Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984-0112
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-01-19T05:00Z

Internet Daemon Owner <idaemon@mountain.epa.gov> 
05/31/2005 10:40 AM	To
James Michael/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, GailAnn Cooper/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
cc

bcc

Subject
(150104031) F019 Comment Submission
	

11e. Dr.

12. Last Name
Miller
13. First Name
William
14. Job Title
GM Technical Fellow
15. Organization
General Motors
16. Address
100 Saturn Parkway
17. City
Spring Hill
18. State
TN
19. Zip Code
37174
20. Telephone
931-486-7471
21. Fax
931-486-5069
22. E-mail
bill.r.miller@gm.com
23. Question/Comments
June 1, 2005

Mr. Robert W. Dellinger            Ms. Gail A. Cooper
Director                  Chief
Hazardous Waste Identification Division      Hazardous Waste Generation &
Office of Solid Waste                  Characterization Branch
5304W                     Office of Solid Waste
USEPA Headquarters               5304 W
Ariel Rios Building               US EPA Headquarters
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.         Ariel Rios Building
Washington, DC 20460            1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
                     Washington, DC 20460

Mr. James F. Michael
Senior RCRA Advisor
Hazardous Waste Generation & 
   Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste
5304W
US EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Cooper and Messrs. Dellinger and Michael:

Re: Comments of General Motors Corporation Regarding EPA’s Request for 
Comments
      on a Possible Amendment to Hazardous Waste Listing F019 Posted on 
OSWER’s 
      Website on April 22, 2005

We would like to first take this opportunity to thank EPA for its efforts 
to resolve the longstanding problem our industry has had with hazardous 
waste code F019.  We would like to divide our comments into two(2) general 
categories, namely – (1) an overview of the F019 problem and issues 
regarding the applicability of F019 to the automotive industry, and (2) 
Specific issues raised by EPA’s April 22, 2005 data release, synthesis, 
and suggested approach.

The F019 Problem and Issues Regarding the Applicability of F019 to the 
Automotive Industry

F019 Overview

Hazardous waste code F019 pertains to - 

 " 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" .  

On May 19, 1980 the EPA published an interim final regulation listing “ 
Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations” as EPA 
hazardous Waste No. F006 in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.  The hazardous 
constituents for which this waste was listed were cadmium, chromium, 
nickel, and complexed cyanide. In response to comments on this regulation, 
the listing was modified on November 12, 1980   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.

 In addition, EPA agreed with commenters that wastewater treatment sludges 
from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum would not be expected to 
contain hazardous levels of cadmium and nickel and thus, listed this waste 
separately as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019. The hazardous constituents for 
which EPA Hazardous Waste Code No. F019 was listed are hexavalent chromium 
and complexed cyanide.

On March 31, 1986 the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board issued what was 
known as the “US Nameplate Decision”.  US Nameplate was a Mount Vernon, 
Iowa company that made nameplates, i.e., plates for electric motors 
displaying the rating capacity for motors, by chemical etching. US 
Nameplate had been disposing of wastewater treatment plant sludges (WWTP) 
in an on-site lagoon since 1979. The State of Iowa and US EPA Region 7 
subsequently filed complaints against US Nameplate alleging that the WWTP 
sludge was F006; that US Nameplate had made untimely notification and 
permit application; and that US Nameplate had failed to implement a 
groundwater monitoring system. US Nameplate argued that EPA’s regulations 
were not clear that chemical etching was included in the scope of 
electroplating simply because it was referenced in a background document.

In an attempt to resolve confusion over the scope of F006 and F019, EPA 
issued an interpretive rule in 1986.  In that interpretive rule EPA left 
the F019 designation unchanged and stated that chemical conversion coating 
processes are not covered under F006. The unintended consequence of this 
interpretive rule is that aluminum is the only metal whose wastewater 
treatment sludges from chemical conversion coating are considered 
hazardous. 

Background Document

A point that should not be lost in this discussion is that the F019 
listing evolved out of EPA’s data collection efforts to support the 
development of pretreatment standards for the electroplating point source 
category. In the course of compiling those standards EPA looked 
exclusively at operations that chemical conversion coated just aluminum. 
Additionally, it is clear from the background document   that EPA’s focus 
was solely on operations that were chromate based and that the concern for 
cyanide was due to its use in the coloring of anodized aluminum. The 
automotive industry in the United States has never used processes like 
those described by EPA and would not until such time as an all aluminum or 
nearly all aluminum automobile or truck is produced. Despite these obvious 
points of departure from the intended sources to be regulated, the EPA 
continues to conclude that automotive zinc phosphating of aluminum is 
covered under hazardous waste code F019,  without regard to 1)!
  the quantity of aluminum used, 2) whether conversion coating actually 
occurs on aluminum, 3) whether conversion coating is intended for various 
aluminum parts,  4) the lack of chromate compounds or cyanide in the 
process ,or 5) the fact that the resulting sludge is not 
characteristically hazardous. A much more complete and technically correct 
approach to this problem would have been for EPA to conclude, like some 
states have done, that this waste code was never intended to apply to the 
zinc phosphating process used by the automotive industry in the United 
States.

