16.01.2013 Views

Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

RHC«.IOG LlSl tSoLi^<br />

l>i>u:-k.<br />

5t.t/aA S^uJo<br />

(60%)<br />

PMP<br />

T<br />

T>rOYK PPkC. 1,2.<br />

•pf>tA(ait^ tt;)a4«.v"<br />

>ltf<br />

Tr'+w.t —^DOl<br />

or iv F^c.2<br />

,» JV<br />

ji<br />

-^<br />

V\<br />

5UlP<br />

TYUXC<br />

- -- -> ooz


IVA<br />

(i£CCl0 9 LialSouiP<br />

(80%)<br />

Pj^OJcT M^M^a6Me^or ^LA>-5<br />

9t€.-Wdf<br />

PMP<br />

T<br />

Troyj.V^C.\,Z<br />

^-r^AcetJt' iL?a4tf.t"<br />

>*;<br />

N/<br />

-to<br />

-><br />

PRDODCT^<br />

ji<br />

1-7^<br />

A "To t:*.c.l,z,?<br />

-« ,v<br />

' ^ ' I I I •'•• I 11<br />

ST02.H<br />

5Ulp<br />

-^ - -> OOZ


IVA<br />

RscciOG liS^iSoi^ip<br />

U lO ^ XMD. W<br />

(60%)<br />

Pl^0t3£-T Mb.M(k6.6M£K3r ^LA.O<br />

Pf^P<br />

T<br />

FroM IP^C. l,Z<br />

^T<br />

—J IV<br />

5Utp<br />

Tyujc4c<br />

....--) ooz


IVA<br />

Pt(e<br />

fec€.lOg LlSltSoLl^<br />

V4-\A^ ^ IMP. W<br />

(60%)<br />

?M?<br />

T<br />

FyowA. T^l^C. l,Z<br />

pRocest)<br />

F^c.L23<br />

4 /»><br />

Bind ii\ told4/ i<br />

PRDDDCT<br />

6T0U^a£<br />

- - J<br />

fT>«.4tajti- u.?24 OOZ


IVA<br />

feccioc LlSiiSoi^ii?<br />

Ur\J^ ^ IMP. W<br />

(60%)<br />

PMP<br />

T<br />

Fvow^ P^C. \,Z<br />

j^TfAtejti- u^toi?<br />

- -. -> OOZ


OJ<br />

Inspection<br />

Authority<br />

Recordkeeping<br />

Authority<br />

Table 1<br />

AUTHORITIES GRANTED UNDER FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATDNS<br />

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE/CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS<br />

