January 5, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing
of Hazardous 			Waste: Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F019; Changes
Resulting from 			OMB Review of the Proposed rule 

FROM:	Robert Kayser

		Hazardous Waste Identification Division

		Office of Solid Waste

		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO:		Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984 

The attached documents are copies of the final rule (Attachment 1
entitled “Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste; Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F019”),
and the Technical Support Document (Attachment 2 entitled “Assessment
of potential risks from managing F019 waste from the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry”).  Both have been highlighted to show the
changes EPA made to the documents after review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) during September through December 2006. 
These copies resulted from a comparison of the final versions with the
versions provided to OMB for review.  Note these documents also include
editorial changes made by EPA over this time period that did not arise
from OMB comments.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY				

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-09842004-0019, FRL-XXXX-X]

RIN 2050-AG15

Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F019 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend
today the list of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources (called
F-wastes) under 40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the scope of the EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019 (Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in
aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion
coating process).  The Agency would be is amending the F019 listing to
exempt wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating, when such
phosphating is used in the motor vehicle manufacturing process.  EPA is
proposing two options that would require, and on the condition that the
wastes beare disposed in a landfill unit that meets certain liner design
criteria.  These proposed modificationsThis modification to the F019
listing woulddoes not affect any other wastewater treatment sludges
either from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum, or from other
industrial sources.  Additionally, this action would amendamends the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) list of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities under 40
CFR 302.4 so that the F019 listing description is consistent with the
proposed amendment to F019 under 40 CFR 261.31.    

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 60 DAYS FROM DATE
OF FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION].   Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
comments on the information collection provisions must be received by
OMB on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER
PUBLICATION].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-09842004-0019 by one of the following methods: 

www.regulations.gov:  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to             
  rcra.docket@epamail.epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984. 2004-0019.  

Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-0272, Attention Docket ID. No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2004-0019. 

Mail: Comments may be submitted by mail to: OSWER Docket, Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC  20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-09842004-0019.   Please include a total of three copies
of your comments.  In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on
the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC  20503. 

Hand Delivery:   Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, Room 3334B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC  20460, Attention Docket ID No.
RCRA-2006-09842004-0014.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays) and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: 	Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-09842004-0019.  EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may be
made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access”
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as a part of the comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.  For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.  

Docket:   All documents in the docket are listed in www.regulations.gov
index.  Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.
 The Public Meeting Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
OSWER Docket and the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0270.     

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Michael of the Office of
Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC  20460, (E-mail address and
telephone number: michael.james@epa.gov, (703) 308-8610).  For
information on the procedures for submitting CBI data, contact Ms.
LaShan Haynes (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC  20460, (E-mail address and
telephone number: haynes.lashan@epa.gov, (703) 605-0516). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I.  General Information

A. Who is Potentially Affected by this Proposed Rule? 

This regulation could directly affect businesses that generate certain
wastes from the manufacturing of motor vehicles in the (1) automobile
manufacturing industry and (2) light truck/utility vehicle manufacturing
industry (NAICS codes 336111 and 336112, respectively).  Other motor
vehicle manufacturing industries (e.g., heavy duty truck or motor home
manufacturing (NAICS code 336120)) are not affected by this rule.  The
wastes affected by this proposed rule are wastewater treatment sludges
generated from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum using a zinc
phosphating process and are currently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F019 (see 40 CFR 261.31).   If the rule is promulgated in either of the
two ways it is as proposed today, these wastes would not be hazardous
waste, provided the wastes are disposed in a landfill unit that meets
certain liner design criteria.  Impacts on potentially affected entities
are summarized in Section VI of this Preamble.  The document,
“Estimate of Potential Economic Impacts for USEPA’s Proposed
Amendment to RCRA Hazardous Wastecode F019 to Exclude Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing Industries,” presents an analysis of potentially
affected entities (hereinafter, referred to as the Economics Background
Document).  This document is available in the docket established in
support of today’s proposed rule.   Entities potentially affected by
this action are at least 14 current generators within the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry consisting of six auto and eight light
truck/utility vehicle plants and up to 39 other facilities in these two
industries that may begin applying aluminum parts and could potentially
generate F019 waste. 

To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you
should examine 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 carefully, along with the
proposed regulatory language amending Chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).  This language is found at the end of this Federal
Register notice.  If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

 	1.  Submitting CBI.  Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov

or e-mail.  Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI.  For CBI information submitted on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket.  Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with the procedures set forth
in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing your Comments.   When submitting comments,
remember to:

Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and substitute
language for your requested changes.

Describe any assumptions that you used and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.

If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.

Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

Preamble Outline

I. 	Legal Authority

II. 	List of Acronyms

Overview

Purpose of this Proposed Rule 

Background

A. 	How EPA Regulates Hazardous Waste

B. 	Overview of the F019 Listing 

Regulatory History of F006/F019

Description of the Zinc Phosphating Conversion Coating Process at Motor
Vehicle Manufacturing Plants 

Amount of F019 Sludge Generated by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Industry

Composition of the F019 Sludge

How F019 Sludge is Currently Managed

V.	Approach Used in this Proposed Listing Amendment

Concentration-Based Approach vs. Disposal in a Landfill Meeting Certain
Liner Design Criteria

Overview of the Risk Assessment  

1. EPA’s Approach to Assessing Potential Risks to Human Health and
the Environment

2. How EPA Chose Constituents of Potential Concern for Evaluation

3. Evaluation of Potential Human Health and Environmental Risks

4. Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment Results

VI.	Implementation of the F019 Proposed Rule

A. 	Land Disposal Conditions

1. How Generators Document Compliance with the Landfill Condition

2. Consequences of Failing to Meet the Disposal Conditions and
Recordkeeping Requirements

3. Land Disposal Restrictions

B. 	Interrelationships Between Proposed Rule and Current F019 Delistings

State Authorization

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Designation and List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable
Quantities

Relationship to Other Rules - Clean Water Act

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. 	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B.	Paperwork Reduction Act 

C.	Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D.  	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act			

E. 	Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

F.  	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

G.  	Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

H. 	Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

I.	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

I.	Legal Authority

EPA proposes these regulations under the authority of Sections 2002 and
3001(b) and (f), 3004(d) - (m) and 3007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended, most importantly by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921(b), 6924(d) - (m) and 6927(a).  These
statutes combined are commonly referred to as the “Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act” (RCRA) and will be referred to as such
for the remainder of this Notice. 

Because EPA is modifying the national listing of F019, EPA believes the
appropriate statutory authority is that found in section 3001 (b),
rather that the authority in section 3001 (f).  RCRA section 3001 (f)
pertains solely to the exclusion of a waste generated at a particular
facility in response to a petition.  Accordingly, neither the procedures
nor the standards established in that provision, or in EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR §260.22 are applicable to this rulemaking.

Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is
the authority under which the CERCLA aspects of this rule are
promulgated.

List of Acronyms

	ACRONYMS

Acronym					Definition

BRS	Biennial Reporting System

CBI 	Confidential Business Information

CERCLA	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

COPCs	Constituents of Potential Concern

CWA	Clean Water Act

DAF	Dilution and Attenuation Factor

DRAS	Delisting Risk Assessment Software

EPA	Environmental Protection Agency

ICR	Information Collection Request

IWEM	Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model

LDR	Land Disposal Restrictions

MCL	Maximum Contamination Limit

NAICS	North American Industrial Classification System

NTTAA	National Technology and Transfer Act

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

OSWER	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

PRA	Paperwork Reduction Act 

POTW	Publicly Owned Treatment Works

ppm	parts per million

RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFA	Regulatory Flexibility Act

RQ	Reportable Quantity

SIC	Standard Industrial Classification

TRI	Toxics Release Inventory

UMRA	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

WWT	Wastewater Treatment

Overview

    Purpose of the Proposed Rule

The Agency is proposing to amend the list of hazardous wastes from
non-specific sources under 40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the scope of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019, which currently reads: “Wastewater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from
zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is
an exclusive conversion coating process.”   The Agency is proposing to
amend the F019 listing to exempt the wastewater treatment sludge
generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used in the
automobile assembly process and provided the waste is disposed in a
landfill unit subject to certain liner design criteria.  Specifically,
under the two options proposed today, these wastes would not be
hazardous if they are disposed in a landfill unit subject to, or
otherwise meeting, certain liner the landfill requirements in §258.40,
§264.301 or §265.301.  Wastes that meet this condition would beare
exempted from the listing from their point of generation, and would not
be subject to any RCRA Subtitle C management requirements for
generation, storage, transport, treatment, or disposal (including the
land disposal restrictions).  Generators of such wastes may be exempted
from the F019 listing if they meet the condition for exemption, and they
maintain adequate recordsadequately document their findings.  EPA is
proposing to require generators to keep records showing that they used a
landfill that meets the design requirements.  

The motor vehicle manufacturing industry incorporates aluminum into
vehicle parts and bodies for the purpose of making them lighter-weight
and thus more capable of increasing gas mileage.  However, when aluminum
is incorporated into the body of an automobile, the conversion coating
step in the manufacturing process results in the generation of a
RCRA-listed hazardous waste (F019) in the form of a wastewater treatment
sludge from the conversion coating process, while the wastewaters from
the conversion coating of steel in the same industry do not generate a
listed hazardous waste.  By removing the regulatory controls under RCRA,
EPA is facilitating the use of aluminum in motor vehicles.  The Agency
believes that the incorporation of aluminum will be advantageous to the
environment since lighter-weight vehicles are capable of achieving
increased fuel economy and associated decreased exhaust air emissions.

IV. 	Background

 A.  How EPA Regulates Hazardous Waste  

EPA’s regulations establish two ways of identifying solid wastes as
hazardous under RCRA.  A waste may be considered hazardous if it
exhibits certain hazardous properties (“characteristics”) or if it
is included on a specific list of wastes EPA has determined are
hazardous (“listing” a waste as hazardous) because the Agency found
them to pose substantial present or potential hazards to human health or
the environment.  EPA’s regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) define four hazardous waste characteristic properties:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity (see 40 CFR 261.21 -
261.24).  As a generator, you must determine whether or not a waste
exhibits any of these characteristics by testing, or by using your
knowledge of the process that produced the waste (see §262.11(c)).