Automotive Efforts to Resolve the F019 Issue

GM, as well as other automotive manufacturers (e.g., Ford, 
DaimlerChrysler, BMW, and Nissan) and various trade associations (e.g., 
The Aluminum Association, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, 
and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) have made numerous attempts 
over the years to bring some perspective to the applicability of the F019 
designation at automotive and truck assembly plant operations. Recent 
efforts have included the following:

Date   Activity
January 1997   Request to EPA OSW to clarify the scope of F019
May 1997   Automotive meeting with EPA OSW
August 1997   Automotive industry reached agreement on additional  
 information required by EPA
June 1998   Additional information submitted to EPA
October 1998   Data review with EPA OSW
January 1999   EPA OSW halted work on F019 due to budget cut backs
March 1999   Risk assessment conducted by the Aluminum Association
December 1999   Risk analysis presented to EPA OSW
March 2000   Risk analysis documentation submitted to EPA
April 2000   EPA OSW referred F019 matter to Region 5
June 2000   Automotive and aluminum companies meet with Region 5
August 2000   Region 5 rejects approach on QA/QC grounds
December 2000   Work underway with Michigan and Region 5 on 
an                                     expedited delisting for F019 wastes 
at automobile plants
December 2001   MOU between Michigan and Region 5 on expedited process
June 2003   Automotive industry contacted by EPA OSW about work on a  
national solution to the F019 issue
July 30, 2003   Four GM and two Ford plants are delisted using the 
expedited process
September 2003   Meeting in Detroit with EPA and automotive companies
December 2003   Meeting in Washington DC with EPA on national solution
April 22, 2005   EPA posts data and approach to F019 resolution on OSWER 
website

Throughout the timeframe captured above there have been twelve automobile 
and truck assembly plants that have gone through the process of delisting 
their wastes being handled as F019. It is estimated that these delisting 
efforts cost the automobile industry somewhere in the range of $600,000 – 
$1,000,000 in petition preparation costs alone. It has also been estimated 
that the total cost of the F019 issue to the automotive industry is in the 
range of $1/ car produced at plants handling their wastes as F019.

Criteria for Listing a Hazardous Waste

The Administrator of EPA can list a solid waste as a hazardous waste only 
upon determining that the solid waste meets one of the following criteria: 
(1) It exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified 
in 40 CFR 
   261 Subpart C.
(2) It has been found to be fatal to humans in low doses or, in the 
absence of data 
on human toxicity, it has been shown to be toxic in animal studies.
(3) It contains any of the toxic constituents listed in Appendix VIII and, 
after considering the following factors, the Administrator 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:
(i) The nature of the toxicity presented by the constituent.
(ii) The concentration of the constituent in the waste.
(iii) The potential of the constituent or any toxic degradation product of 
the 
   constituent to migrate from the waste into the environment under 
   improper management scenarios. 
(iv) The persistence of the constituent or any toxic degradation product 
of the 
   constituent.
(v) The potential for the constituent or any toxic degradation product of 
the
constituent to degrade into non-harmful constituents and the rate of   
degradation.
(vi) The degree to which the constituent or any degradation product of 
the    constituent bioaccumulates in ecosystems.
(vii) The plausible types of improper management to which the waste could 
be 
   subjected.
(viii) The quantities of the waste generated at individual generation 
sites or on a 
   regional or national basis.
(ix) The nature and severity of the human health and environmental damage 
that 
   has occurred as a result of the improper management of wastes    
   containing the constituent.
(x) Action taken by other governmental agencies or regulatory programs 
based 
   on the health or environmental hazard posed by the waste or waste 
   constituent.
(xi) Such other factors as may be appropriate. 

Criteria similar to these were originally used to generate the F019 
listing. A legitimate question for EPA would be – Given the data available 
to the Agency today from these thirteen datasets would the Agency have 
concluded that the zinc phosphating of metal parts, including aluminum, 
fall under the broad concern EPA had in 1980 for the waste category? GM 
submits that the data show there is not an environmental concern presented 
by these WWTP sludges and that the data show that the criteria listed 
above are not met by any wastes managed as F019 at automobile plants.

