposed rule) to implement 
at least one chemical substitution pollution prevention measure that 
reduces or eliminates the amount of toxic pollutants (e.g., cadmium, 
cyanide, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, or halogenated or chlorinated 
solvents) contained in F006 sludge that are not economically 
recoverable from F006 waste. Nonetheless, any facility that already has 
pollution prevention practices in place that meet the requirements of 
this proposed rule would not be required to implement additional 
pollution prevention practices.
    The Agency believes that a general condition requiring pollution 
prevention practices as part of the proposed rule is preferable to a 
more specific pollution prevention requirement. The technical and 
economic variables that affect the feasibility of using one or more 
specific pollution prevention practices at a particular facility are so 
broad and complex that it would not be possible to specify by rule the 
best approach for all facilities. Accordingly, the Agency believes that 
it is appropriate to allow the facilities that want the 180-day 
accumulation time to implement pollution prevention practices that are 
best suited to individual facilities, based on their specific metal 
finishing processes and plating operations. With this approach, 
facilities can implement those pollution prevention practices that best 
facilitate metals recovery and protect human health and the 
environment. EPA requests comments on the general condition requiring 
pollution prevention practices and whether more specific pollution 
prevention requirements should be part of this rule.
    The proposed rule requires both metals recovery and pollution 
prevention practices as conditions to accumulate F006 waste on site for 
up to 180 days without a RCRA storage permit. The rationale for the 
pollution prevention requirement is to encourage generators to make the 
F006 waste less hazardous for subsequent management and more amenable 
for metals recovery. While both pollution prevention and metals 
recovery are laudable goals, there is a potential tension between 
pollution prevention practices and metals recovery. For example, if a 
pollution prevention practice is successful in eliminating, or 
significantly reducing, the metals in the metal finishing waste stream, 
then the resulting F006 sludge could have relatively low metal values 
and could be less amenable to metals recovery. Of course, this tension 
between pollution prevention practices and metals recovery is highly 
dependent on the specific pollution prevention practice that is 
employed. For example, some recovery technologies such as ion exchange 
work better on dilute wastewaters than on wastewaters with higher metal 
content.
    As alluded to above, the metal finishing industry can implement a 
wide variety of pollution prevention practices. Some pollution 
prevention practices can actually enhance the metals recovery process 
by concentrating metals in the F006 waste or by segregating waste 
streams into mono-metal or bi-metal sludges that can be more amenable 
to metals recovery. The use of several pollution prevention measures 
such as rinse water reduction techniques, chemical substitution, and 
waste stream separation can produce a sludge that is less hazardous to 
manage and more amenable to metals recovery. The Agency believes that 
requiring both

[[Page 4824]]

pollution prevention practices and metals recovery as conditions for 
the 180-day accumulation time is compatible with environmentally 
responsible metal finishing, is consistent with efforts of the metal 
finishing industry to improve F006 sludge quality (i.e., reduce the 
toxicity of the sludge and make it more amenable to metals recovery), 
and is protective of human health and the environment. The Agency 
requests comments on how pollution prevention practices and metals 
recovery can best be used together to promote environmentally sound 
metals recovery and to protect human health and the environment.

           Table 1.--Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Method                   Pollution prevention benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Improved Operating Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove cadmium and zinc anodes from       Eliminates cadmium/
 bath when it is idle. Anode baskets      zinc buildup causing decanting
 can be placed on removable anode bars    of solution due to galvanic
 that are lifted from tank by an          cell set up between steel
 overhead hoist.                          anode basket and cadmium/zinc
                                          anodes.
                                          Maintains bath within
                                          narrow Cd/Zn concentration
                                          providing more predictable
                                          plating results.
Eliminate obsolete processes and/or       Reduces risks
 unused or infrequently used processes.   associated with hazardous
                                          chemicals.
                                          Creates floor space to
                                          add countercurrent rinses or
                                          other P2 methods.
                                          Creates safer and
                                          cleaner working environment.
Waste stream segregation of contact and   Eliminates dilution of
 non-contact wastewaters.                 process water prior to
                                          treatment which can increase
                                          treatment efficiency.
                                          Reduces treatment
                                          reagent usage and operating
                                          costs.
Establish written procedures for bath     Prevents discarding
 make-up and additions. Limit chemical    process solutions due to
 handling to trained personnel. Keep      incorrect formulations or
 tank addition logs.                      contamination.
                                          Improves plating
                                          solution and work quality
                                          consistency.
                                          Improves shop safety.
Install overflow alarms on all process    Minimizes potential
 tanks to prevent tank overflow when      for catastrophic loss of
 adding water to make up for              process solution via overflow.
 evaporative losses.
                                          Prevents loss of
                                          expensive chemicals.
Conductivity and pH measurement           Identifies process
 instruments and alarm system for         solution overflows and leaks
 detecting significant chemical losses.   before total loss occurs.
                                          Alerts treatment
                                          operators to potential upset
                                          condition.
                                          Reduces losses of
                                          expensive plating solutions.
Control material purchases to minimize    Reduces hazardous
 obsolete material disposal.              waste generation.
                                          Reduces chemical
                                          purchases.
Use process baths to maximum extent       Prevents discarding of
 possible before discarding. Eliminate    solutions prematurely.
 dump schedules. Perform more frequent
 chemical analysis.
                                          Reduces chemical
                                          costs.
                                          Improves work quality
                                          with chemical adjustments of
                                          baths.
Reduce bath dumps by using filtration     Extends bath life.
 to remove suspended solids
 contamination.
                                          Reduces solid waste
                                          generation by reusing filter
                                          cartridges.
                                          Improves bath
                                          performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Process/Chemical Substitution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitute cyanide baths with alkaline    Eliminates use of CN.
 baths when possible.
Substitute trivalent chromium for         Reduces/eliminates use
 hexavalent chromium when product         of hexavalent chromium.
 specifications allow.
Eliminate use of cadmium plating if       Eliminates the use of
 product specifications allow.            cadmium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Drag-Out Reduction Methods That Reduce Waste Generation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install fog rinses or sprays over         Can inexpensively
 process tanks to remove drag out as      recover a substantial portion
 rack/part exits bath.                    of drag out and does not
                                          require additional tankage.
Minimize the formation of drag out by:    Reduces pollutant mass
 redesigning parts and racks/barrels to   loading on treatment
 avoid cup shapes, etc. that hold         processes, treatment reagent
 solution; properly racking parts; and    usage, and resultant sludge
 reducing rack/part withdraw speed.       generation.
                                          May improve treatment
                                          operation/removal efficiency.
                                          Reduces chemical
                                          purchases and overall
                                          operating costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rinse Water Reduction Methods That Reduce Waste Generation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install flow restrictors to control the   Reduces water use and
 flow rate of water.                      aids in reducing variability
                                          in wastewater flow.
                                          Is very inexpensive to
                                          purchase and install.
Install conductivity or timer rinse       Coordinates water use
 controls to match rinse water needs      and production when properly
 with use.                                implemented.
                                          Provides automatic
                                          control of water use.
Use counter-current rinse arrangement     Can achieve major
 with two to four tanks in series         water reduction.
 depending on drag-out rate.
                                          Has high impact on
                                          water bills.