EPA may also conduct a more specific assessment of a waste or category
of wastes and “list” them if they meet criteria set out in 40 CFR
261.11.  Under the third criterion, identified in 40 CFR 261.11 (a)(3),
the Agency may list a waste as hazardous if it contains hazardous
constituents identified in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VIII, and if EPA
concludes that “the waste is capable of posing a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.” 
EPA places chemicalsa chemical on the list of hazardous constituents in
on Appendix VIII  “if they scientific studies have been shown in
scientific studies to havea chemical has toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic
or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms.”  See 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3).   When listing a waste, the Agency also adds any hazardous
constituents that serve as the basis for listing the waste to 40 CFR
part 261, Appendix VII.

The regulations at 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33 contain the various
hazardous wastes the Agency has listed to date.  Section 261.31 lists
waste generated from non-specific sources, known as “F-wastes,” and
contain wastes that are usually generated by various industries or types
of facilities.  Today’s proposed regulations would revise the listing
for one of these wastes, F019.

If a waste exhibits a hazardous characteristic, or is listed as a
hazardous waste, then it is subject to federal requirements under RCRA. 
Facilities that generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of such
waste must meet hazardous waste management requirements, including the
need to obtain permits to operate, are commonly referred to as
“Subtitle C” facilities.  (Subtitle C is the subsection of RCRA that
governs the management of hazardous waste.  EPA standards and procedural
regulations implementing Subtitle C are found generally at 40 CFR parts
260 through 273.)

The RCRA regulations provide a form of relief for listed wastes through
a site-specific process known as “delisting.”   The regulations
governing the delisting process are given at 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. 
These regulations set out a procedure and standards by which persons may
demonstrate that a specific waste from a particular generating facility
should not be regulated as a listed hazardous waste under Subtitle C of
RCRA.  Under these regulations, any person may petition EPA to remove
its waste from regulation by excluding it from the lists of hazardous
wastes contained in Part 261.  EPA has granted delistings to various
facilities that generate or manage F019 wastes, including motor vehicle
manufacturing plants.  (See Section IV.D.)  As a condition to some of
the granted delistings, the facility generating that waste must
periodically sample and analyze the waste for the presence and quantity
of specific chemical constituents of concern.  This periodic sampling
and analysis is called “verification sampling.”  In some cases,
facilities submit the results of the verification sampling and analysis
to EPA to ensure that the waste’s continuing status of nonhazardous is
appropriate.  

A solid waste, that is determined not to be a listed and/or
characteristic hazardous waste, may be managed at “Subtitle D”
facilities.  These facilities are approved by state and local
governments and generally impose less stringent requirements on
management of wastes than Subtitle C facilities.  Subtitle D is the
statutory designation for that part of RCRA that deals with disposal of
nonhazardous solid waste.  EPA regulations affecting Subtitle D
facilities are found at 40 CFR parts 240 through 247, and 255 through
258.  Regulations for Subtitle D landfills that accept municipal waste
(“municipal solid waste landfills”) are in 40 CFR part 258.  

B. Overview of F019 Listing

Hazardous Waste No. F019 is defined as “Wastewater treatment sludges
from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an
exclusive conversion coating process.”   The hazardous constituents
for which the waste is listed are hexavalent chromium and cyanide
(complexed).   The F019 wastewater treatment sludge is generated from
the rinses and overflows from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum.  Chemical conversion coating processes involve the application
of a coating to a previously deposited metal or a base metal for
increased corrosion protection, lubricity, preparation of the surface
for additional coatings, or formulation of a special surface appearance.
 This manufacturing operation includes chromating, phosphating, metal
coloring and immersion plating.  

Phosphate conversion coatings produce a mildly protective layer of
insoluble crystalline phosphate on the surface of a metal.  Phosphate
coatings are used to provide a more suitable base for paints and other
inorganic coatings, to condition the surfaces for cold forming
operations by providing a base for drawing compounds and lubricants, and
to impart corrosion resistance to the metal surface by the coating
itself or by providing a suitable base for rust-preventive oils or
waxes.  Phosphate conversion coatings are formed by the immersion of
iron, steel or zinc plated steel in a dilute solution of phosphoric acid
plus other reagents.  Phosphate conversion coatings can also involve
spray-on applications.     

C. Regulatory History of F006/F019 

On May 19, 1980, EPA published an interim final rule listing
“wastewater treatment sludges from for electroplating operations” as
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.  See 40 CFR 261.31 (45 FR 33112).  The
hazardous constituents for which this waste was listed are cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide.  In response to
comments on the interim final regulation, the listing was modified on
November 12, 1980 (45 FR 74884) to read as follows: “wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the
following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin
plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon
steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5)
cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on
carbon steel; and, (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.”

Additionally, in response to other comments, the Agency separated
“wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum” from the F006 listing and listed them as F019.  Commenters
had argued that these sludges should not be listed as F006 because they
do not contain all four of the constituents for which F006 was listed. 
That is, commenters contended that these wastes do not typically contain
cadmium and nickel.  EPA agreed that these wastes did not typically
contain cadmium and nickel, but maintained that, since the wastes
contain hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanides, they should
nevertheless be regulated.  The Agency, therefore, listed them as
hazardous waste, F019, and only listed hexavalent chromium and complexed
cyanides as the constituents of concern for these wastes in Appendix 

VII of Part 261.

On December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43350), EPA issued an interpretive rule
stating that the Agency had re-evaluated its previous interpretations of
the scope of the application of F006 and had determined that those
interpretations were overly broad.  As a result, the Agency stated that
the following processes were not included in the F006 listing: chemical
conversion coating, electroless plating and printed circuit board
manufacturing.   EPA further clarified that the F006 listing includes
wastewater treatment sludges from: (1) common and precious metals
electroplating, except tin, zinc (segregated basis), aluminum and zinc
plating on carbon steel; (2) anodizing, except sulfuric acid anodizing
of aluminum; (3) chemical etching and milling, except when performed on
aluminum; and, (4) cleaning and stripping, except when associated with
tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel.  While this
interpretation removed chemical conversion coating from the scope of
F006, it did not affect the F019 listing.  That is, wastewater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum continued to be
regulated as F019.  

Through a number of delistings and the Agency’s evaluation for
today’s proposal, EPA has since learned that one of the chemical
conversion coating operations - zinc phosphating - may not result in the
generation of a hazardous wastewater treatment sludge.  (See discussion
below describing the zinc phosphating process.)  Therefore, EPA is
proposing today to amend the F019 listing to exempt the wastewater
treatment sludges from zinc phosphating, when such phosphating is used
at motor vehicle manufacturing plants, provided certain disposal
conditions are met.

EPA is not reopening any aspect of the F019 listing other than those
specifically identified in this proposal, and will not respond to any
comments that address issues beyond the specific proposals outlined in
this notice.

D.  Description of the Zinc Phosphating - Conversion Coating Process at
Motor Vehicle 

      Manufacturing Plants

The zinc phosphating process at motor vehicle manufacturing plants is a
multiple stage immersion process.  The number of stages in the zinc
phosphating process may vary from plant to plant, but they generally
involve: cleaning and surface preparation, rinsing, conversion coating
and rinsing. 

Cleaning and surface preparation: The purpose of this stage is to remove
the physical contaminants from the surface of the assembled vehicle body
so that the conversion coating will be applied evenly and continuously
across the metal surfaces.  Typical surface contaminants are metal
working oil, rust protection oil, dirt and oxides from corrosion.  Since
the surface of the metal becomes part of the coating, this stage is
particularly important.  Improper processing can result in blisters or
poor appearance in the metal finish.  Cleaning and surface preparation
is typically done first with water and surfactants followed by an
alkaline solution.  The alkaline solution removes microscopic layers of
metal to ensure that metal is exposed and available for the chemical
conversion reactions.

Rinsing: The rinse stage stops the metal removal by washing away the
alkaline solution.  Rinsing is done with water followed by an alkaline
rinse conditioner, which prepares the metal surface for the conversion
coating process.					

Conversion coating: During this stage, the conversion coating process
converts the metal surface of the assembled vehicle bodies by dissolving
the metal and forming “sites” into which the zinc phosphate coating
is deposited.  The zinc phosphate coating provides a stable, corrosion
resistant base for painting.  The phosphated conversion coating bath
contains phosphoric acid with certain metals (zinc and manganese) and
accelerators such as nickel.   Fluoride is added to control crystal
structure and maintain the composition of the bath.  Hexavalent chromium
and complexed cyanides are not used in this zinc phosphating conversion
coating process.

Rinsing: Once the conversion coating process is completed, the assembled
vehicle bodies go through a water rinse to stop the conversion coating
process and to remove any excess salts from the metal surfaces.   A
final acidic rinse is then used to seal the pores in the zinc phopshate
coating and to remove any excess materials from the metal surfaces. 
During this final rinse, a sealant is added for additional corrosion
protection.  From here, the assembled vehicle bodies then proceed to the
painting process.      

E.  Amount of F019 Sludge Generated by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Industry 

As of 2003, 11 automobile manufacturing plants (NAICS 336111) generated
a total of 5,300 tons per year of F019 sludge ranging between 177 and
1,249 tons per year per plant (average of 477 tons per year per plant),
and 12 light truck/utility vehicle manufacturing plants (NAICS 336112)
generated a total of 9,300 tons per year of F019 sludge ranging between
112 to 1,620 tons per year per plant (average of 772 tons per year per
plant).  As of year-end 2005, EPA regional offices have delisted 47
former F019 generators in 19 industries, including 35,000 cubic yards
(i.e., about 35,000 tons) per year of F019 sludge formerly generated by
15 motor vehicle manufacturing plants.  Historically, between 1995 and
2003, the annual count of F019 generators in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industries affected by this proposed rule has fluctuated
between 10 to 22 generators, and between 8,000 to 13,000 tons per year
of F019 sludge generated.

F.  Composition of the F019 Sludge

The F019 sludge from motor vehicle manufacturers is generated from
dewatering of wastewater, typically yielding a pressed “filter cake”
with a solids content that ranges between 30% and 50% by weight.  
Reviewing the Material Safety Data Sheets for the chemicals used in, and
prior to, the conversion coating process indicates that a wide range of
elements can be expected to be present in the wastewaters and the
sludges resulting from wastewater treatment.  