Air Water Supeiiuhd Pesticides Solid Waste Drinking Water Toxics<br />

CAA114<br />

40 CFR 80.4,86*<br />

CWA 308. 402<br />

40 CFR 122.41,<br />

233.7<br />

CAA 114. 208, 311 CWA 308, 402<br />

40 CFR 51, 60. 79" 40 CFR 122.41,<br />

122.48, 233.7.<br />

233.11<br />

Confklential CAA 208,307 CWA 308<br />

Intormation<br />

(40 CFR 2.201-2.215) 40 CFR 2.301,53, 40 CFR 2.302,<br />

57,80 122.7,233.18<br />

Emergency Authority<br />

Emptoyee Protectkjn<br />

Penalties<br />

CAA 303<br />

CAA 322<br />

CAA 113<br />

CWA 504<br />

40 CFR 233.38<br />

CWA 507<br />

CWA 309<br />

40 CFR 233.28<br />

CERCLA 104 FIFRA 8, 9<br />

40 CFR 160.15.<br />

169.3<br />

CERCLA 103 FIFRA 4. 8<br />

40 CFR 160.63,<br />

160.185-195, 169.<br />

171.11<br />

CERCLA 104 FIFRA 7.10<br />

CERCLA 104,106<br />

CERCLA 110<br />

CERCLA 103,112<br />

EPC 325<br />

40 CFR 2.307<br />

FIFRA 27<br />

40CFR164, 166<br />

FIFRA 12.14<br />

RCRA 3007. 9005<br />

40 CFR 270.30<br />

RCRA 3001, 3002,<br />

3003, 3004, 9003<br />

40 CFR 262.40.<br />

263.22. 264.74,<br />

264.279. 264.309.<br />

265.74. 265.94,<br />

265.279, 265.309.<br />

270.30. 270.31<br />

SDWA1445<br />

40 CFR 144.51.<br />

14i34<br />

SDWA1445<br />

40 CFR 144.51.<br />

144.54. 141.31-33<br />

RCRA 3007. 9005 SDWA 1445<br />

40 CFR 2.305.<br />

260.2. 270.12<br />

RCRA 7003<br />

40 CFR 122.7<br />

RCRA 7001<br />

RCRA 3008. 9006<br />

40 CFR 2.304.<br />

144.5<br />

SDWA 1431<br />

40 CFR 144.34<br />

SDWA 1450<br />

SDWA 1423. 1424.<br />

1431. 1432. 1441<br />

TSCA11<br />

40 CFR 717.17.<br />

792.15<br />

TSCA8<br />

40 CFR 704. 710.<br />

717.5. 720.78. 761.<br />

761.180. 762.60,<br />

763.144. 792.185-<br />

195<br />

TSCA 14<br />

40 CFR 2.306.<br />

704.7. 707.75.<br />

710.7. 712.15.<br />

717.19. 720.85-95,<br />

750.16. 750.36,<br />

762.60, 763.74<br />

TSCA 7<br />

TSCA 23<br />

TSCA 15.16<br />

86.0777, 86.078-7, 86.441-78, 86.606, 86.1006.89<br />

51.320-328, 57.105. 57.305, 57.404, 58, 60.7, 61.10, 61.24, 61.69-71, 79.5, 85.407, 85.1086. 85.1906, 86.077-7, 86.084-39 <strong>and</strong> 40. 86.144-78 through 82, 86.542-78.<br />

86.609, 86.1009-84


Tuesclay<br />

Januaiy 23, 1990<br />

Part HI<br />

<strong>Environmental</strong><br />

<strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Agency</strong><br />

40 CFB Parts 26a, 261 <strong>and</strong> 262<br />

llininft Waste Excfuslon; Section 3010<br />

Notffltatton for lUaarai <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

FadHUes; Designaited FacWIy E>ef!nltion;<br />

St<strong>and</strong>arda ApplTcable to Generators of<br />

Hazardous Wael^ Fbtal Rule<br />

CiiD2lf'0\}0O^


2322 Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations<br />

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION<br />

AGENCY<br />

40 CFR Parts 260,261 <strong>and</strong> 262<br />

[SWH-FRL-3699-3; EPA/OSW-FR-90-013]<br />

Mining Waste Exclusion; Section 3010<br />

Notification for Mineral <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

Facilities; Designated Facility<br />

Definition; St<strong>and</strong>ards Applicable to<br />

Generators of Hazardous Waste<br />

AGETJCY: <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Protection</strong><br />