[[Page 4825]]

 
                                          May reduce the size of
                                          recovery/treatment equipment
                                          that is needed.
Track water use with flow meters and      Identifies problem
 accumulators. Keep logs on water use     areas including inefficient
 for individual operations.               processes or personnel.
                                          Helps management to
                                          determine cost for individual
                                          plating processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCMS/NAMF. Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for
  Plating Operations. 1994

b. Metals Recovery

    Today's rule would allow the 180-day accumulation time for 
generators who store F006 waste on site and recycle F006 waste by 
metals recovery off site. Accordingly, the proposed rule supports a 
preference of metals recovery over treatment and land disposal for F006 
waste by allowing up to 180 days accumulation time only for those 
generators who engage in F006 waste metals recovery. The benefit of 
this provision would be available only if the accumulated F006 waste is 
sent off site for metals recovery, thereby providing an incentive for 
recycling of F006 waste over treatment and land disposal. The Agency 
requests comments on whether the 180-day accumulation time should be 
available only to those F006 waste generators that pursue F006 waste 
metals recovery and not to those who manage their F006 waste through 
treatment and land disposal.
    Today's proposed rule distinguishes between metals recovery that is 
done on site or off site. If the metals recovery is done on site, the 
generator would not need additional time to accumulate the waste to 
reduce shipping costs associated with metals recovery. It may, however, 
be necessary to accumulate enough F006 waste to make some type of on-
site batch metals recovery process or other type of on-site metals 
recovery more cost effective. Furthermore, if accumulating F006 waste 
for 180 days poses little, if any, potential harm to human health and 
the environment, as the damage incident history of F006 storage would 
suggest (a copy of which is in the docket for this rulemaking), then 
allowing 180-day accumulation for both on-site and off-site metals 
recovery could be justified. The Agency requests comments on whether 
the additional accumulation time should be allowed for both on-site and 
off-site metals recovery or, if so, under what circumstances would a 
generator need more than 90 days to accumulate F006 waste prior to on-
site metals recovery.

c. Limit on the Amount of F006 Waste That Can Be Accumulated

    As stated above, one rationale for allowing the 180-day 
accumulation time for F006 waste is to allow generators to accumulate a 
full truck load before having to ship it off site. Accordingly, the 
proposed rule sets a limit of 16,000 kilograms (approximately 17.6 
tons) of F006 waste that can be accumulated on site at any one time. 
This amount is equivalent to slightly more than a full truck load of 
F006 waste. Once a generator has accumulated a truck load of F006 waste 
(regardless of whether the waste has been accumulated for less than 180 
days), the generator would be required to ship the F006 waste off site 
for metals or to obtain a RCRA storage permit. EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to set a quantity limit for accumulation because the permit 
exemption should be for the shortest time reasonably necessary to 
advance the recycling objectives of the proposal. Also, this is 
consistent with the underlying rationale of the land disposal 
restrictions (LDR) storage prohibition provision in which generators 
may store LDR restricted hazardous wastes in ``tanks, containers or 
containment buildings [on site] solely for the purpose of the 
accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as necessary to 
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal. * * *.'' (emphasis 
added) 40 CFR 268.50. In today's proposed rule, EPA has identified the 
quantity of F006 waste necessary to facilitate metals recovery to be 
one full truck load (i.e., 16,000 kilograms). The Agency requests 
comments on whether a limit on the amount of F006 waste that can be 
accumulated is an appropriate condition and, if so, whether the 16,000 
kilogram limit is the appropriate limit (as opposed to a different 
amount).
    Furthermore, generators of F006 waste may implement pollution 
prevention practices whereby the metal constituents in the F006 sludge 
are isolated in separate waste streams (as opposed to an F006 sludge 
with several metals which is generally the case). Generating such mono-
metal sludges makes the F006 waste more amenable to metals recovery, 
but each of the mono-metal sludges would need to go to different metals 
recovery facilities (e.g., chromium F006 sludge to a chromium recovery 
facility and copper F006 sludge to a copper smelter). Accordingly, the 
Agency asks whether a generator of F006 waste should be allowed to 
accumulate quantities of mono-metal F006 sludges that are necessary to 
facilitate proper metals recovery of that mono-metal sludge (i.e., up 
to 16,000 kilograms of each mono-metal sludge). The Agency requests 
comments on whether the 16,000 kilogram accumulation limit should apply 
to the total quantity of F006 waste accumulated on site or to the 
quantity of separate F006 waste streams such as mono-metal sludges that 
must be sent off site to separate metals recovery facilities.
2. Additional Accumulation Time Under Certain Circumstances
a. 200 Miles or More
    Under today's proposal, generators of F006 waste would have up to 
270 days to accumulate F006 waste on site without a RCRA permit under 
certain conditions. If the generator must transport the waste, or offer 
the waste for transport, over a distance of 200 miles or more for off-
site metals recovery, the generator would be able to accumulate the 
F006 waste on site for up to 270 days without a permit or without 
having interim status, provided the generator has implemented pollution 
prevention practices that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 
waste or that make it more amenable for metals recovery, recycles the 
F006 waste by metals recovery, does not accumulate more than 16,000 
kilograms of F006 waste at any one time, and complies with the 
applicable management standards in the proposed rule. This provision is 
analogous to the provision for small quantity generators in the 
existing generator accumulation regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(e).
    As with the rest of the proposed provisions of this rule, this 
requirement is intended to allow generators sufficient time to 
accumulate enough F006 waste to make shipment of this waste off site 
more cost effective. Shipping F006 waste to a metals recovery facility 
that is located more than 200 miles away would cost more than shipping 
F006 waste to a local (i.e.,