The specific chemical constituents that are found in motor vehicle
manufacturers’ F019 sludge, listed in order of frequency found, are
nickel, fluoride, zinc, barium, copper and chromium (all found in 100%
of a selected number of samples reviewed); tin, formaldehyde, lead,
cobalt, mercury, sulfide and xylenes (found in 70-99% of a selected
number of samples reviewed); acrylamide, vanadium, arsenic, cyanide,
hexavalent chromium, and ethylbenzene (found in 50-69% of a selected
number of samples reviewed).

G.  How F019 Sludge is Currently Managed						  

According to data from the 2003 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report   
(http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/brs/brs_query.html), F019 sludges
generated by motor vehicle manufacturers are disposed in RCRA Subtitle C
regulated facilities, after de-watering, stabilization and/or other
treatment.  Although two of the 17 generators in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry reportedly disposed their F019 sludges onsite
(about 300 tons/year), all of the 22 automobile and light truck/utility
vehicle manufacturing plants in 2003 reported managing F019 sludges
offsite at RCRA Subtitle C regulated landfills in six states (IL, LA,
MI, OK, PA, and SC), located at transport distances of 19 to 1,500 miles
(average 400 miles).      

EPA recognizes that several recent rulemakings related to RCRA-listed
hazardous wastes have proposed conditional exemptions from the
regulatory definition of "solid waste" when such wastes, by virtue of
their being recycled, are treated more as commodities than as wastes. 
For example, see 68 FR 61588, October 28, 2005.  The Agency is not aware
of any recycling or reclamation of F019 sludges; therefore, EPA believes
that current market conditions do not support the recycling of F019
waste for the purposes of recovering the metal content of such waste. 
EPA requests comment on whether our understanding is accurate and
whether recycling of F019 waste is economically feasible under today's
market conditions.  If recycling of F019 wastes becomes economically
feasible or beneficial in the future, the Agency will consider its
options for how to address this, including through a subsequent
rulemaking, such as the ongoing rulemaking related to the definition of
solid waste.

V. 	Approach Used in this Proposed Listing Amendment

A.  Concentration-Based Approach vs. Disposal in a Landfill Meeting
Certain Liner Design               Criteria

On April 22, 20052004, EPA, through a posting on EPA’s website,
indicated that the Agency was in the process of considering a possible
amendment to the F019 hazardous waste listing under RCRA.  This possible
amendment would have exempted waste water treatment sludges from the
zinc phosphating processes at automotive assembly plants in the motor
vehicle manufacturing industry when concentrations of constituents of
concern in those wastes fell below risk-based exemption levels.  On the
F019 webpage, EPA provided waste sampling data and the methodology that
the Agency would use in considering the revision of the F019 listing
using a concentration-based approach.   Interested parties were invited
to review and comment on the information collected to support the
possible amendment that EPA was considering.  The comment period for the
web posting closed on June 1, 2005.  Twelve comments were received.  
All commenters supported a revision to the F019 listing, although some
expressed concern regarding testing conditions for potential chemicals
of concern in the waste and how the concentration-based exemption would
be structured.  Copies of these comments are included in the docket for
today’s proposed rulemaking.

Below in Section V. B., EPA presents a detailed discussion of the
Agency’s approach in assessing the potential risks to human health and
the environment and how EPA chose the potential constituents of concern
that could be used in the concentration-based approach.  However, as the
Agency conducted the risk analysis and developed the implementation
schemes to go with this approach, several issues arose.  First, a
variety of issues arose related to establishing precise exemption
concentrations for the waste, including: the amount of waste ultimately
disposed in the modeled landfill (which is dependent on annual volume
and years of disposal); which toxicity benchmarks to use (e.g., drinking
water standards or other health-based values); and exposure assumptions
built into the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) model (e.g.,
groundwater consumption for different age groups).  (See Section V. B.
for a more detailed discussion on the documentation of the DRAS model.) 
 

Second, in order to accommodate the wide range in the volumes of F019
wastewater treatment sludges generated at the different automotive
assembly plants, the Agency would need to develop different exemption
levels for each of the constituents of concern for the various annual
waste volumes (e.g., 500 cubic yards to 5000 cubic yards per year at 500
cubic yard intervals).  In order to ensure compliance with the
concentration-based approach, the automotive assembly plants would need
to maintain detailed records on the amount of waste generated and
implement a representative sampling and analysis program to ensure that
they met the exemption levels for the volume of waste each facility
generated annually.  Furthermore, twothree constituents were identified
that presented potential risks to human health (- arsenic and , nickel)
and zinc in an unlined landfill scenario as modeled by DRAS version 2.. 
Rather than attempt to define precise exemption levels for constituents
of concern, the Agency believes that it is simpler and more appropriate
to require disposal in a landfill that is subject to certain liner
design requirements.  The Agency is proposing two options for the liner
design requirements.  Under option one, EPA is proposing that the
landfill unit meet the liner requirements for municipal landfills in 40
CFR 258.40 or other liner designs containingwould have a composite
liner.   Under option two, the Agency is proposing to allow disposal. 
As discussed further below, EPA found that disposal of the waste under
evaluation in such lined landfills would ensure protection of human
health and the environment, without the need for testing and tracking of
waste volume.  Therefore, EPA is proposing this contingent management
approach in state-permitted municipal solid waste landfills (subject to
regulations in 40 CFR 258) and state-permitted industrial solid waste
landfills (subject to Federal regulations at 40 CFR 257), provided the
landfill unit includes at least a single clay liner, and also in
permitted hazardous waste landfills.  This second option could ease
implementation, because the generator could rely on the state permitting
agency to assure proper liner design.  The Agency is seeking comment on
this second approach, because the modeling results indicate that units
with a less stringent liner design may also reduce the risk from the
hazardous constituents of concern to acceptable levels.

As discussed further below, EPA found that disposal of the waste under
evaluation in such lined landfills would ensure protection of human
health and the environment, without the need for testing and tracking of
waste volume.  EPA believes that the proposed approaches outlined in
today’today‘s notice would be , which is easier and less costly to
implement than the concentration-based approach, but which provides at
least the same level of protection for human health and the environment.

  B.  Overview of the Risk Assessment

1. EPA’s Approach to Assessing Potential Risks to Human Health and the
Environment

Today’s action addresses a specific type of industrial sludge: sludge
generated from the management of wastewaters generated at motor vehicle
manufacturing (assembly) facilities.  In general, industrial wastewater
treatment sludges consist of suspended solids removed from wastewaters
during treatment, which may involve various steps.  As described in one
delisting petition, for example, the treatment steps include: grit
separation, pH adjustment to remove metals, addition of a coagulant,
clarification to generate a dilute sludge, and dewatering of the sludge
and grit solids via filter presses.   

F019 sludges generated by the motor vehicle manufacturing industries are
currently managed by onsite dewatering, followed by truck or rail
shipment to offsite RCRA-permitted hazardous waste landfills.  Because
today’s action proposes to allow disposal of the wastewater treatment
sludge in landfills subject to, or meeting, certain design criteria, the
Agency’s risk assessment involved evaluating risks to human health and
the environment from this landfill disposal scenario.  (See the
“Technical Support Document: Assessment of Potential Risks from
Managing F019 Waste from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry” in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a detailed description of
the analysis that the Agency performed, hereinafter, referred to as the
Technical Support Document.)  EPA initially evaluated the potential
risks posed by a hypothetical annual quantity of F019 waste that is
disposed of in an unlined nonhazardous waste landfill, and then
evaluated potential risks from disposal in landfills that use different
liner technologies.  The human health and environmental risk evaluation
uses several environmental fate, transport, and exposure/risk models:
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), version 2.0, Tier 1 of the
Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM), and EPA's Composite
Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP).  
These models have all been peer reviewed; see the Technical Support
Document for a detailed description of the use of these models and their
peer review.

EPA’s  EPA's Regional Offices, and certain statesStates, use version
2.0 of the DRAS model, or earlier versions of it, to determine whether
to grant requests for delistings under 40 CFR 260.22.  The DRAS model is
a screening tool that contains several assumptions that are designed to
be protective of public health.  In addition, EPA then adjusted the DRAS
model results to take into account exposures to children.  

The DRAS model assesses human health considerations, by assuming that
populations that live near the landfill (nearby residents) may be
exposed to chemical constituents that are released from the waste that
is placed in the landfill.  EPA used the DRAS model to calculate the
levels of chemical constituents in a waste (waste concentrations) that
would not exceed the acceptable levels at the nearby receptor.  The
acceptable levels are based on the target risks the Agency used in its
evaluation.  For carcinogens, EPA used an increased probability of
developing cancer that is less than or equal to one in one hundred
thousand (1 x 10-5).  For non-carcinogens, EPA used a “hazard
quotient” less than or equal to 1.0; the hazard quotient is the ratio
of an individual’s chronic daily exposure to a standard, such as
(i.e., the chronic reference dose.  (The reference dose is “an
estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a
daily oral , which is the exposure for a chronic duration (up to a
lifetime) to the human population (including sensitive subpopulations)
level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious
effects during a lifetime.”) ).  These target risk levels are
consistent with those discussed in EPA’s hazardous waste listing
determination policy (see the discussion in a proposed listing for
wastes from the dye and pigment industries, December 22, 1994 (59 FR
66072)). 

The DRAS model assesses environmental risk by examining the aquatic
organisms in a body of surface water downhill from the landfill
(ecological receptors) that are exposed to small quantities of chemical
constituents that are released from the waste in the landfill.  As with
the human health considerations, the Agency can assess an acceptable
risk level for those aquatic organisms, such that the sustainability of
the organisms’ population in the surface water body is not
compromised.  The DRAS model then calculates the levels of chemical
constituents in waste placed in the landfill (i.e., waste
concentrations) that should not be exceeded in order to haveexceed those
acceptable levels of these constituents in the nearby body of surface
water.