<strong>Agency</strong>.<br />

ACTION: Final rale.<br />

SUMMARY: Today's final rule removes<br />

five of 20 condibonally retained mineral<br />

processing wastes from the exemption<br />

from hazardous waste regulations<br />

provided by section 3001(b){3)(A)(ii) of<br />

the Resource Conservation <strong>and</strong><br />

Recovery Act (RCRA), often referred to<br />

as the Bc-vill exclusion. The five wastes<br />

removed from the Bevill exclusion by<br />

today's final rule are: Furnace off-gas<br />

solids from elemental phosphorus<br />

production, process wastewater from<br />

primary lead processing, air pollution<br />

control dust/sludge from lightweight<br />

aggregate production, sulfate process<br />

waste acids from titanium dioxide<br />

production, <strong>and</strong> sulfate process waste<br />

solids &om titanium dioxide production.<br />

Wastes removed from the exclusion are<br />

subject to hazardous waste regulations<br />

if they are found to exhibit a hazardous<br />

characteristic or are otherwise identified<br />

or listed as ba2ardous.<br />

Three wastes previously proposed on<br />

September 25.1989 (54 FR 39298), for<br />

removal from the Bevill exclusion are<br />

retained undor the exclusion by this<br />

final rule. Those three wastes are: (1)<br />

Treated residue from roastiiig/leachiiig<br />

of chrome ore: (2) process wastewater<br />

from coal gasification: <strong>and</strong> (3) process<br />

wastewater from hydrolfluoric add<br />

production. The Bevill exclusion also la<br />

retained for 12 of the original 13 other<br />

conditonally retained wastes, which will<br />

be addressed, along with 5 other wastes<br />

in a Report to Congress <strong>and</strong> subsequent<br />

Reg-jldtcry Determination by January 31.<br />

1991.<br />

Today's rule makes technical<br />

corrections to the definition of<br />

"beneficiation" that was promulgated on<br />

September 1.1989 (54 FR 30582) <strong>and</strong> also<br />

waives the RCRA Section 3010<br />

notification deadline for mineral<br />

processing facilities that are located in<br />

authorized slates <strong>and</strong> that generate<br />

wastes removed from the exclusion in<br />

the September 1.1988 final rule. Because<br />

of confusion expressed by the regulated<br />

community in response to statements<br />

made in the preamble of the September<br />

1 rule, today 8 rule also extends the<br />

RCRA Section 3010 notification deadline<br />

for mineral processing faciliMes that are<br />

located in unauthorized states <strong>and</strong> that<br />

generate wastes removed from the<br />

exclusion by the September 1,1989 Hnal<br />

rule. Notification will now be required in<br />

unauthorized states by April 23,1990.<br />

Today's final rule also amends the<br />

RCRA Subtitle C definition of<br />

"designated facility" <strong>and</strong> the st<strong>and</strong>ards<br />

applicable to generators of hazardous<br />

waste to clarify the requirements for<br />

completing hazardous waste shipment<br />

manifests for transporting wastes from<br />

one state where they are regulated as<br />

hazardous to another in which they are<br />

not regulated as hazardous.<br />

DATES: Effective Date: July 23.1990. Not<br />

later than April 23,1990, all persons in<br />

unauthorized states who generate,<br />

transport, treat, store, or dispose of<br />

wastes removed from temporary<br />

exclusion by this rule or the September<br />

1,1989 final rule <strong>and</strong> which are<br />

characteristically hazardous under 40<br />

CFR part 281, subpart C must notify<br />

EPA of these activities pursuant to<br />

section 3010 of RCRA.<br />

See sections V <strong>and</strong> VI of the preamble<br />

below for additional d^'es <strong>and</strong> details.<br />

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT<br />

RCRA/Superfund Motlne at (800) 424-<br />

9348 or (202) 382-3000, or for technical<br />

information contact Dan Derides or Bob<br />

Hall, U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Protection</strong><br />

<strong>Agency</strong>, 401 M Street SW, Washington,<br />

DC 2046a (202) 382-3608, or (202) 475-<br />

8814, respectively.<br />

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:<br />

Table of Contents<br />

L Introduction<br />

A. Context<br />

& Overview of Today't Rule<br />

C Future Activities<br />

n. AnalytU of <strong>and</strong> Response to Public<br />

Commenti on Bevill Status of 20 Mineral<br />

<strong>Process</strong>ing Wastes Proposed on<br />

September 2S. 1989<br />

A. General Comments on EPA's<br />

Application of Ihe Final Bevill Criteria<br />

E Comments on the 13 Waste Streams<br />

Proposed for Retention<br />

C Comments on the Seven Wastes<br />

i'roposed for Removal<br />

D. RaUbonship of the Proposed Rule to<br />

Subtitle C of RCRA<br />

E. Costs <strong>and</strong> Impacts of the Proposed Rule<br />

F. Requests for Qarificatior.i/Technical<br />

Corrections on the September 1,1960,<br />

Final Rule<br />

C. Concerns with Administrative Procedure<br />

111. Revised Application of the Final Criteria<br />

for Defining Bevill Mineral <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