[[Page 4826]]

less than 200 miles away) hazardous waste landfill. For those 
generators of F006 waste that do not accumulate enough F006 waste to 
fill a truck load (i.e., 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste) within 180 
days and are located more than 200 miles from a metals recovery 
facility, treatment and disposal of the F006 waste in the local 
hazardous waste landfill may be the generator's preferred management 
option over metals recovery. For those generators of F006 waste that 
are located long distances from an appropriate metals recovery 
facility, the 270-day accumulation period is reasonable to allow 
generators to accumulate more F006 waste for a larger load being 
shipped off site. The generator would, however, still be subject to the 
pollution prevention condition, the metals recovery requirement, and 
the accumulation limit of 16,000 kilograms in this proposed rule. 
Accordingly, the 270-day accumulation period will be particularly 
helpful for generators of relatively small amounts of F006 waste (i.e., 
those that do not accumulate more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste 
in 180 days and that must ship the F006 off site more than 200 miles to 
a metals recovery facility) and may allow them to send their F006 waste 
to a metals recovery facility rather than to a treatment and disposal 
facility. The Agency requests comments on whether this additional 
accumulation time is warranted and appropriate for generators of F006 
waste who must ship their F006 waste 200 miles or more to an off-site 
metals recovery facility.
b. Unforeseen, Temporary, and Uncontrollable Circumstances
    This proposed rule also provides for an extension of the 
accumulation period, if the generator's F006 waste must remain on site 
for longer than 180 days (or 270 days, if applicable) due to 
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. The generator 
would be able to, under these circumstances, request that the EPA 
Regional Administrator or authorized state grant an extension up to 30 
days. This provision is intended to provide the generator with some 
temporary relief until the unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable 
circumstances can be rectified. The Agency has previously identified 
the following circumstances as possible rationales for granting this 
extension: facility's refusal to accept waste, transportation delays, 
or labor strikes. See 47 FR 1248, 1249 (January 11, 1982). These 
extensions may, however, be granted at the discretion of the EPA 
Regional Administrator or the authorized state on a case-by-case basis. 
This provision is analogous to the provision for other generators in 
the existing regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(b).
    Because the proposed rule sets an accumulation limit of 16,000 
kilograms of F006 waste that can be accumulated on site at any one 
time, the proposed rule would also allow a generator to request 
permission to accumulate more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste, if 
more than 16,000 kilograms must remain on site due to unforeseen, 
temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. The rationale that is 
applicable for needing additional time to accumulate F006 waste on site 
due to unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances would be 
equally applicable for accumulating more than the set accumulation 
limit of 16,000 kilograms under certain conditions. EPA requests 
comments on these extensions due to unforeseen, temporary, and 
uncontrollable circumstances.

B. Rationale for Proposed Accumulation Rule for F006 Waste

    In today's proposed rule, EPA is allowing only generators of F006 
waste up to 180 days (or up to 270 days, if applicable) to accumulate 
F006 waste on site without a RCRA permit or interim status, provided 
that the generator has complied with the requirements of the rule. As 
part of the CSI for the Metal Finishing Industry, EPA and the other 
participating stakeholders have been examining the generation and 
management of F006 waste. Today's proposed rule is a product of the CSI 
stakeholders' efforts, has the support of the participating 
stakeholders, and is designed to encourage more recycling of F006 waste 
through metals recovery.
    Given the large number of smaller waste generators in the metal 
finishing industry and the fact that F006 waste has recoverable amounts 
of metals, the Agency believes that today's proposal will encourage 
more recycling of F006 waste. While most F006 sludge contains 
recoverable amounts of metals, approximately only 20% of F006 sludge is 
currently being recycled through metals recovery. In addition, F006 
waste is a diverse waste stream in which a number of different metals 
can be found, depending on the plating operations at a facility. The 
different metals are often subject to different economic factors (e.g., 
market value of metals) and technical feasibility issues that can 
impact metals recovery of F006 waste. Based on the information 
presented to the Agency on this matter, EPA believes that metals 
recovery will increase if metal finishers are given sufficient time to 
accumulate full truck loads of F006 waste on site. Allowing the 180-day 
accumulation time for generators of F006 waste should help minimize 
economic barriers posed by the existing accumulation rule and is, 
therefore, likely to increase F006 waste recycling through metals 
recovery.
    The 180-day accumulation time proposed in today's rule may be 
particularly helpful for generators of relatively small amounts of F006 
waste, many of whom are small businesses. These small businesses, 
however, generate more than the regulatory limits for small quantity 
generators, and therefore, cannot take advantage of the 180-day 
accumulation provided for small quantity generators under the existing 
federal regulations. In many instances, it is these small businesses 
that are not recycling their F006 waste through metals recovery due, in 
part, to economic factors (e.g., increased costs associated with metals 
recovery). The 180-day accumulation time can make F006 waste metals 
recovery more cost effective, particularly for the small businesses 
that may generate smaller amounts of F006 waste.
    In order to facilitate more F006 waste metals recovery, EPA has, in 
this proposed rule, set an accumulation limit (i.e., 16,000 kilograms 
of F006 waste) that would, based on waste generation patterns in the 
industry, allow generators of F006 waste to accumulate a full truck 
load for transport. Having a full load of F006 waste for transport will 
make F006 waste metals recovery more cost effective, thereby 
encouraging more F006 waste metals recovery. Although the 180-day 
accumulation time may allow individual F006 waste generators to 
accumulate more F006 waste on site at any one time, the total 
cumulative amount of F006 waste that is accumulated on site nationally 
at any one time will not increase substantially because of the 
accumulation limit. Based on F006 waste generation data, the Agency 
expects a slight increase in the cumulative amount of F006 waste 
accumulated on site nationally just after 90 days. Many generators will 
accumulate a full truck load of F006 waste shortly after 90 days. As 
individual generators accumulate the proposed limit of F006 waste 
(i.e., 16,000 kilograms), the F006 waste generator would have to ship 
that amount off site for metals recovery. At that point (i.e., just 
after 90 days) the amount of F006 waste accumulated on site nationally 
at any one time would remain relatively constant because the amount of 
F006 waste being shipped off site would be roughly equivalent to the 
additional amount of F006 waste being