For a landfill disposal scenario, the DRAS model predicts how
constituents of potential concern, or COPCs, will move through the
environment and affect nearby people or aquatic organisms.  The DRAS
model predicts releases of COPCs from the waste into the groundwater
beneath the landfill, then accounts for human exposure from drinking
contaminated groundwater, inhaling volatile constituents when using
contaminated groundwater for showering, and dermal contact from bathing
with contaminated groundwater.  The DRAS model also predicts releases of
COPCs from the waste (both waste particles and volatile emissions) into
the air above the landfill.  DRAS then accounts for inhalation of
volatile constituents and particles, and for windblown particles landing
on soil and a child ingesting the contaminated soil.  Finally, the DRAS
model predicts releases of COPCs from the waste, due to storm water that
erodes waste from an open landfill and runs off into a nearby body of
surface water.  Then the DRAS model takes into account human exposure
from eating fish and drinking contaminated surface water, and for the
exposures of the fish to contaminated surface water.  In addition, EPA
adjusted the DRAS model results to take into account exposures to
children.  See the Technical Support Document for a complete description
of the scenario that is modeled in DRAS version 2.0, the human health
and ecological exposure pathways, and the data sources the Agency used
as model inputs.  The DRAS version 2.0 technical documentation,
“User’s Guide for the EPA Region 6 Delisting Risk Assessment
Software” (EPA906-D-98-001) and the “Delisting Technical Support
Document,” which is distributed as part of the DRAS modeling software,
provides further details about the specific assumptions and the
mathematical equations that the model uses.  These documents are in the
docket. 

2. How EPA Chose Constituents of Potential Concern for Evaluation

Section IV. F. describes briefly the constituents likely to be present
in motor vehicle manufacturers' F019 waste.   To identify constituents
of potential concern, EPA reviewed information from 13 motor vehicle
manufacturing facilities’ delisting petitions.  This information
included material safety data sheets (MSDS’s) that identify the
specific chemicals used in the conversion coating process; these
chemicals are likely to be present in the wastewater that is treated and
from which F019 sludge results.  

EPA also compiled the analytical data received from the 13 facilities’
delisting petitions (and from verification sampling at several
facilities) into a spreadsheet that is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.  These 13 facilities analyzed F019 sludge samples for
approximately 240 chemical constituents.  Many chemicals were not found
in the F019 sludge at the detection limits used.  If these
“non-detect” chemicals were not mentioned on the material safety
data sheets, then EPA did not evaluate these constituents further.  For
example, petitioners analyzed sludge samples for pesticides, such as
2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Dinoseb); however, these were not found
in the MSDS’s or in the sludge samples, nor would one expect to find
them in a motor vehicle manufacturing facility’s wastewater treatment
sludge. 

OfIn the constituents analyzedcases in which the F019 wastes, delisting
facilities determined that a constituent was present (56 were detected
in one or more samples. constituents), EPA evaluated the concentrations
reported by the petitioners for these 56 chemicalslaboratory (including
concentrations that laboratories reported as estimates).  The Agency
used the DRAS model methodology to evaluate potential risks for 55
detected constituents for human health risks and 49 for environmental
risks.      

3. Evaluation of Potential Human Health and Environmental Risks

For both human health and environmental risk evaluations, EPA’s
analysis assumed the disposal of a total waste volume of 90,000 cubic
yards of F019 into a landfill.  This waste volume corresponds to either
a 4,500 cubic yards per year disposal rate for 20 years, or a 3,000 

cubic yards per year disposal rate for 30 years.  EPA believes it is
quite unlikely that motor vehicle manufacturers would dispose of amounts
greater than 90,000 cubic yards for an extended period of time in the
same landfill based on a review of the delisting facilities' stated
annual F019 sludge production quantities.  EPA examined the information
contained in the delisting petitions submitted and more recent data
provided by facilities in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. 
Combining the data from both sources for past generation of this waste,
EPA found that the volumes of sludges disposed ranged from 426 to 3,892
cy/yr (median was 1,088 cy/yr, and the 90th percentile ranked value was
approximately 2,900 cy/yr).  Therefore, This range is consistent with
the use of 3,000 cubic yards per year or 4,500 cubic yards per year
represents a protective upper-bound for the waste volumes
reportedproposed delistings by the generators and is likely to
overestimate volumes currently produced by the automotive industry.	A
number of the constituents detectedEPA Region 5 in that delistings
provide for waste volumes that ranged from 1000 through 3000 cy/yr,
which EPA noted "spanned the typical ranges of waste generated" (see 67
FR 10341, March 7, 2002). 

A small number of the constituents present in the waste appear to be
present at levels that may be of concern from a human health viewpoint. 
(None of the constituents that EPA evaluated for potential environmental
harm appeared to be present at levels of concern.)  When using the
maximum detected concentrations and a total volume of 90,000 cubic yards
disposed in a landfill, the .  The DRAS modeling indicated that two,
when 90,000 cubic yards were disposed, 10 of the 55 waste constituents
evaluated for human health effects at their maximum detected
concentrations showed an estimated a hazard quotient of greater than
one, or in the range between 0.1 and 1, or showed an individual’s
estimated lifetime a potential excess cancer risk to be of greater than
one in one hundred thousand.   	

	Based on the assessment using DRAS, the Agency determined that only
twoThese 10 constituents (antimony, arsenic and , cadmium, nickel,
selenium, thallium, tin, zinc, naphthalene, and xylenes) became
constituents of potential concern.  After further evaluation of the
analytical data, the Agency determined that only three of the 10
constituents (arsenic, nickel and zinc) had maximum detected values that
exceeded the levels that DRAS modeling indicated would result in an
acceptable exposure level.  (The other seven constituents had estimated
hazard quotients less than 1 and estimated individual lifetime excess
posed a potential cancer risk of less than one in one hundred thousand.)
 For nickel in groundwater used Thus, there are three constituents known
to be present in F019 waste from motor vehicle manufacturers that EPA
identified as drinking water, the estimated hazard quotient was three. 
For arsenic in groundwater used as drinking water, the estimated
individual excess lifetime cancer risk was three in one hundred
thousand.  Thus, using protective exposure assumptions, the presenting
potential human health risks - arsenic, nickel, and zinc - if placed in
an unlined landfill.  The Technical Support Document describes the DRAS
modeling and results, with discussion and conclusions, in considerably
greater detail.  The Agency found that disposing of a total of 90,000
cubic yards of waste (equivalent to 3,000 cubic yards disposed per year
for 30 years) containing these twothree constituents, at their had
maximum detected concentrations in an unlined landfill, exceededvalues
that either equal the DRAS limit or exceed the DRAS limit by up to a
factor of 3.  The Technical Support Document describes the DRAS modeling
and results, with discussion and conclusions, in considerably greater
detail.As described above, two constituents (arsenic and nickel) were
at levels that may be of concern using upper-bound assumptions for waste
quantities disposed (using the maximum detected concentrations, assuming
disposal of 90,000 cubic yards, and constituent
concentrationsincorporating protective exposure assumptions).

Given that certain constituents known to be present in the waste
(nickel and zinc in unlined landfills.  Furthermore, the constituents
were reported to be prevalent in the waste samples.  Thereforevirtually
all cases and arsenic in most), were at levels that may be of concern
using reasonable assumptions for waste quantities disposed, EPA examined
the robustness of one of the key assumptions of the DRAS version 2.0
modeling—modeling disposal in a landfill without a liner scheme.  The
modeled scenario is an unlined landfill.  Within the past 15 years,
changes to landfill requirements in the United States (the promulgation
of federal regulations that require municipal solid waste landfills to
meet certain leakage prevention requirements, and requirements for
collecting and managing landfill gases, e.g., see 40 CFR 258.40) have
caused substantial changes in landfill practices.  The majority of
municipal solid waste landfills, and probably many landfills that accept
nonhazardous industrial solid waste but not municipal solid waste, now
are designed, built, and operated with liner systems that typically
include composite liners and leachate collection systems (or other
approved performance standards).  The potential risks found by the DRAS
version 2.0 modeling were all from groundwater exposure pathways.  As a
result, current landfills with liner systems and leachate collection
systems should have dramatically lessenlessened impacts on local
groundwater conditions. 

DRAS does not have an option to model the impact of liners on landfill
releases.  Therefore, to To examine the potential impact of liners, the
Agency compared the levels calculated by the Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM), for single-lined and composite-lined landfills.
  IWEM is the ground-water modeling component of the Guide for
Industrial Waste Management, used for recommendinguses a different, but
appropriate liner system designs for the management set of RCRA Subtitle
D industrial waste.  The initial IWEM evaluation (Tier 1) provides a
screening assessment withcriteria for determining unacceptable risk,
than DRAS.  Its results that are protective over a range of conditions
and situations.  The results of the IWEM analysis indicate that the use
of a composite-lined landfill would result in acceptable risk levels for
the twothree key constituents of concern.  The IWEM generally uses more
protective assumptions than  (EPA also found acceptable risks for the
rest of the constituents of potential concern identified in the DRAS
model.  For example, the IWEM model assumes that the drinking water well
is at a fixed location along the center line of the potential plume of
contamination at a distance of 150 meters from the unit; the DRAS model
allows the well location to vary downgradient from the unit.

To further examine the effectiveness of composite liners, EPA also
usedanalysis).   In addition, EPA examined the modeling performed for
lined landfills in the recent listing rule for dye and pigment
production wastes (February 24, 2005, 70 FR 9138).  In this rule, the
Agency established a conditional exemption for wastes disposed in
landfills meeting specified liner design requirements, similar to the
proposal in today’s notice.  The resultsanalysis supporting the dye
and pigment waste listing, which used a groundwater fate and transport
model similar to that used in DRAS, showed that a composite liner
resulted in significant reduction in risks from that effort show that
composite-lined landfills provided significant protection (about two
orders of magnitude) compared to an unlined unit.groundwater releases. 
Therefore, based on both the IWEM results and the modeling in the dye
and pigment waste listing, EPA believes that disposal of F019 sludges
from motor vehicle manufacturers in composite-lined landfills (or other
approved performance standards) is protective of human health and the
environment.

The Agency also considered whether the presence of just a single clay
liner would be sufficient to reduce the risks below levels of concern. 
In addition to the IWEM results that showed disposal in a
composite-lined landfill was protective, this analysis also yielded
levels that would be allowed for a landfill with a single clay liner and
for an unlined landfill.  For nickel, the levels that would be allowed
for a single clay liner were approximately 3-fold higher than the
allowable levels for an unlined unit.  For arsenic, the allowable level
for a single clay liner was approximately 7-fold higher than the
allowable level for an unlined unit.  Thus, a single clay liner (as
defined in the IWEM model assumptions) may be sufficiently protective to
allow disposal in a unit with such a single liner, because a single clay
liner may reduce the risks from these constituents to levels below the
DRAS levels of concern.  (EPA is somewhat uncertain about the
appropriateness of extending the apparent margin of safety afforded by a
single clay liner from one model (IWEM) to another model’s results
(DRAS), and we are seeking comment on this approach.)  Therefore, EPA is
requesting comment on a second regulatory option that would allow
disposal of this waste in all state-permitted municipal solid waste
landfills (regulated under 40 CFR Part 258) and state-permitted
industrial solid waste landfills (regulated under 40 CFR Part 257), even
those that do not meet the liner design requirements in §258.40,
provided the landfills are equipped with at least a single clay liner. 
The second option, for example, would allow disposal in a
state-permitted municipal landfill that was constructed prior to the
effective date for the §258.40 regulations (an “existing” unit),
provided the unit had at least a single clay liner.  EPA expects that
this would provide additional regulatory flexibility for generators, and
would not be likely to result in adverse health effects.