Wattes<br />

A QanTicaUon of Waste Stream<br />

DefiniUons<br />

B. Compliance with the iligh Volume<br />

Criterion<br />

C Compliance with the Low Hazard<br />

Criterion<br />

D. Bevill Status of Conditionally Retained<br />

Mineral <strong>Process</strong>ing Wastes<br />

rv. Analysis of <strong>and</strong> Response to Comments<br />

on Clarification to the Defmition of<br />

"Designated Facility" <strong>and</strong> Modifica;i-.:-<<br />

of the St<strong>and</strong>ards Applicable to<br />

Generators of Hazardous Waste<br />

A. General Comments on the Propc;?d<br />

Definition<br />

B. Relationship Between Today's<br />

Clarification <strong>and</strong> Non-RCRA Stare<br />

Hazardous Wastes<br />

C. Who Can Qualify as a designated<br />

Facility?<br />

D. Which St<strong>and</strong>ards Apply to Interstate<br />

Shipinents<br />

E. Other Comments<br />

F. Manifesting Requirements<br />

V. Regulatory Implementation <strong>and</strong> Effei.-tivt><br />

Dates of the Final Rule<br />

A. Section 3010 Notification<br />

B. Compliance Dates for Today's Rule<br />

VI. Effect on State Authorizations<br />

VII. Economic Impact Screening Anaiysl^i<br />

Pursuant to Executive Order \Z23\<br />

A. Approach<br />

B. Aggregate <strong>and</strong> Sector Compliance Costs<br />

C Economic Impacts<br />

VUI. Regulatory Fle.xibiiity Analysis<br />

DC List of SubjecU in 40 CFR 260. 281 <strong>and</strong> 262<br />

L Introduction<br />

A. Context<br />

Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the<br />

Resource Conservation <strong>and</strong> Recovery<br />

Act (RCRA) temporarily excludes "solid<br />

waste from the extraction, beneficiation.<br />

<strong>and</strong> processing of ores <strong>and</strong> minerals '<br />

from regulation as hazardous waste<br />

under Subtitle C of RCRA. pending<br />

completion of certain studies by EP.^. In<br />

1980, EPA temporarily interpreted th;s<br />

exclusion, often referred to as the Bevill<br />

exclusion, to encompass "solid waste<br />

from the exploration, mining, milling,<br />

smelting <strong>and</strong> refining of ores <strong>and</strong><br />

minerals" (45 FR 78619. November 19.<br />

1980).<br />

In response to the decision of the<br />

District of Columbia Circuit Court of<br />

Appeals in <strong>Environmental</strong> Defense Fund<br />

V. EPA. 852 F.2d 1318, (D.C. Cir. 1988),<br />

cert denied. 109 S.Ct. 1120 (1989). EPA<br />

proposed criteria by which mineral<br />

processing wastes would be evaluated<br />

for continued exclusion from hazardous<br />

waste regulation until the required<br />

studies <strong>and</strong> subsequent regulatory<br />

determination was made. On September<br />

1.1989 (see 54 FR 36592). EPA provided<br />

the final Bevill exclusion criteria.<br />

Twenty mineral processing wastes were<br />

conditionally retained within the scope<br />

of the Bevill exclusion pending the<br />

analysis of newly collected data. The<br />

Bevill exemption was retained for the<br />

following five mineral processing<br />

wastes, which will be studied in a<br />

Report to Congress.<br />

1. Slag from primary copper processing


M<br />

2324 Federal Ragiater / Vol 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulationa<br />

language of September 1 Bnai rule.<br />

These changes are fuQy described in<br />

Section IL<br />

In addition, EPA is pramulgating a<br />

clarification to the definition of<br />

"Designated Facility" as defined in 40<br />

CFR 260.10. The <strong>Agency</strong> is amending<br />

this definition for purposes of clarifying<br />

the requirements for completing<br />

hazardous waste manifests for wastes<br />

transported fiom one State where they<br />

are regulated as hazardous to another in<br />

which they are not regtilated as<br />

hazardous. Today's clarification allows<br />

such generators to ship the waste to a<br />

facility in an authorized State in which<br />

the waste is not yet regulated as<br />

hazardous, as long as the facility<br />

receiving the wastes is allowed by the<br />

State to receive the waste. This rule also .<br />

clarifies that it is the responsibility of<br />

the generator to assure that any out-ofstate<br />

transporter <strong>and</strong> designated facility<br />

sign the manifest form that accompanies<br />