Specific Issues Raised by EPA’s April 22, 2005 Data Release, Synthesis, 
and Suggested Approach

GM has performed a preliminary review of the information released by EPA’s 
Office of Solid Waste and posted on the OSWER website. We offer the 
following observations:

1)   Due to the volume of information contained in the individual 
petitions, then transcribed by EPA into a Lotus 1-2-3 format, and then 
converted to a Microsoft Excel format GM was not given enough time to 
adequately QA/QC the data. We would suggest that any subsequent postings 
by EPA be presented in a more useable format and that adequate time be 
given to perform a review of the information.
2)   EPA appears to have taken the approach that the initial list of 
constituents of concern was derived by placing any chemical on the list 
that was detected in any of the thirteen (13) petitions in either of the 
total or TCLP fractions. This approach resulted in a list of fifty-five 
(55) initial constituents of concern. As a practical matter, GM is 
concerned that EPA continues to include delisting levels for total 
constituent concentrations in delisting rules. Total concentrations of a 
constituent in a waste do not indicate the waste’s potential to leach the 
constituent in a landfill and have no scientific correlation with 
environmental impacts.  GM finds it difficult to reconcile EPA’s initial 
constituent list of fifty-five (55) chemicals with the original F019 
listing  that focused on hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanide. For 
this reason GM requests that EPA remove the following chemicals from the 
initial list for assessment because they were not detected in any TCLP !
 fraction – acrolein, ally chloride, benzene, carbon disulfide, 
chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, di-n-Octyl phthalate, methyl 
chloride, methyl isobutyl ketone, styrene, and tetrachloroethylene.
3)   GM is concerned that are that there are numerous compounds, beyond 
those that should be removed due to the totals issue mentioned above, that 
should not be on the list. For example:
a.    EPA is well aware of the issues surrounding acrylamide that emerged 
during the expedited delisting effort in Region 5. It was subsequently 
determined, after GM spent over one year and $20,000, that acrylamide is 
not a constituent of concern at automobile and truck assembly plants. We 
request that EPA remove acrylamide from the list at the outset of their 
assessment. 
b.   Arsenic has historically presented a delisting challenge because 
facilities typically use EPA SW-846 Method 6010 to test for arsenic. This 
method has been shown in several delisting petitions to produce results 
that are two (2) to three (3) orders of magnitude higher than the true 
values established by SW-846 6020. For this reason we request that arsenic 
be removed from the list at the outset of the assessment.
c.   Due to the issues raised in comment #1 above GM has found it 
difficult to thoroughly determine to what extent EPA has factored data 
flags into their inclusion or exclusion of constituents of concern. 
However, a symptom of our concern relates to the inclusion of DDT on the 
initial list. A review of the original data for the Lansing petition 
indicated that the maximum value cited by EPA in the database of 0.00045 
mg/l by TCLP carried a data flag of “R” indicating that the result should 
be rejected. GM requests that EPA remove DDT from the list and that EPA 
only rely on data that carry appropriate data quality flags.
d.   EPA has included a number of chemicals on the initial list of 
constituents of concern that although detected in the TCLP fraction are 
not near a level of concern from a risk perspective. EPA in their April 
22, 2005 data release was silent on the issue of how the list of detected 
chemicals was going to screened, either prior to, or subsequent to a DRAS 
assessment. GM suggests that any chemical not within two (2) orders of 
magnitude of the concentration level of concern from the DRAS model not be 
included for further analysis.
4)   GM is concerned that EPA intends to use data from 1988 to justify 
choosing a thirty (30) year landfill life for use in running the DRAS 
model. The landfill landscape today is much different than in 1988. GM’s 
WWTP sludges are disposed in state-of-the-art, modern landfills that are 
characterized by having liners and leachate collection systems. 
Considering that most, if not all, of the delistings to date were the 
result of risk assessments using something different than thirty (30) 
years for the landfill life, GM requests that EPA comment on the impact of 
using a thirty (30) year landfill life in the DRAS model, particularly as 
it relates to the exit levels EPA is attempting to derive.
5)   EPA has given no indication as to how it will proceed from here – 
e.g., how DRAS will be used to narrow the list of chemicals, what criteria 
will be used to determine what’s on the final list, how plants who are 
already delisted will be treated, how de minimus amounts of aluminum will 
be handled, if facilities that do not use hexavalent chrome or cyanide 
will be excluded, or whether phosphating on aluminum even occurs at 
vehicle assembly facilities. 
6)   GM’s final technical comment is offered as an alternative to the 
apparent methodology EPA used to select the initial list of fifty-five 
(55) constituents of concern. To aid in this analysis GM reviewed the 
following final rules: 
a.   GM Lake Orion, MI – Fed. Reg. 62(206): 55344-55348 – October 24, 1997
b.   GM Lansing Car Assembly, MI – Fed. Reg. 65(95): 31096-31100 – May 16, 
2000
c.   BMW Greer, SC – Fed. Reg. 66(85):21877-21886 – May 2, 2001
d.   Nissan Smyrna, TN – Fed. Reg. 67(120):42187-42198 – June 21, 2002
e.   Ford Wayne, MI – Fed. Reg. 68(146): 44652-44659 – July 30, 2003
f.   Ford Wixom, MI - Fed. Reg. 68(146): 44652-44659 – July 30, 2003
g.   GM Flint, MI - Fed. Reg. 68(146): 44652-44659 – July 30, 2003
h.   GM Hamtramck, MI - Fed. Reg. 68(146): 44652-44659 – July 30, 2003
i.   GM Lansing Grand River, MI - Fed. Reg. 68(146): 44652-44659 – July 
30, 2003
j.   GM Pontiac, MI - Fed. Reg. 68(146): 44652-44659 – July 30, 2003
k.   DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North, MI – Fed. Reg.  69(38): 8828-8833 – 
February 26, 2004
l.   GM Lordstown, OH – Fed. Reg. 69(196): 60557-60560 – October 12, 2004
Each of the final rules above reflects a synthesis of extensive testing 
performed by the petitioners. In some cases the starting point for 
analyzing for constituents of concern was Appendix VIII   , Appendix IX   
, a negotiated list like that used by EPA Region 5 with the Ford and GM 
plants in 2003   and DaimlerChrysler in 2004 , or an alternative approach 
used by BMW and approved by EPA Region 4. In the case of the 
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and GM plants delisted in 2003 and 2004, EPA used a 
somewhat similar process to that envisioned here to arrive at a list of 
constituents of concern. GM proposes that EPA use the knowledge gained in 
these previous delistings to guide and focus the list of constituents of 
concern in the proposed rulemaking. For example, with the exception of the 
delisting for GM’s Lansing Car Assembly plant in 2000 the number of 
constituents of concern tested for in the verification testing, conducted 
subsequent to being delisted, has ranged from a low of 6 a!
 t BMW to a high of 15 at DaimlerChrysler and GM’s Hamtramck. In essence, 
these chemicals listed in each facility’s final rule represent EPA’s 
assessment of the constituents of concern.
GM suggests that rather than taking the approach that “if it’s detected it’
s on the list” EPA start with a list of chemicals that reflects the 
accumulated knowledge gained from the risk assessments conducted to 
generate the final rules for these twelve (12) plants.