[[Page 4827]]

generated and accumulated during the 180-day (or 270-day, if 
applicable) accumulation period. The accumulation limit is designed to 
encourage more F006 waste metals recovery (e.g., by allowing 
accumulation of a full truck load) and to ensure that the amount of 
F006 waste accumulated on site nationally at any one time does not 
increase significantly. Accordingly, the 180-day accumulation time, 
with the 16,000 kilogram accumulation limit, would not significantly 
increase the potential cumulative harm to human health and the 
environment resulting from the on-site accumulation of F006 waste.
    The F006 waste would have to be accumulated on site in tanks, 
containers, or containment buildings that meet the applicable 
management standards.2 These units are designed to minimize 
loss of hazardous waste to the environment. These are the same 
requirements that currently apply to generators under the existing 
accumulation rule. Most F006 waste generators accumulate the F006 waste 
in super sacks (sacks that are reinforced woven resin and designed to 
accommodate bulk shipments) or bulk storage containers. These super 
sack containers are designed to minimize loss to the environment. See 
62 FR 25998, 26013 (1997). Allowing generators of F006 waste to 
accumulate the waste for a longer period of time in such containers 
does not pose any significantly increased potential harm to human 
health or the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Today's proposed rule does not allow accumulation of F006 
waste in drip pads (as is provided in the existing accumulation 
regulations in 40 CFR 262.34) because F006 waste is not managed in 
drip pads, nor does the Agency believe that it would be appropriate 
to accumulate F006 waste in drip pads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the 180-day accumulation time is expected to decrease 
the potential for releases of hazardous constituents from the handling 
of F006 waste. A recent review of damage incidents associated with the 
management of F006 waste (the damage incidents report was prepared as 
background for this proposed rulemaking) suggested that most of the 
reported incidents of releases of F006 waste were associated with the 
transfer of F006 waste from accumulation to transport vehicle, from 
transport vehicle to receiving facility, or while in transport. Because 
the 180-day accumulation time will mean that the F006 waste is 
transferred from generator to transporter to receiving facility less 
often and that fewer shipments of F006 waste will be made, today's rule 
should decrease the potential for releases of F006 waste into the 
environment. Similarly, workers will be required to handle the F006 
waste less often (because transfers will occur less often), thereby 
decreasing their potential exposure to the F006 waste.
    In the event of a spill of a dewatered F006 sludge during the 180-
day accumulation period (e.g., release caused by a rip or tear in a 
super sack), the potential risk of harm to human health and the 
environment would appear to be minimal as compared to a spill of a free 
liquid or dust. First, with the low moisture content of F006 sludge (a 
cake-like material resulting from dewatering), a spill of F006 waste 
could be contained relatively easily. Spilled F006 waste generally 
retains its shape and is not likely to run off as a free liquid or 
disperse in the wind like a dust. Second, the metals recovery 
requirement in today's rule would act as an incentive to recover any 
spilled F006 waste so that the material can be processed for metals 
recovery. Third, under the management standards applicable to the 
accumulation units in today's rule, spills and releases of F006 waste 
must be contained and remedied as soon as practicable. Accordingly, 
today's proposed rule includes sufficient safeguards to minimize the 
potential harm to human health and the environment that may be 
associated with spills of F006 waste during the 180-day accumulation 
period.
    When more F006 waste is accumulated at a facility, the potential 
exists for bigger releases of F006 waste at a facility. Bigger releases 
of F006 waste during the proposed accumulation period would not be 
expected because F006 waste is generally accumulated in super sacks. A 
bigger release of F006 waste would, therefore, occur only if several 
super sacks failed (i.e., ripped or tore) at the same time. The 
likelihood of multiple failures of super sacks occurring simultaneously 
is fairly remote. In addition, the potential for a bigger release of 
F006 waste during the 180-day accumulation period is limited because 
the amount of F006 waste that can be accumulated at a facility under 
today's rule is restricted to 16,000 kilograms. In contrast, the 
existing 90-day accumulation rule has no limit on the amount of 
hazardous waste that can be accumulated (and, therefore, no limit on 
the amount of hazardous waste that could potentially be released during 
the 90-day accumulation period). Accordingly, the potential for bigger 
releases of F006 waste during the 180-day accumulation period would 
appear to be minimal.
    Finally, the 180-day accumulation time in today's rule is 
consistent with the rationale for the 90-day accumulation rule. In 
promulgating the 90-day accumulation rule, EPA allowed generators to 
accumulate waste on site without a RCRA permit or interim status, in 
part, because such activity was consistent with typical generator 
activities. The 180-day accumulation time in today's proposed rule 
would facilitate generators of F006 waste in appropriately managing the 
F006 waste off site for metals recovery. EPA believes that accumulating 
F006 waste on site up to 180 days (to encourage more recycling through 
metals recovery) is more like typical generator activity than typical 
treatment, storage, or disposal facility activities, because the 180-
day accumulation is an on-site accumulation activity, prior to waste 
management activities. Today's proposed rule maintains the rationale of 
the 90-day accumulation rule.