the waste shipment.<br />

C. Future Activities<br />

This rule establishes the boundaries<br />

of the temporary exdusiao from<br />

hazardous wute regulations for ndneral<br />

processing wastes provided by RCRA<br />

section 3001(b](3)(A)(ii]. All 20 mineral<br />

processing wastes fbr which the Berill<br />

exclusion has been retained will l>e<br />

subject to detailed study by EPA.^ The<br />

frndings of these studies will be<br />

contained in a Report to Congress that<br />

will be submitted by Jtdy 31.1990.<br />

Six months after submission of this<br />

report the <strong>Agency</strong> will publish a<br />

Regulatory Determination stating<br />

whether or not any of the studied<br />

wastes will be regulated nnder Ssbtitle<br />

C of RCRA as hazardous srastes. or that<br />

such regulation Is tmwarranted.<br />

II. Analysis of axMi Response to Poblk<br />

Comments on BevIO Statue of 20 Mbseral<br />

<strong>Process</strong>ing Wastaa Propoeed on<br />

September 25.1389<br />

This section summarizes aad<br />

discusses the commenla wceived oa the<br />

September 25.1989 proposaL In general.<br />

this discussion is IhnitsfftD Ifaa issoea<br />

germane to the SeptanflMT 29th proposaL<br />

Comments on other iaaaiM are not<br />

discussed here, except ia a few<br />

instances where the <strong>Agency</strong> believes it<br />

is important to restate its position to<br />

avoid confusion or misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing in<br />

the regulated conununity. The <strong>Agency</strong><br />

did review all of the comments received,<br />

however, <strong>and</strong> comments not discussed<br />

' Thaa* inciuda the flvt waitn far wtuch tfas<br />

temponry txdiulup arai rtiatati tn tk* Ssptnnbar<br />

t. 19ee aoai riU lad dM IS WMlw in wWck *•<br />

(ladiaioa • nlsiMil la iDday's ral&<br />

here are summarized in a background<br />

document in the docket<br />

A. General Comments on EPA's<br />

Application ofthe Final Bevill Criteria<br />

1. Sources of Volmne <strong>and</strong> Hazard Data<br />

a. Volume Data. One commenter<br />

argued that the volume data supporting<br />

the proposed determinations of whether<br />

proposed waste streams are high volume<br />

lack adequate verification. Specifically,<br />

the commenter contended that<br />

tremendous discrepancies are evident<br />

between the data provided by<br />

commenters <strong>and</strong> the data reported from<br />

the 1989 National Survey of Solid<br />

Wastes from Mineral <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

Facilities for the following four waste<br />

streams: Coal gas process wastewater,<br />

elemental phosphorous furnace off-gas<br />

solids, lead process wastewater, <strong>and</strong><br />

titanium dioxide sulfate pn>ce8s waste<br />

solids.<br />

EPA agrees that some of the data<br />

reported in the comments <strong>and</strong> the data<br />

bora the surveys that were used in<br />

developing waste volume estimates for<br />

the proposal are not in close agreement<br />

As a residt in developing today's rule,<br />

tbe <strong>Agency</strong> has relied almost<br />

exdnsively oa data coUected in tbe 1989<br />

National Survey of Solid Wastes from<br />

Mineral <strong>Process</strong>ing Facilities, wiiicfa was<br />

conducted under RCRA Section 3007<br />

authority, under the assumption that the<br />

variona respondents realize that<br />

submission of false data is a ptmishable<br />

offense. The <strong>Agency</strong> believes that these<br />

are tbe most recent <strong>and</strong> accurate data<br />

availabie.<br />

Additional analysis of responses to<br />

the siiiveys, cairieid out in response to<br />

thesa oooments. has indicated some<br />

variabilily in the way in which<br />

respeodeals iaterprcted the survey<br />

instnietiona. In developing the proposed<br />

rule, EPA relied primarily on the<br />

responses to survey question 2.11 ("How<br />

much el tbe special waste did this<br />

processing unit gena«te in 1988?") to<br />

derive tbe average facility waste<br />

volumes. Additional review cl the<br />

survey responses has indicated that in<br />

sooM tnetances the volume data that tbe<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> expected to be reported in<br />