  Therefore, EPA is taking comment on a second option, which would allow
disposal in a landfill with a single clay liner, as well as allowing
disposal in landfills with the more protective composite liner systems. 
Under this option, the regulatory language for the F019 could be revised
to read as follows.

Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles
using a zinc phosphating process will not be hazardous if the wastes are
either: disposed in a Subtitle D municipal or industrial  landfill unit
that is equipped with a single clay liner and is  permitted, licensed or
otherwise authorized by the state; or disposed in a unit that is subject
to, or otherwise meets, the liner requirements in §258.40, §264.301,
§265.301.

EPA is requesting comments on whether adequate clay liners are found in
active older municipal landfill units and industrial solid waste
landfills, and whether this requirement would provide any significant
regulatory relief for generators by meaningfully expanding their
disposal options.  EPA is also seeking comment on the likelihood of
generators of the F019 waste constructing landfill units at their
facilities and what types of liner systems would be used for these
onsite units.  EPA also solicits comment on whether the option allowing
disposal in a landfill unit with a clay liner (permitted or licensed by
the state) will be straightforward to implement or whether it will raise
implementation or compliance issues for the waste generator, such as the
availability of state standards for clay liners in older landfills. 

The Agency is seeking comments on the level of regulatory relief that
would be provided by both of these proposed approaches.  Municipal
landfills, for example, have been required to have composite liners (or
performance based equivalents) as set out in 40 CFR 258.40, except for
“existing” units (i.e., generally units or cells that existed prior
to 1993).  Therefore, EPA believes that most lined landfill units are
likely to have composite liners.  The Agency is seeking information on
the extent to which generators would use the option of sending waste to
units with only single clay liners (under proposed option two) and any
information relevant to the existence and likely use of landfill units
with single clay liners.  In addition, EPA is seeking comments on the
burden associated with the recordkeeping requirements that would result
from documenting compliance with disposal of the exempt waste in a
landfill unit with a single clay liner or a composite liner.  Under the
second proposed option, the generator would be required to document that
the waste went to a permitted landfill unit that was equipped with a
clay liner.  In this case, however, the generator would be able to rely
on the permitting agency to ensure that the clay liner was adequate. 
EPA solicits comments on any issues that might be raised by this
approach to recordkeeping and documentation.

4. Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment Results

The Technical Background Document describes the risk results, and gives
examples of the known uncertainties associated with the risk results.
The risk results used for this proposal are based on the same kinds of
data and health protective models that the Agency typically uses in
national-scale waste policy decision making.  The risk results show
estimated risks for an individual at the “high-end” of the risk
distribution, and are designed to be protective of human health and the
environment.  As such, the resulting risk estimates are likely to
reflect protective outcomes in more than 90 percent of the situations
modeled.   When using central tendency assumptions for an unlined
landfill, the hazard quotient for nickel was calculated to be 0.1 and
the cancer risk factor for arsenic was two in a million, both values
being well below the risk thresholds used by the Agency in hazardous
waste listing determinations.

Our overall assessment is that the models we use could overestimate the
potential adverse effects of disposing of the F019 waste in either
unlined or lined landfills.  Thus, actual exposures that would be
experienced by future residents near the landfill will likely be lower
than those estimated using the DRAS version 2 model.  Examples of the
protective assumptions used in the high-end DRAS results include: (1)
the disposal volume (the 90th percentile value of 3,000 cubic yards per
year in the same landfill for 30 years), (2) the constituent
concentrations (the maximum values found in the sampling data from the
13 delisting submissions), and (3) exposure levels (90th percentile
value for ingestion of groundwater by children for 350 days per year).

The risk results represent EPA’s reasonable efforts in using existing
knowledge of the national waste management system, the science of
environmental fate and transport of chemicals, and the science of
toxicology to assess the likely hazards of managing the F019 waste as
nonhazardous.  The Agency believes that, in spite of some of the
specific uncertainties that exist, the risk estimates provide a useful
basis for our decision about whether to continue to regulate this waste
as a hazardous waste.  EPA is requesting comments on our risk assessment
approach and on the resulting risk estimates.

.

The risk results used for this proposal are based on the same kinds of
data and models that the Agency typically uses in national-scale waste
policy decision making.  The Technical Background Document describes the
risk results, and gives examples of the known uncertainties associated
with those results.  The risk results represent EPA’s best efforts in
using existing knowledge of the national waste management system, the
science of environmental fate and transport of chemicals, and the
science of toxicology.  The Agency believes that, in spite of some of
the specific uncertainties that exist, the risk estimates are useful for
providing decision makers with sound technical information on which to
base the decision about whether to continue to regulate this waste as a
hazardous waste.   

VI. 	 Implementation of the F019 Proposed Rule

A.  Land Disposal Conditions

The proposed amendment to the F019 listing exempts certain wastes
disposed in landfill units that are subject to certain liner design
requirements.  This exemption is based on EPA’s risk analysis
demonstrating that wastes disposed in landfills with certain types of
composite liners do not present significant risks for sludges generated
by motor vehicle manufacturers.  Today’s first proposal would allow
motor vehicle manufacturers (as defined in §261.31(b)(i)) to manage
wastes from chemical conversion coating of aluminum when using a zinc
phosphating process as nonhazardous, if the wastes are disposed in a
landfill subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill requirements in
§258.40, §264.301 or §265.301.  The second proposal in today’s
notice would also exempt the waste if the generators dispose of the
waste in a state-permitted non-hazardous landfill unit that has, at a
minimum, a single clay liner.  

The requirements under §258.40, which apply to new municipal solid
waste landfills or new units at existing municipal solid waste
landfills, require use of a composite liner and leachate collection
system (or a design meeting a protective performance standard and
approved by the Director of an approved stateState program or by EPA). 
The infiltration rates used by IWEM (and also for the Dye and Pigment
listing; 70 FR 9138, February 24, 2005) were based on data from
landfills with composite liners similar to the design required under
§258.40.  Consequently, EPA’s proposed option number one allows
disposal of EPA is proposing to allow disposal of wastes in a municipal
solid waste landfill unit that is subject to the §258.40 design
requirements.  EPA is specifying that the landfill unit must be subject
to these requirements because some operating landfills may still use
older units that are not required to meet the design requirements in
§258.40.  The Agency’s risk assessment shows that unlined landfills
may not be sufficiently protective for some of the sludges from
automobile manufacturing, i.e., higher volume sludges with high levels
of key constituents of concern.  Federal law requires that all municipal
landfills comply with the Part 258 landfill regulations.  Additionally,
statesStates have permitting programs to implement the Part 258
requirements for municipal landfills.  Permit programs must ensure that
municipal landfill units in the states comply with the §258.40 design
standards (see 40 CFR 239.6(e)).  Consequently, EPA believes that all
landfill cells subject to the Part 258.40 design standards are required
to complyshould be complying with the federal standards or more
stringent state standards.  

Some generators of F019 wastes may still choose to send wastes to
Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills.  New landfill units and lateral
expansions of existing hazardous waste landfills are required to have
“double” composite liners including synthetic components.  See 40
CFR 264.301 and 265.301.  The Agency would expect that these liner
systems have even lower infiltration rates than the composite liners
required under §258.40, because the Subtitle C requirements include
another composite liner, in addition to the a composite liner (or
equivalent) required of municipal solid waste landfills (e.g., see
§261.301(c)).  Therefore, EPA is proposing to give generators the
option of sending wastes to landfill units subject to these stricter
hazardous waste liner requirements.  

The Agency is also proposing to include a third class of landfills in
the exemption, namely, Subtitle D non-municipal landfills (industrial
solid waste landfills) that meet the liner design requirements in
§258.40 or Subtitle C landfills.  These “industrial landfills” are
subject to Federal regulations in Part 257, which apply to
non-municipal, nonhazardous waste landfills.  While the Part 257
regulations do not have liner requirements, statesStates have
regulations governing the design of such landfills that often include
requirements for liner systems.  EPA believes that generators should
have the option of using lined industrial landfills that are as
protective as lined municipal solid waste landfills.  The Agency does
not wish to preclude use of commercial industrial landfills that meet
the liner standards for municipal solid waste landfills in §258.40 (or
for Subtitle C landfills).  

Therefore, under the first option, EPA is proposing that the amended
listing include an exemption for wastes disposed in any landfill that is
subject to, or meets, the landfill requirements in §258.40, §264.301,
or §265.301.  Under the second option, EPA is proposing an alternative
approach that would also allow disposal of the subject waste in a
landfill unit with a single clay liner as described previously.

 Note, however, that this exemption would not apply if wastewaters from
aluminum conversion coating processes using the zinc phosphating process
are commingled with wastewaters arising from aluminum conversion coating
using other non-exempt processes (e.g., chromating processes); the
sludge resulting from such commingled wastewaters would still carry the
F019 waste code, because it would be derived, in part, from an aluminum
conversion coating process that is not zinc phosphating.  Furthermore,
aluminum conversion coating sludges derived from zinc phosphating at
motor vehicle manufacturers are still subject to the “mixture rule,”
and would become hazardous waste if mixed with any other listed
hazardous waste.  In addition, the motor vehicle manufacturers would
also be subject to the requirements of §268.3 (dilution prohibited as a
substitute for treatment).  Finally, if the zinc phosphating sludges
were generated such that they exhibit one of the hazardous waste
characteristics (see §261.20 through §261.24), the waste would
continue to be regulated as a hazardous waste.  