C. Applicable Management Standards

    Under today's proposed rule, the same hazardous waste management 
requirements governing 90-day on-site accumulation of hazardous waste 
under 40 CFR 262.34, other than the length of time that generators of 
F006 waste can accumulate the waste on site without a RCRA 
permit,3 would apply to 180-day accumulation of F006 waste. 
These requirements include technical standards for units used to 
accumulate hazardous wastes, recordkeeping standards to document the 
length of time hazardous wastes are accumulated and stored on site, and 
preparedness and emergency response procedures. The existing management 
standards as they would apply to generators of F006 waste under this 
proposed rule are summarized below. The Agency requests comments on 
these standards only as they apply to 180-day on-site accumulation of 
F006 waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule would not affect any RCRA Subtitle C 
requirements for generators of F006 waste, other than the changes to 
40 CFR Sec. 262.34 specified in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Accumulation Units
    A generator of F006 waste may accumulate the hazardous waste on 
site for up to 180 days in specified units without obtaining a RCRA 
permit. These accumulation units must comply with the unit-specific 
technical standards of 40 CFR Part 265 for containers (subpart I), 
tanks (subpart J), and containment buildings (subpart DD).
    The unit-specific standards in 40 CFR Part 265 include provisions 
for the design, installation and general condition of each unit. The

[[Page 4828]]

requirements governing each type of unit include standards for ensuring 
the compatibility of the waste and the unit and special requirements 
for ignitable, reactive or incompatible wastes. In addition, there are 
provisions for performing inspections to monitor for leaks and 
deterioration of the unit and for proper response to and containment of 
releases. Generators of F006 waste that comply with the applicable 
regulatory requirements may also treat the waste in the accumulation 
unit without a RCRA permit during the 180-day accumulation period that 
is proposed in today's rule.
2. Documentation of Accumulation Time
    Generators of F006 waste must also comply with documentation 
requirements to indicate the length of time that wastes remain on site 
in accumulation units and to ensure that wastes remain on site for no 
more than 180 days from the date the waste is generated. Today's 
proposal does not impose documentation requirements for generators of 
F006 waste in addition to those already required for generators 
accumulating F006 waste up to 90 days under the existing regulations.
3. Labeling and Marking Accumulation Units
    Generators of F006 waste are required to mark or label all units 
used to accumulate F006 wastes to indicate that the units contain 
hazardous waste and to document the date upon which the period of 
accumulation began. The labeling and marking requirements specify that 
the date upon which accumulation begins must be clearly marked on each 
tank or container and that each tank or container used to accumulate 
hazardous waste must be labeled with the words ``Hazardous Waste.'' The 
Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments for accumulation 
units, other than clarifying that these requirements apply to 
generators of F006 waste accumulating the waste up to 180 days.
4. Preparedness and Prevention (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart C)
    Under today's proposed rule, generators of F006 waste who 
accumulate F006 waste on site for up to 180 days must comply with 
subpart C of Part 265 which contains requirements for facility 
preparedness and prevention. These generator facilities must be 
maintained and operated in a manner that minimizes the possibility of 
fire, explosion, or any unplanned release of hazardous waste or 
hazardous waste constituents to the environment. The requirements 
specify that generator facilities must generally be equipped with 
emergency devices, such as an internal communications or alarm system, 
a telephone or other device capable of summoning emergency assistance, 
and appropriate fire control equipment, unless none of the wastes 
handled at the facility require a particular kind of equipment. 
Equipment must be tested and maintained, as necessary, to assure its 
proper functioning. All persons involved in hazardous waste handling 
operations must have immediate access to either an internal or external 
alarm or communications equipment, unless such a device is not 
required.
    Additionally, the generator is also required to maintain sufficient 
aisle space to allow for the unobstructed movement of personnel and 
equipment to any area of the facility operations in an emergency, 
unless aisle space is not needed for any of these purposes. Generators 
also must attempt to make arrangements with police, fire departments, 
state emergency response teams, and hospitals, as appropriate, to 
familiarize these officials with the layout of the generator's site and 
the properties of each type of waste handled at the facility in 
preparation for the potential need for the services of these 
organizations. If state or local authorities decline to enter into such 
arrangements, the owner or operator must document the refusal.
    The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the 
existing preparedness and prevention requirements, other than 
clarifying that the existing requirements apply to generators of F006 
waste accumulating the waste on site up to 180 days.
5. Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart 
D)
    Generators of F006 waste who accumulate that waste on site for up 
to 180 days under today's proposed rule must comply with the 
contingency plan and emergency procedures provisions of 40 CFR part 
265, subpart D. A generator's contingency plan must include, where 
necessary: a description of the generator's planned response to 
emergencies at the facility, any arrangements with local and state 
agencies to provide emergency response support, a list of the 
facility's emergency response coordinators, a list of the facility's 
emergency equipment, and an evacuation plan. Requirements for 
distributing and amending the contingency plan are specified. In 
addition, a facility emergency coordinator must be either present, or 
on call, whenever the facility is in operation.
    Provisions for emergency procedures specified in subpart D of Part 
265 include: immediate notification of employees and local, state, and 
Federal authorities of any imminent or actual emergencies, measures to 
preclude the spread of fires and explosions to other wastes, proper 
management of residues, rehabilitation of emergency equipment and 
notification of authorities before operations are resumed, and record 
keeping and reporting to EPA on the nature and consequences of any 
incident that requires implementing the contingency plan.
    The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the 
existing contingency plans and emergency procedure requirements, other 
than clarifying that the existing requirements apply to generators of 
F006 waste accumulating the waste on site up to 180 days.
6. Personnel Training (40 CFR 265.16)
    As proposed in today's rule, generators of F006 waste who 
accumulate on site for up to 180 days are subject to the provisions for 
personnel training in 40 CFR 265.16. These requirements are designed to 
ensure that personnel are adequately prepared to manage hazardous waste 
and respond to any emergencies that are likely to arise. Personnel 
training can be in the form of on-the-job or classroom training, but 
must be performed by an instructor who is trained in hazardous waste 
management procedures. Personnel training must be performed within six 
months of initial employment and must be renewed annually. The owner or 
operator of a facility also must maintain records in accordance with 40 
CFR 265.16(d) to document completion of the training requirements for 
employees. The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the 
existing personnel training requirements, other than clarifying that 
the existing requirements apply to generators of F006 waste 
accumulating the waste on site for up to 180 days.
7. Waste Analysis and Record Keeping (40 CFR 268.7(a)(4))
    Under today's proposed rule, generators of F006 wastes who 
accumulate F006 waste on site for up to 180 days and treat their wastes 
in an accumulation tank, container, or containment building, located at 
the generator's site to meet the applicable land disposal treatment 
standards under 40 CFR part 268, subpart D, must prepare and follow a 
written waste analysis plan. The waste analysis plan