response to question 2.11 were in fact<br />

reported in other sections of the<br />

questioanaira that requested<br />

Infonnatioa related to waste treatment<br />

plants, surface impoundments <strong>and</strong> other<br />

waste management units (Le., sections 4<br />

through A.] *<br />

* TW occurs eBod oftia lor tiM (hr« wuiw tftat<br />

art orwarad by lUs rmiaoakins for whicb data «•«<br />

(MX tpartflrsllir raquattad te ite turvay. Apparcaiiy,<br />

a oumbar at bkClUty oparalora eiliiar aasJeclad to<br />

raae, Mtamoaistoo^ or lnjiutad ttha nau ui.uun ta<br />

provide In/ormation on way wane that Ukay<br />

As a consequence. EPA has been<br />

careful to select the response to the<br />

appropriate survey question (which<br />

sometimes is not question 2.11} in<br />

developing today's final rule. For<br />

example, the appropriate waste volume<br />

data were sometimes provided in<br />

response to question 4.18 ("What was •<br />

the quantity of sludge/solid outflows<br />

from this wastewater treatment plant in<br />

1988?"), question 5.6 ("Approximately<br />

how much of the total amoimt of<br />

accumulated sludge/solids in this<br />

siuface impoundment on December 31,<br />

1988 was added during 1988?"). or<br />

question 8.4 ("What were the inflows to<br />

this waste management unit <strong>and</strong> what<br />

was the quantity of each inflow in<br />

19887']. In those cases where responses<br />

to questions contained in sections 4<br />

through 6 of the survey have been<br />

selected for use by the <strong>Agency</strong>, the<br />

responses are in much better agreement<br />

with the data provided in comments. In<br />

a nimiber of cases, as discussed more<br />

fully in section m. below, estimated<br />

waste generation rates have been<br />

revised, <strong>and</strong> in fact in a few instances,<br />

the <strong>Agency</strong>'s evaluation of whether<br />

pai'iicular waste streams comply with<br />

the hi^ volimie criterion has been<br />

reversed. Documentation addressing the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s calculation of waste volumes<br />

can \M found in the docket supporting<br />

this final rule.<br />

Tbe commenter also criticized the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> for liberally granting<br />

Confidential Bosiness Information (CBI)<br />

designations to responses submitted by<br />

industry respondents to the National<br />

Survey. These designations, they<br />

claimed, have impeded independent<br />

verification of the volume data, noting<br />

that for residue from roastingAeaching<br />

of chrome ore <strong>and</strong> titanium dioxide<br />

sulfate process waste acids, all of the<br />

facilities generating these waste streams<br />

designated their relevant survey data as<br />

CBI. The commenter stated that if the<br />

public is unable to scrutinize these data<br />

because of their confidentiality, then the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> should make a professional<br />

verification of the information provided.<br />

Under the provisions of section 3007<br />

of RCRA, facilities providing<br />

information to EPA can designate<br />

information. In whole or in part as CBI.<br />

EPA has not automatically granted<br />

claims for CBI status. Rather, EPA<br />

reviewed the CBI claims made for data<br />

submitted by mineral processing<br />

facilities in suppoit of this rulemaking<br />

<strong>and</strong>. when claims for CBI status<br />

appeared excessive, requested, often<br />

successfully, that tbe CBI claims be<br />

coniidarati aUgibla for Bavin tlalna. Irmpecnve of<br />

whathar tt waa an EPA'i pnllminory IML


Federal Regiater / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations 232<br />