1.  How Generators Document Compliance with the Landfill Condition

Under the proposed option number one, generatorsGenerators of
wastewater treatment sludges claimed to be nonhazardous are responsible
for ensuring that shipments of such waste are placed in landfill units
that meet the design criteria specified in §258.40, §264.301, or
§265.301.  Under option two, generators would also need to document
compliance if they send their waste shipments to a state-permitted
landfill unit that has an adequate single clay liner.  Under either
option, generatorsGenerators wishing to qualify for the exemption from
the F019 listing would be required to maintain records to show that
their wastes are placed in an appropriatea properly designed landfill
unit, whether the unit is at a municipal solid waste landfill, hazardous
waste landfill, or an industrial solid waste landfill (in the case of
option two, this would include disposal in a unit with a single clay
liner).  EPA is proposing a flexible performance standard that would
allow the generator to demonstrate that shipments of waste were received
by a landfill unit that is subject to or meets the landfill design
standards set out in the listing description through various means.  A
generator may be able to demonstrate fulfillment of the landfill
disposal condition by means of a signed contract with the owner/operator
of a municipal solid waste landfill, a hazardous waste landfill, or an
industrial solid waste landfill receiving the waste; the generator
should also retain specific shipping documents to demonstrate that the
contract was implemented.  The contract must show that the landfill
owner/operator would use only units subject to the applicable Part 258
or Part 264 or Part 265 design requirements (under option two, the
contract, state permit, or documentation from the state may also be used
to document that units meeting the single liner specifications would be
used).  A generator may also be able to support a claim of fulfilling
the landfill design requirements by means of signed nonhazardous waste
bills of lading, manifests, or invoices documenting delivery, provided
they show that wastes were placed in municipal solid waste landfill
units subject to the applicable Part 258 design requirements or Subtitle
C landfill units subject to the Part 264 or Part 265 design
requirements.  Similarly, the generator would be responsible for
documenting that non-municipal, nonhazardous waste landfill units
(industrial landfill units) meet the specified liner standards.  States
have regulations governing the design of such industrial solid waste
landfills, and landfill operators must have certifications or permit
conditions available to provide to generators who wish to use such
landfills instead of municipal solid waste or hazardous waste landfill
units.  Therefore, state regulations could help support a claim that the
nonhazardous waste bills of lading, manifests, or invoices documenting
delivery satisfysatisfied the applicable linerPart 258 requirements.   

2.  Consequences of Failing to Meet the Disposal Conditions or
Recordkeeping Requirements

Disposal in a landfill subject to or meeting the landfill design
requirements is a condition of the exemption to the listing under the
two approaches being proposed.  If a generator does not fulfill this
condition, the sludges would be F019 listed wastes, subject to the
applicable Subtitle C requirements.  Therefore, the Agency advises
generators to properly store the wastewater treatment sludges that are
claimed to be nonhazardous wastes because they are destined for landfill
units that are designed according to ensure that improper releases do
not occur.the specified design criteria.  EPA encourages all generators
to store all wastes in containers, tanks, or buildings, so as to reduce
potential releases to the environment through spills, wind dispersal,
and precipitation.  The exemption for these wastes is conditioned upon
disposal in the landfill units that are subject to, or otherwise meet,
the specified design criteria.

In addition, a generator claiming that the wastewater treatment sludges
are not F019 listed waste must maintain sufficient documentation to
demonstrate that shipments of such waste were disposed in a landfill
subject to or meeting the liner design standards specified under the
conditional exemption.  The proposed regulatory text
(§261.31(b)(4)(iii)) specifies necessary records that a generator
claiming the exemption must keep.

Generators taking advantage of the exemption that fail to meet the
condition of disposing the wastewater treatment sludges in a landfill
unit that meets certain liner design criteria would be subject to
enforcement action, and the wastewater treatment sludges may be
considered to be hazardous waste from the point of their generation. 
EPA could choose to bring an enforcement action under RCRA §3008(a) for
all violations of hazardous waste regulatory requirements occurring from
the time the wastewater treatment sludges are generated up to the time
they are finally disposed.  Releases of hazardous waste could also
potentially be addressed through enforcement orders, such as orders
under RCRA §§3013 and 7003.  States could choose to take an
enforcement action for violations of state hazardous waste requirements
under stateState authorities. 

Generators claiming the exemption from the F019 listing must be able to
demonstrate to the appropriate regulatory agency that the condition of
the exemption is being met.  In accordance with existing requirements,
the facility claiming the exemption bears the burden of proof to
demonstrate conformance with the requirements specified in the
regulation.  See 40 CFR 261.2(f). 

EPA requests comment on whether the proposed record-keeping requirements
should also be made conditions of the exemption, rather than established
as separate recordkeeping requirements.  In addition, the Agency seeks
comments on whether additional requirements or conditions are necessary
to ensure that the waste is not improperly disposed or released prior to
disposal in landfills meeting the landfill requirements in §258.40,
§264.301 or §265.310 (or under the second proposed option, a municipal
or industrial solid waste landfill with a single clay liner).  EPA is
considering the need to include a condition for the exemption that the
waste be stored so as to minimize releases to the environment.  The
regulatory condition being considered by the Agency could include the
following possible regulatory language.	

Generators of wastewater treatment sludges that are claimed to be
nonhazardous must manage such wastes in a manner that prevents their
loss to the environment.  Such wastes must be stored in tanks,
containers, or buildings that are constructed and maintained in a way
that prevents releases of these materials into the environment.  At a
minimum, any building used for this purpose must be an engineered
structure that has a floor, walls and a roof to prevent wind dispersal
and contact with precipitation. Tanks used for this purpose must be
structurally sound and, if outdoors, must have roofs or covers that
prevent contact with wind and precipitation. Containers, such as super
sacks, drums, or roll-on/roll-off containers, used for this purpose must
be kept closed except when it is necessary to add or remove material,
and must be in sound condition.  Generators may store the waste on site
for no longer than 90 days.

EPA may make all or some of these requirements conditions in the final
rule. 

	EPA obtained information from delisting petitions that indicates
generators of the F019 sludge store the dewatered sludges in containers
or bins prior to shipment offsite for disposal.  During visits to three
vehicle manufacturing plants generating sludges, EPA found that sludge

dewatering equipment and sludge containers were kept inside buildings,
reducing any potential for releases..   While these management practices
may reflect the fact that the delisted sludges were previously hazardous
waste, we expect that these practices would continue after an exemption.
  We seek any further information from commenters as to the current
sludge management practices at facilities that currently generate F019
wastes (or delisted F019), and any information on practices at vehicle
manufacturers that do not currently generate F019 (i.e., plants that do
not use aluminum).  If such information indicates that generators are
already handling the waste to minimize releases, the Agency will take
this into consideration when deciding whether storage conditions are
necessary.  

3. Land Disposal Restrictions

The Agency today is proposing to amend the F019 listing to exclude
wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating, when such
phosphating is used at motor vehicle manufacturers.  These wastewater
treatment sludges will not be hazardous if the wastes are disposed in a
landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill
requirements for the liner systems specified in the F019 listing under
both of the proposed options§258.40, §264.301 or §265.301.    

40 CFR Part 268 prohibits the land disposal of RCRA hazardous waste
unless they have been treated to meet a certain level or by a technology
specified by EPA.  See Table 1.Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes
in §268.40.  The land disposal restrictions only apply to solid wastes
that are RCRA hazardous wastes.  Therefore, if the wastewater treatment
sludges are disposed in landfill units that are subject to or meet the
landfill design criteria outlined in today’s proposal, they would not
be hazardous waste from the point of generation and, thus, not subject
to the land disposal restriction requirements.    

B.  Interrelationship between Proposed Rule and Current F019 Delistings

The question arises as to the status of waste generated by facilities
that currently have an exemption for their wastes through a delisting
under §260.22.  Today’s proposed revision to the F019 listing would
exempt wastes from motor vehicle manufacturing facilities that meet the
landfill disposal conditions.  Thus, wastes that are to be disposed in a
subtitle D or subtitle C unit that meets the liner design standards
specified in the listings are exempted from the listing from their point
of generation.  As such, the exempt waste would not be subject to any
RCRA subtitle C management requirements for generation, storage,
transport, treatment, or disposal (including land disposal
restrictions).  These exempt wastes would never become F019 listed
wastes (when the specified disposal conditions are met), and, thus, the
existing delistings (including any conditions associated with the
delisting) would be rendered moot by today’s proposal, presuming the
authorized state adopts the rule, where applicable.  However, EPA
realizes that facilities with delistings may wish to avoid any confusion
that might arise in the implementation of the exemption proposed in
today’s notice.  Therefore, the facility may wish to seek to have its
delisting withdrawn by the regulatory authority (the EPA Region or
stateState), unless the facility wishes to continue to manage its waste
pursuant to its existing delisting.  However, EPA encourages facilities
with delistings to be sure that the stateState in which they operate has
adopted the exemption prior to moving to drop an existing delisting. 
See the discussion below in Section VII. State Authorization for
additional information on the authorization process.

VII.	State Authorization 

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified stateState to
administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the stateState
in lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the
stateState.  Following authorization, the state requirements authorized
by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become
Federally-enforceable as requirements of RCRA.  EPA maintains
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003.  Authorized statesStates also have
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.  

A stateState may receive authorization by following the approval
process described in 40 CFR part 271.  Part 271 of 40 CFR also describes
the overall standards and requirements for authorization.  After a
stateState receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory
requirements promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute do not
apply in that stateState until the stateState adopts and receives
authorization for equivalent stateState requirements.  The stateState
must adopt such requirements to maintain authorization.  In contrast,
under RCRA section 3006(g), (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new Federal
requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to the 1984 Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) take effect in authorized statesStates at
the same time that they take effect in unauthorized statesStates. 
Although authorized statesStates still are required to update their
hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program,
EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized
statesStates, including the issuance of new permits implementing those
requirements, until EPA authorizes the stateState to do so.  Authorized
statesStates are required to modify their programs only when EPA
promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in
scope than existing Federal requirements. 

RCRA section 3009 allows the statesStates to impose standards more
stringent than those in the Federal program.  See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). 
Therefore, authorized statesStates are not required to adopt Federal
regulations, either HSWA or non-HSWA, that are considered less
stringent.      

Today's rule is proposed pursuant to non-HSWA authority.  The proposed
changes in this rule are less stringent than the current Federal
requirements.  Therefore, statesStates will not be required to adopt and
seek authorization for the proposed changes.  EPA will implement the
changes to the exemptions only in those statesStates which are not
authorized for the RCRA program.  Nevertheless, EPA believes that this
proposed rulemaking has considerable merit, and the Agency thus strongly
encourages statesStates to amend their programs and become
Federally-authorized to implement these rules once they become final.