[[Page 4829]]

must describe the procedures the generator will use to comply with the 
treatment standards for the waste. The waste analysis plan must be 
based upon a chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample 
of the generator's waste stream. Hazardous waste generators are 
required to submit a copy of their waste analysis plans for hazardous 
wastes treated in 180-day accumulation units to either the authorized 
state or EPA Regional office prior to conducting treatment. Generators 
also are required to retain a copy of the waste analysis plan in the 
generator's files.
    The Agency is not proposing any changes or amendments to the 
generator waste analysis plan or record keeping requirements, other 
than clarifying that such standards apply to generators of F006 waste 
accumulating the waste on site for up to 180 days.

IV. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to 
administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program within the 
state. (See 40 CFR part 271 for the standards and requirements for 
authorization.) Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement 
authority under sections 3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although 
authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility.
    Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, a 
state with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program 
entirely in lieu of EPA administering the federal program in that 
state. The federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized 
state and EPA could not issue permits for any facility in the state 
that the state was authorized to permit. When new, more stringent 
federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the state was obliged 
to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames. New federal 
requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state 
adopted the requirements as state law.
    In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new 
requirements and prohibitions imposed under the HSWA take effect in 
authorized states at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized states. EPA is directed to implement HSWA requirements and 
prohibitions in an authorized state, including the issuance of permits, 
until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must 
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as state law to retain final 
authorization, HSWA applies in authorized states until the states 
revise their programs and receive authorization for the new provision.

B. Effect of State Authorizations

    Today's proposal, if finalized, will promulgate regulations that 
are not effective under HSWA in authorized states. This rule would, 
therefore, be applicable only in those states that do not have final 
authorization.
    Authorized states are only required to modify their programs when 
EPA promulgates federal regulations that are more stringent or broader 
in scope than the authorized state regulations. For those changes that 
are less stringent than the federal programs, states are not required 
to modify their programs. This is a result of section 3009 of RCRA, 
which allows states to impose more stringent regulations than the 
federal program. Today's proposal for additional accumulation time for 
generators of F006 waste would be considered less stringent than the 
existing federal regulations because it allows more than the existing 
90 days of accumulation time that is in the existing regulations. 
Authorized states are not, therefore, required to modify their programs 
to adopt regulations consistent with, and equivalent to, today's 
proposal.
    Even though states are not required to adopt the additional 
accumulation time for generators of F006 waste in today's proposal, EPA 
strongly encourages states to do so as quickly as possible. As 
discussed above, the proposed rule is intended to encourage and 
facilitate recycling of F006 waste. In addition, states have been 
participating as stakeholders in the CSI process and efforts are being 
made to get as many states as possible to join in on the CSI goals and 
implementation programs. States are, therefore, urged to consider the 
adoption of today's proposal, when promulgated, and EPA is committed to 
making efforts to expedite review of authorized state program revision 
applications that incorporate today's proposal.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order No. 12866 requires agencies to determine whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant.'' The Order defines a 
``significant'' regulatory action as one that ``is likely to result in 
a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or 
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the 
Executive Order.''
    The Agency estimated the costs of today's final rule to determine 
if it is a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order. 
The analysis considered compliance costs and economic impacts for F006 
wastes affected by this rule. EPA estimates the total cost of the rule 
to be a savings in the range of $3.9 to $4.9 million annually, and 
concludes that this rule is not economically significant according to 
the definition in E.O. 12866. Moreover, the Agency believes that this 
rule is not significant because it does not create serious 
inconsistency with actions taken or planned by another agency, 
materially alter budgetary impact or rights and obligations of 
recipients. The Office of Management and Budget, however, has deemed 
this rule to be significant for novel policy reasons and has reviewed 
this rule.
    Detailed discussions of the methodology used for estimating the 
costs, economic impacts and the benefits attributable to today's 
proposed rule for on-site accumulation of F006 wastes, followed by a 
presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results, may be 
found in the background document: ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 
Proposed Rule for a 180-Day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater 
Treatment Sludges,'' which was placed in the docket for today's 
proposed rule.
1. Methodology Section
    The Agency examined reported values for F006 waste generation from 
the 1995 Biennial Reporting Systems (BRS) database to estimate the 
volumes of F006 waste affected by today's rule, to determine the 
national level incremental costs (for both the baseline and post-
regulatory scenarios), economic impacts (including first-order measures 
such as the estimated percentage of compliance cost to industry or firm 
revenues), and benefits.