In conclusion, GM appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA’s efforts 
to develop a solution to the F019 problem for the automotive industry. We 
note that in EPA’s most recent Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda   that EPA is 
projecting an action date of April 2006 for the publication of a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. We would urge EPA to expedite the resolution of this 
issue as much as possible due to the ongoing costs associated with wastes 
managed as hazardous waste code F019. 

If you have any questions regarding our comments please do not hesitate to 
contact me at (931) 486-7471 or via email at bill.r.miller@gm.com. 

Sincerely,

  /s/
William R. Miller III, Ph.D.
General Motors Technical Fellow

cc:  VIA EMail
   Terry Behrman – Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
   Gary Crouth – Alcoa
   José Cruz – GM WFG Env. Services
Michelle Fisher, Esq. – GM Legal Staff
   Bob Streiter – Aluminum Assoc.
   Lenora Strohm – GM WFG Env. Services
Steve Tomaszewski – GM WFG Env. Services
   Todd Williams – GM WFG Utilities Services
   
   

Host Environment
HTTP_USER_AGENT
submit
Send Question or Comment
------------------------------------------------
WARNING NOTICE
This electronic mail originated from a federal government
computer system of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).  Unauthorized access or use
of this EPA system may subject violators to criminal,
civil and/or administrative action.  For official
purposes, law enforcement and other authorized personnel
may monitor, record, read, copy and disclose all
information which an EPA system processes.  Any person's
access or use, authorized and unauthorized, of this EPA 
system to send electronic mail constitutes consent to these
terms.

------------------------------------------------
This information is for tracking purposes only.
Submitting script: /cgi-bin/mail.cgi
Submitting host: 198.208.159.14 (198.208.159.14)
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; H010818)
Referred: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/f019-form.htm
TSSMS: epaoswer
Mail to File: f019.txt
------------------------------------------------