VIII. 	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Designation and List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable
Quantities

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) defines the term “hazardous substance” to
include RCRA listed and characteristic hazardous wastes.  When EPA adds
a hazardous waste under RCRA, the Agency also will add the waste to its
list of CERCLA hazardous substances.  EPA also establishes a reportable
quantity, or RQ, for each CERCLA hazardous substance.  EPA provides a
list of the CERCLA hazardous substances along with their RQs in Table
302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4.  If a person in charge of a vessel or facility
that releases a CERCLA hazardous substance in an amount that equals or
exceeds its RQ, then that person must report that release to the
National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA section 103.  That
person also may have to notify stateState and local authorities. 

Because today’s rule is proposing to modify the scope of the EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019 under 40 CFR 261.31 listing to exclude
wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating, when such
phosphating is used in the motor vehicle manufacturing process, and if
the wastes are disposed in a landfill is subject to, or meets certain
liner design requirements, the Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 wouldwill be
modified to adopt the same definition and scope.

IX. 	Relationship to Other Rules - Clean Water Act

We believe that today’s proposed regulatory changes will not: (1)
increase the amount of discharged wastewater pollutants at the industry
or facility levels; or (2) interfere with the ability of industrial
generators and recyclers of electroplating residuals to comply with the
Clean Water Act requirements (e.g., Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines,
40 CFR Part 433).

X. 	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A.  Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must determine
whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore
subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which include assessing
the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the proposed
regulatory action.  The Order defines “significant regulatory
action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, although the annual
effect of this proposed rule is expected to be less than $100 million,
the Agency has determined that today's proposed rule is a significant
regulatory action because this proposed rule contains novel policy
issues.  As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review.  Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in
the docket to today’s proposal.  

The following is a summary of EPA’s economic analysis as contained in
the Economics Background Document in support of this proposal, which is
available for public review and comment in the EPA Docket
(www.regulations.gov).  Although 73 industries in 42 states generate 0.7
million tons per year of RCRA F019 hazardous waste sludge as of 1999,
the scope of this F019 proposed rule is limited to the (1) automobile
manufacturing industry (NAICS 336111) and (2) the light truck/utility
vehicle manufacturing industry (NAICS 336112).  The Agency defined this
scope in relation to 15 recent (1997-2005) delisting final
determinations for these two motor vehicle manufacturing industries in
EPA Regions 4 and 5.  Under the current F019 listing description, motor
vehicle manufacturers become F019 sludge generators if they use aluminum
parts on vehicle bodies which undergo the chemical conversion (zinc
phosphating) process.  Motor vehicle manufacturers began in the early
1970's, to substitute lighter-weight aluminum parts for heavier steel
parts to achieve national vehicle fleet fuel efficiency and vehicle
pollutant emission reduction objectives.  If promulgated, the proposed
elimination of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory requirements
for waste transport, waste treatment/disposal, and waste
reporting/recordkeeping in this proposed rule, is expected to provide
$1.6 to $4.6 million per year in regulatory cost savings to 14
facilities in these two industries which are known as of 2005 to
generate about 8,700 tons per year of F019 sludge, but are not yet
delisted (as of year-end 2005).  Although today's proposed action
presents alternative RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous waste landfill liner
specifications (i.e., liner design criteria) as possible conditions for
exemption of F019 sludge from RCRA Subtitle C regulation, the economic
impact analysis does not distinguish landfill liner types in this cost
savings estimate.  Secondary impacts of the proposed rule may also
include potential future RCRA regulatory cost avoidance for up to 39
other facilities in these two industries not currently generating F019
sludge, but which may begin applying aluminum parts in vehicle assembly.
 Furthermore, by reducing regulatory costs, EPA anticipates that this
rule may also induce other motor vehicle manufacturing facilities to
begin using aluminum in vehicles sooner than they otherwise would,
thereby possibly accelerating future achievement of national air quality
and fuel efficiency objectives.  The Economics Background Document
provides estimates for these secondary and induced benefits for this
proposed rule.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act 	 

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1189.18 and a copy may be obtained from Susan
Auby by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection
Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington DC  20460, by email at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling
(202) 566-1672.  A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr.       

EPA under 40 CFR 261.31(b)(4)(iii), proposes to add a recordkeeping
requirement for generators.  The proposed rule will require generators
wanting to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this proposal
to maintain onsite for a minimum of three years documentation
demonstrating that each shipment of waste was received by a landfill
unit that is subject to or meets the landfill design criteria set out in
the listing description.  An enforcement action by the Agency can extend
the record retention period (§268.7(a)(8)) beyond the three years.   

EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for the new
paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately 35 hours per year
and the annual respondent cost for the new paperwork requirements in the
rule is approximately $2,600.  However, in addition to the new paperwork
requirements in the rule, the Agency also estimated the burden and cost
that generators could expect as a result of complying with the existing
RCRA hazardous waste information collection requirements for the
exempted materials (e.g., preparation of hazardous waste manifests,
biennial reporting).  Taking both the new proposed and existing RCRA
requirements into account, EPA expects the rule would result in a net
reduction in national annual paperwork burden to the 14 initially
affected NAICS 336111 and 336112 facilities of approximately 920 hours
and $67,300.  As summarized in the Economics Background Document and in
the prior sub-section of this notice, EPA expects this net cost savings
to be further supplemented by annual cost savings to these same
facilities from reduced waste management costs, by the expected shift of
sludge management from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management, to
RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste management.  The net cost to EPA of
administering the rule is expected to be negligible, since facilities
are not required under this proposed rule to submit any information to
the Agency for review and approval.   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 existing systems 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.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this
ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-09842004-0019.  Submit any
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.  See
‘Addresses’ section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC  20503. 

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other
statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.

  For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities potentially subject to this action, “small entity” is
defined according to the for-profit small business size standards set by
the Small Business Administration (SBA), in reference to the two
six-digit NAICS code industries affected by this action: (1) NAICS
336111 automobile manufacturing SBA standard of less than 1,000
employees, and (2) NAICS 336112 light truck and utility vehicle
manufacturing SBA standard of less than 1,000 employees.  Today's action
does not directly affect small governmental jurisdictions (i.e., a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000), or small organizations (i.e.,
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field).

According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau "Economics Census" data
for these two NAICS codes --- for data year 2002 published in December
2004 and May 2005, respectively --- there were 176 NAICS 336111
establishments operated in 2002 by 161 companies, of which 154
establishments (88%) had less than 1,000 employees
(http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231i336111t.pdf), and there were 97
NAICS 336112 establishments operated in 2002 by 69 companies, of which
62 establishments (64%) had less than 1,000 employees
(http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231i336112t.pdf).  These census
statistics reveal that both industries consist of large fractions of
small establishments according to the SBA definitions, but the census
data do not reveal the fraction of companies which are small (which is
the more relevant measure).  However, it may be inferred that there are
large fractions of small companies in both industries, because of the
high degree of parity between establishment counts and companies counts
of 0.96 for NAICS 336111 (i.e., 154:to:161), and of 0.71 for NAICS
336112 (i.e., 69:to:97).

Because this action is designed to lower the cost of waste management
for these industries, this proposal will not result in an adverse
economic impact effect on affected entities. Consequently, I hereby
certify that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.  In determining whether a
rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory
flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives
“which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities” (5 U.S.C. Sections 603 and 604).  Thus, an agency
may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on small entities
subject to the rule.  For more information regarding the economic impact
of this proposed rule, please refer to the “Economics Background
Document” available from the EPA Docket (www.regulations.gov).

EPA therefore concludes that today’s proposed rule will relieve
regulatory burden for all size entities, including small entities.  The
Agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related
to such impacts. 

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on stateState, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section  202 of the UMRA, EPA
must prepare a written analysis, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in
expenditures to stateState, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA 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 to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals,
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 expenditures of $100 million or more for stateState,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year.  This is because this proposed rule imposes no enforceable
duty on any stateState, local, or tribal governments.  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.   Therefore, today’s proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by stateState and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct
effects on the statesStates, on the relationship between the national
government and the statesStates, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.”  

This proposal does not have federalism implications.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on the statesStates, on the relationship
between the national government and the statesStates, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.  This rule directly
affects primarily generators of hazardous waste sludges in the NAICS
3361 motor vehicle manufacturing industry group.  There are no
stateState and local government bodies that incur direct compliance
costs by this rulemaking.  State and local government implementation
expenditures are expected to be less than $500,000 in any one year. 
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this proposal. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and stateState and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from stateState and local officials.  

F.  Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  Today’s rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance
costs on them.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
 

G.  Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Risks and Safety Risks

The 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 EPA determines (1) is “economically
significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on 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 proposal is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate
risk to children.

H.  Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

This proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in
Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.  This proposed
rule reduces regulatory burden and as explained in our “Economics
Background Document,” and may possibly induce fuel efficiency and
energy savings in the national motor vehicle fleet.  It thus should not
adversely affect energy supply, distribution or use.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 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.  Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.

J.  Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority       Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population” (February
11, 1994), is designed to address the environmental and human health
conditions of minority and low-income populations.  EPA is committed to
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all citizens of the United States.  The Agency’s goals are
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color,
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA’s
policies, programs, and activities.  Our goal is to ensure that all
citizens live in clean and sustainable communities.  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 (OSWER)
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).

The Agency’s risk assessment did not identify risks from the
management of the zinc phosphating sludge generated by the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry provided that the waste is disposed in a landfill
that is subject to or meets the landfill design criteria set out in
today’s proposal.  Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in
proximity to the landfills used by these facilities should not be
adversely affected by common waste management practices for the
wastewater treatment sludge.  

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Recycling, Waste
treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 302 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Hazardous chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

______________________________		_________________

      Stephen L. Johnson,				Date

      Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. 	The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 6938.

2. 	Section 261.31 is amended by: 

a. In the table in paragraph (a) by amending the alphanumeric entry
F019, 

b. Amending paragraph (b) by adding subparagraph (b)(4),

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§261.31 Hazardous wastes from specific sources.

 (a) * * *

Industry and EPA hazardous waste No.	

Hazardous waste	

Hazard code



*		*		*		*		*		*		*



* * *	

* * *	





F019......	

Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when
such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.  Wastewater
treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles using a zinc
phosphating process will not be hazardous if the wastes are disposed in
a landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill
requirements in §258.40, §264.301 or §265.301.  For the purposes of
this listing, motor vehicle manufacturing is defined in paragraph
§261.31(b)(4)(i) of this section; paragraphs §261.31(b)(4)(ii) and
(iii) of this section describe the responsibilities and recordkeeping
requirements for motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.  	

(T)



* * *	

* * *	



* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) For the purposes of the F019 listing, the following apply to
wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles
using a zinc phosphating process.

(i) Motor vehicle manufacturing is defined to include the manufacture of
automobiles and light trucks/utility vehicles (including light duty
vans, pick-up trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles).  Facilities
must be engaged in manufacturing complete vehicles (body and chassis or
unibody) or chassis only.

(ii) Generators of wastewater treatment sludges that are claimed to be
nonhazardous must ensure that shipments of such waste are placed in
landfill units that are subject to or meet the landfill design criteria
specified in the F019 listing description§258.40, §264.301 or
§265.301.

 (iii) Generators must maintain in their on-site records documentation
and information sufficient to prove that the wastewater treatment
sludges to be exempted from the F019 listing meet the condition of the
listing.  These records must include the volume of waste generated and
disposed of off-site.  Generators must maintain these documents on site
for no less than three years.  The retention period for the
documentation is automatically extended during the course of any
enforcement action or as requested by the Regional Administrator or the
stateState regulatory authority.  

* * * * *

PART 302 - DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

The authority citation for Part 302 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.

In §302.4, Table 302.4 is amended by modifying the following entry in
the table to read as follows:

§302.4 Designation of hazardous substances

* * * * *

TABLE 302.4 - LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES

[Note: All Comments/Notes Are Located at the End of This Table]

Hazardous Substance	CASRN	Statutory Code†	RCRA Waste Number	Final RQ
Pounds (Kg)

          *                              *                           *	*
	* 	*	* 

F019		. . . . . . . . . . 	4 	F019	10 (4.54) 



Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when
such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.  Wastewater
treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles using a zinc
phosphating process will not be hazardous if the wastes are disposed in
a landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill
requirements in §258.40, §264.301 or §265.301.  For the purposes of
this listing, motor vehicle manufacturing is defined in paragraph
§261.31(b)(4)(i) of this section; paragraphs §261.31(b)(4)(ii) and
(iii) of this section describe the responsibilities and recordkeeping
requirements for motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.  	

	

	

	



*	*		*	*	*

 Note that aluminum conversion coating using the zinc phosphating
process utilizes nickel, as noted in section IV.D.; thus, nickel is a
potential constituent of concern in the waste at issue in this proposed
amendment.  

 The analytical data for sludge samples show the presence of chromium
and cyanide.  Chromium appears to arise, in part, from the use of
trivalent chromium in “sealing” during the rinsing step in the
process; the source of trace levels of cyanide is not clear.  However,
levels of hexavalent chromium and cyanide were not present at levels of
concern based on EPA’s risk assessment (i.e., the “Technical Support
Document: Assessment of Potential Risks from Managing F019 Waste from
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry” in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking); also see Section V. B.  

 As noted in Section V.B. below, the Federal regulations for municipal
solid waste landfills require that new units (and lateral expansions of
existing units) meet design criteria for composite liners and leachate
collection systems (or other approved performance standards).  A
composite liner as defined in §258.40 consists of a combination of a
synthetic liner and an underlying compacted soil/clay liner.

 As noted in Section V.B. below, the Federal regulations for municipal
solid waste landfills require that new units (and lateral expansions of
existing units) meet design criteria for composite liners and leachate
collection systems (or other approved performance standards).  A
composite liner as defined in §258.40 consists of a combination of a
synthetic liner and an underlying compacted soil/clay liner.  Disposal
in hazardous waste landfills would also be allowed, because the
regulations in §264.301 and §265.301 include composite liners.

 For this option, EPA assumes that single clay liners, even in older
landfills, would meet the typical construction standards, i.e., the clay
liner would have a low hydraulic conductivity (i.e., 1 x 10-7 cm/sec)
and be of sufficient thickness to ensure structural stability (i.e., 2
to 3 feet of compacted clay).  EPA seeks comment on this assumption.

 See General Motors Corporation Oklahoma City Assembly Plant Delisting
Petition for F019 Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge Filter Cake, Section
3, Facility Operations in the docket.   

 “RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document”.  EPA906-D-98-001. 
Interim Final.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste. Prepared by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX April 2002.

 “Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) User’s
Guide.” EPA530-R-02-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste. 
Washington, D.C. August 2002, and “Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM) Technical Background Document.”
EPA530-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
August 2002.

 “EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products EPACMTP: User’s Guide.” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C. 1997, “EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) Technical Background
Document.”  EPA530-R-03-006.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, D.C. April 2003, and “EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) Parameters/Data
Background Document”. EPA530-R-03-003. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C. April 2003.

 See EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html"  http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html
.

 The 13 motor vehicle manufacturing facilities are BMWMC (BMW
Manufacturing Corp.), located in Greer, South Carolina; Nissan, in
Smyrna, Tennessee; General Motors (GM) in Lansing, Michigan; GM in Lake
Orion, Michigan; GM in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (draft petition submitted
and available only in the EPA Headquarters docket for today’s notice);
GM in Lordstown, Ohio; GM in Pontiac, Michigan; GM in Hamtramck,
Michigan; GM in Flint, Michigan; GM Grand River in Lansing, Michigan;
Ford in Wixom, Michigan; Ford in Wayne, Michigan; and DaimlerChrysler
Jefferson North in Detroit, Michigan.

  For human health, one constituent, sulfide, was not evaluated using
the DRAS methodology because it lacks an appropriate toxicity value. 
For ecological risk, two constituents, sulfide and fluoride, were not
evaluated using the DRAS methodology because they are not present in the
DRAS version 2 data base for constituents, and lack appropriate toxicity
values for environmental risks.  For another five of the 56
constituents, EPA lacked appropriate aquatic toxicity benchmarks to
complete an environmental risk assessment.  See the Technical Support
Document in the docket for this proposed rulemaking for details.

 In IWEM, a single clay liner is a layer of compacted clay three feet
thick (hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec), and a composite liner
consists of a geomembrane liner (high density polyethylene) overlying
the clay layer.

 The Agency could not assess the risk for tin, because it is not
included in the IWEM software.

 The results for zinc and several other metals (lead, copper, and
barium) demonstrated that composite lined landfills reduced risks from
landfill releases factors of 133 to 269 compared to unlined units.   See
“Risk Assessment Technical Background Document for the Dye and Pigment
Industry Hazardous Waste Listing Determination,” November 10, 2003,
Table 2-1b, page 2-4.

  For example, the modeling for a landfill with a composite liner showed
that this liner system provided significant additional protection
compared to an unlined unit. The allowable levels for four metals (lead,
copper, zinc, and barium) were 133 to 269-fold higher than levels from
modeling an unlined landfill.  See “Risk Assessment Technical
Background Document for the Dye and Pigment Industry Hazardous Waste
Listing Determination,” November 10, 2003, Table 2-1b, page 2-4. 

  This second proposed option would also allow disposal in a hazardous
waste landfill regulated under §264.301 or §265.301, which require
composite liner systems.

 

 Conceptually, “high-end” means above the 90th percentile of the
risk distribution; see Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk
Managers and Risk Assessors, February 26, 1992 memorandum from F. Henry
Habicht, II, Deputy Administrator, to Assistant Administrators and
Regional Administrators.  We use the term “high-end” here to refer
to modeling inputs that are at or above the 90th percentile of a data
set.

 Note that the results described as “central tendency” here reflect
changes in annual waste volume, disposal time, and constituent
concentration (and for non-cancer effects, drinking water intake). 
Other variables, such as the dilution/attenuation factor and exposure
frequency (and for cancer effects, drinking water intake) remain at
high-end values.

 Commercial offsite landfills are subject to regulations by
statesStates, including liner requirements.  See the report by
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO), “Non-Municipal, Subtitle D Waste Survey,” March 1996, and
the EPA report, “State Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities,” October 1995.

 The “mixture” rule at §261.3(a)(2)(iv) provides that, with limited
exceptions, any mixture of a listed hazardous waste and a solid waste is
itself a hazardous waste.   

 This language is similar to that included in the exclusion for
hazardous secondary materials recycled for use in fertilizers (July 24,
2002, 67 FR 48393).

 For a facility that generates a volume of 3,000 cy/yr, an average
weekly volume would be about 60 cy.  This would probably require 2 to 3
dumpsters (20 to 40 cy in size).  Given that generators are unlikely to
want to store many dumpsters, we believe that a 90 day limit is
reasonable and would not be burdensome. 

 Two facilities were generating delisted F019 sludges, and one had just
added conversion coating of aluminum to its process and eventually
obtained a delisting.  See note to docket on site visits by Mr. James
Michael.

 Two facilities were generating delisted F019 sludges, and one had just
added conversion coating of aluminum to its process and eventually
obtained a delisting.  See note to docket on site visits by Mr. James
Michael.

 The Federal Register (FR) citations for the 15 delisting determinations
for F019 are: GM in Lake Orion, Michigan (62 FR 55344, October 24,
1997); GM in Lansing, Michigan (65 FR 31096, May 16, 2000); BMWMC in
Greer, South Carolina (66 FR 21877, May 2, 2001); Nissan in Smyrna,
Tennessee (67 FR 42187, June 21, 2002); GM in Pontiac, Michigan, GM in
Hamtramck, Michigan, GM in Flint, Michigan, GM Grand River in Lansing,
Michigan, Ford in Wixom, Michigan, Ford in Wayne, Michigan (68 FR 44652,
July 30, 2003); DaimlerChrylser Jefferson North in Detroit, Michigan (69
FR 8828, February 26, 2004); GM in Lordstown, Ohio (69 FR 60557, October
12, 2004); Ford in Dearborn, Michigan (70 FR 21153, April 25, 2005); GM
in Janesville, Wisconsin (70 FR 71002, November 25, 2005); and, GM
Saturn in Spring Hill, Tennessee (70 FR 76168, December 23, 2005).      
    

Attachment 1

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1 

  PAGE  69 