[[Page 4830]]

2. Results
a. Volume Results
    The BRS database reports that in 1995 there were 1,317 metal 
finishing firms potentially affected by today's rule. The data report 
that these firms generated 24,000 tons of F006 waste annually that are 
eligible to benefit from today's proposed rule. EPA is aware that this 
estimate on the number of firms that could benefit from today's 
proposal probably underestimates the total number of firms affected by 
today's rulemaking. In 1994, EPA estimated that there were 
approximately 13,400 metal finishing establishments in the United 
States.4 Of the total, approximately 10,000 metal finishing 
facilities are estimated to be ``captive'' shops where the metal 
finishing operation is contained inside a larger manufacturing 
operation. The balance of 3,400 metal finishing facilities are ``job 
shops'' or ``independent'' metal finishing operations. Job shops are 
usually small businesses that operate on a contract basis. In contrast, 
the most recent BRS data only account for about three thousand of this 
total. Thus, it is likely that cost savings and benefits associated 
with this rulemaking are greater than estimated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S.E.P.A., Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, IEc, 
SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY: Promoting Environmental Protection in the 
Industrial Sector, Phase 1 Report, June 1994, pp. 4-7, 4-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Cost Results
    For today's proposed rule, EPA has estimated a cost savings 
associated with a 180-day accumulation time for large quantity 
generators of F006 waste. The total incremental savings estimated is 
between $3.9 million and $4.9 million per year. These savings result 
from being able to reduce the total number of shipments of F006 waste 
off-site for recycling. Savings also result from a lower cost per ton 
of transportation because generators are able to accumulate more F006 
waste for a shipment off site and the cost per unit of F006 waste 
transportation (for the fixed cost portion of the transportation) is 
less for a full truck as compared to a partial truck load. In addition, 
literature reviewed in the development of this rulemaking indicates 
that recyclers sometimes assess a surcharge for small volumes of 
material due to increased handling and administrative 
costs.5 It is possible that a 180-day (or 270-day, if 
applicable) accumulation time will allow some F006 waste generators to 
reduce this surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ George C. Cushnie Jr., National Center for Manufacturing 
Sciences & National Association of Metal Finishers, Pollution 
Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations (Ann Arbor, 
MI: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 1994), p. 312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Economic Impact Results
    To estimate potential economic impacts resulting from today's 
proposed rule, EPA has used first order economic impacts measures such 
as the estimated cost savings of today's proposed rule as a percentage 
of sales/revenues. EPA has applied this measure to affected F006 waste 
generators. For affected F006 waste generators, EPA has estimated the 
cost savings to be less than one percent of a typical metal finisher's 
sales or revenues. More detailed information on this estimate can be 
found in the regulatory impact analysis placed into today's docket.
d. Benefits Assessment
    The Agency has performed a qualitative benefits assessment for 
today's proposed rule. EPA believes that a relatively small, but 
significant percentage of total F006 waste generated would be diverted 
from land disposal to off-site recycling. This shift from land disposal 
to recycling should result in a conservation of natural resources 
associated with primary mineral extraction including reduced water, 
energy inputs as well as reduced solid waste (e.g., slag, tailings, 
overburden) outputs. Other benefits expected from today's proposed rule 
include conservation of hazardous waste landfill capacity, reduced 
balance of payments for nonferrous mineral commodities, and 
conservation of strategic metals 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information on balance of trade for nonferrous 
minerals and conservation of strategic metals, see U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on Metal 
Recovery, Environmental Regulation and Hazardous Wastes (Washington 
DC, U.S.EPA, 1994), Chapter 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
EPA's determination.
    Data indicate that virtually all independent electroplaters or job 
shops are small entities.7 Captive shops contain both large 
and small entities. Data on captive plating operations are, however, 
more limited. The regulatory impact analysis completed for this 
proposed rule indicated that of 3,296 job shops, all but 2 are small 
entities. BRS data indicate that a total of 1,934 plating facilities 
including both captive and independent operations generate F006 waste 
with 1,317 of these firms affected by this proposed rule. Although the 
BRS data do not indicate what proportion of these affected facilities 
are small entities, it is likely that the majority of these affected 
facilities are small entities, because the plating firms affected by 
this proposed rule generate the smallest quantities of F006 (which is 
related to both facility size and product output). This proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities because today's proposed rule would relieve regulatory 
burden for metal finishers and captive operations by allowing them up 
to 180 days (instead of 90 days) to accumulate F006 wastes on site. In 
addition, the Agency estimates that this proposed rule would lead to an 
overall cost savings in the range of $3.9 to $4.9 million annually. The 
rule does not impose new burdens on small entities. Therefore, I hereby 
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not 
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Small Business Size Standards, 61 FR 3280, 3289 (January 
31, 1996) stating that manufacturing firms with less than 500 
employees are considered to be small entities. See also U.S.E.P.A. 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Regulatory Impact 
Analysis of Extending 90 Day Accumulation Rule for F006 Wastewater 
Treatment Sludges, May 22, 1998, pp.5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal

[[Page 4831]]

governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative, if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not include a federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. The rule 
would not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it 
imposes no enforceable duty upon state, tribal or local governments. 
States, tribes and local governments would have no compliance costs 
under this rule. It is expected that states will adopt similar rules, 
and submit those rules for inclusion in their authorized RCRA programs, 
but they have no legally enforceable duty to do so. For the same 
reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not 
expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the 
requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications 
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    For the reasons described above, today's proposed rule would not 
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate upon any 
state, local, or tribal government; therefore Executive Order 12875 
does not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    For the reasons described above, today's proposed rule does not 
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments, nor does it 
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

F. Executive Order 13045 : Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that (1) is ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may 
disproportionately affect children. If the regulatory action meets both 
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is 
not subject to E.O. 13045, because this is not an economically 
significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. The Agency does 
not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety 
risks addressed by this action concern a disproportionate risk to 
children.
    Because this rulemaking retains current container standards for 
generators accumulating hazardous wastes on site without a permit (40 
CFR 262.34), EPA believes that the extended 180-day accumulation period 
will not result in increased exposures to children. Generators that 
accumulate F006 waste on site typically place the waste in containers 
such as 55-gallon drums or ``super sacks'' (sacks that are reinforced 
woven resin and designed to accommodate bulk shipments). The current 
container standards (40 CFR part 265, Subpart I) referenced in the 
generator regulations (40 CFR 262.34) require that waste handlers, 
including generators, to keep containers in good condition (subject to 
remedial action if leaks are found), have containers closed during 
usage except when adding or removing waste and inspect the containers 
at least weekly. In addition, for these containers, waste handlers are 
required under Subpart I to comply with Subpart CC air emission 
standards for containers. 40 CFR 265.178, 265.1087. EPA believes that 
these container requirements are protective to minimize the likelihood 
of exposure to hazardous waste managed in these units.

[[Page 4832]]

G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and 
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to 
enhance environmental quality for all populations in the United States. 
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, 
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and 
that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to 
Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the 
Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an 
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental 
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall 
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 
9200.3-17).
    Today's proposed rule covers F006 wastes from metal finishing 
operations. It is not certain whether the environmental problems 
addressed by this rule could disproportionately affect minority or low-
income communities, due to the location of some metal finishing 
operations. Metal finishing operations are distributed throughout the 
country and many are located within highly populated areas. Because 
today's proposed rule retains requirements for F006 waste generators to 
store F006 waste in protective Subpart J tanks, Subpart I containers or 
Subpart DD container buildings, the Agency does not believe that 
today's rule will increase risks from F006 waste. It is, therefore, not 
expected to have any disproportionately high adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority or low-income communities relative to 
affluent or non-minority communities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2050-0035. An Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR Control Number 
0820.07) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP 
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2137); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    EPA believes the changes in this proposed rule to the information 
collection do not constitute a substantive or material modification. 
This proposed rule would not change any of the information collection 
requirements that are currently applicable to generators of F006 waste 
that accumulate the waste on site. The recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of this rule are identical to requirements already 
promulgated and covered under the existing Information Collection 
Request (ICR). There is no net increase in recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. As a result, the reporting, notification, or 
recordkeeping (information) provisions of this rule will not need to be 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under section 3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et. seq.
    The Agency estimates total projected burden hours associated with 
the information collection requirements of this propped rule to be 
approximately 13.19 hours per year for each generator. This is the same 
burden associated with the information collection requirements for 
large quantity generators who currently accumulate waste on site for 
less than 90 days under the existing regulations. These information 
collection requirements include: (1) Pre-transport informational 
requirements specific to large quantity generators (e.g., personnel 
training, contingency planning and emergency procedures, tank systems, 
containment buildings, and requests for extension of accumulation 
period); (2) air emission standards for process vents; (3) air emission 
standards for equipment leaks; and (4) record keeping and reporting. 
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA 
is not, therefore, considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why 
such standards should be used in this regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Labeling, Packaging and 
containers, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: January 22, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 
part 262 as follows:

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

    2. In Sec. 262.34, add paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 262.34  Accumulation time.

* * * * *

[[Page 4833]]

    (g) A generator who generates wastewater treatment sludges from 
electroplating operations that meet the listing description for the 
RCRA hazardous waste code F006 waste may accumulate F006 waste on site 
for 180 days or less without a permit or without having interim status 
provided that the generator complies with the following requirements:
    (1) The generator has implemented pollution prevention practices 
that reduce the volume or toxicity of the F006 waste or that make it 
more amenable for metals recovery;
    (2) The F006 waste is sent off site for metals recovery;
    (3) No more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste is accumulated on 
site at any one time; and
    (4) The F006 waste is managed in accordance with the following 
requirements:
    (i) The F006 waste is placed:
    (A) In containers and the generator complies with subpart I of 40 
CFR part 265; and/or
    (B) In tanks and the generator complies with subpart J of 40 CFR 
part 265, except Secs. 265.197(c) and 265.200; and/or
    (C) In containment buildings and the generator complies with 
subpart DD of 40 CFR part 265, and has placed its professional engineer 
certification that the building complies with the design standards 
specified in 40 CFR 265.1101 in the facility's operating record prior 
to operation of the unit. The owner or operator shall maintain the 
following records at the facility:
    (1) A written description of procedures to ensure that the F006 
waste remains in the unit for no more than 180 days, a written 
description of the waste generation and management practices for the 
facility showing that they are consistent with the 180-day limit, and 
documentation that the procedures are complied with; or
    (2) Documentation that the unit is emptied at least once every 180 
days.
    (ii) In addition, such a generator is exempt from all the 
requirements in subparts G and H of 40 CFR part 265, except for 
Secs. 265.111 and 265.114.
    (iii) The date upon which each period of accumulation begins is 
clearly marked and visible for inspection on each container;
    (iv) While being accumulated on site, each container and tank is 
labeled or marked clearly with the words, ``Hazardous Waste;'' and
    (v) The generator complies with the requirements for owners or 
operators in subparts C and D in 40 CFR part 265, with 40 CFR 265.16, 
and with 40 CFR 268.7(a)(4).
    (h) A generator who generates wastewater treatment sludges from 
electroplating operations, RCRA hazardous waste code F006, and who must 
transport this waste, or offer this waste for transportation, over a 
distance of 200 miles or more for off-site metals recovery may 
accumulate F006 waste on site for 270 days or less without a permit or 
without having interim status provided that the generator complies with 
the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section.
    (i) A generator who generates wastewater treatment sludges from 
electroplating operations, RCRA hazardous waste code F006, who 
accumulates F006 waste on site for more than 180 days (or for more than 
270 days if the generator must transport this waste, or offer this 
waste for transportation, over a distance of 200 miles or more) or who 
accumulates more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste on site is an 
operator of a storage facility and is subject to the requirements of 40 
CFR parts 264 and 265 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR part 270 
unless the generator has been granted an extension to the 180-day (or 
270-day if applicable) period or the 16,000 kilogram accumulation 
limit. Such extensions may be granted by EPA if F006 waste must remain 
on site for longer than 180 days (or 270 days if applicable) or if more 
than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste must remain on site due to 
unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. An extension 
of the accumulation time up to 30 days or the accumulation limit of 
more than 16,000 kilograms of F006 waste may be granted at the 
discretion of the Regional Administrator on a case-by-case basis.

[FR Doc. 99-2323 Filed 1-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P