2. Slag from primary lead processing.<br />

3. Red <strong>and</strong> brown muds from bauxite<br />

refining.<br />

4. Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid<br />

production.<br />

5. Slag from elemental phosphorus<br />

production.<br />

All of the other mineral processing<br />

wastes that were permanenUy removed<br />

from the Bevill exclusion by the<br />

September 1.1989 rule are subject to<br />

RCRA SubtiUe C regulation if they are<br />

solid wastes <strong>and</strong> exhibit one or more of<br />

the characteristics of hazardous waste<br />

as defined in 40 CFR part 281 or are<br />

otherwise listed as hazardous waste.<br />

On September 25,1989 (54 FR 39298).<br />

EPA reevaluated the status of the 20<br />

conditionally retained wastes. Applying<br />

the high volume <strong>and</strong> low hazard criteria<br />

contained in the September 1,1989 final<br />

rule, the <strong>Agency</strong> proposed to<br />

permanently remove seven mineral<br />

processing wastes £rom the Bevill<br />

exclusion <strong>and</strong> retain 13 other mineral<br />

process'mg wastes within the exclusion<br />

for study in a Report to Congress. The<br />

seven mineral processing wastes<br />

proposed for removal from the Bevill<br />

exclusion were:<br />

1. Roast/leach ore residue from primary<br />

chromjta production:<br />

Z <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from coal<br />

gasifies doa'<br />

1 Furnace off-gas solids Gram elemental<br />

phosphorus production;<br />

4. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from hydrofluoric<br />

add productioo:<br />

i. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from primary lead<br />

processing;<br />

a. Sulfate process waste adds from<br />

titsniura dioxide productios: snd<br />

7. Sulfate process waste solids from<br />

titanium dioxide production.<br />

Tbe 13 mineral processing wastes<br />

proposed for temporary retention in the<br />

Bevill exclusion were:<br />

1. Caslfler ash froa coal gasification:<br />

2. Caldun sulfate wastewater txeatment<br />

plant sludge from primary copper proceasia^<br />

3. Slag tailings from primary copper<br />

processing:<br />

4. Fluorogypsum boa hydraflooric add<br />

production:<br />

5. Air peUutloa cooirol dnst/sludfs from<br />

iron blast fumaoeai<br />

0. Iron blast hniiaaa slac<br />

7. Air poUutlaa ooBtrot awt/sludge from<br />

lighrweigfat agsregaie prodnctiaa:<br />

8. <strong>Process</strong> wastewetv from primary<br />

magnesium productiaa tqr the anhydrous<br />

process:<br />

0. ProcMs wastewater from phosphoric<br />

add production:<br />

la Basic oxygen furnace <strong>and</strong> open hearth<br />

fumaca air pollution control dust/sludge from<br />

carbon steel production:<br />

11. Basic oxygen furnace <strong>and</strong> open hearth<br />

furnace slag from carbon steel production:<br />

1Z Chloride process waste solids from<br />

Utaniuffl letrachiorida production: <strong>and</strong><br />

13. Slag from primary zinc proceaaing.<br />

The September 25,1989 notice also .<br />

proposed to modify the RCRA subtitie C<br />

definition of "designated facility" iot<br />

purposes of clarifying the requirements<br />

for completing hazardous waste<br />

manifests for wastes transported from<br />

one State where they are regulated as<br />

hazardous to another in which they are<br />

not regulated as hazardous. Under the<br />

proposed modification, if a waste is sent<br />

to an authorized State where the waste<br />

is not regulated as hazardous, then the<br />

designated facility must be a facility<br />

allowed by the State to accept the<br />

waste. The <strong>Agency</strong> solicited public<br />

comments on the appropriateness of<br />

these modifications as well as on the<br />

data used to make the proposed Bevill<br />

exclusion decisions.<br />

B. Overview of Today's Rule<br />

Today's final rule establishes the<br />

status of 20 mineral processing wastes<br />

which were proposed either for removal<br />

from or retention in the Bevill exclusion<br />

in the September 25.1989 notice of<br />

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In<br />

addition, today's rule contains technical<br />

corrections to the September 1,1989<br />

final rule. Furthermore, today's final rule<br />

also promulgates a clarification to the<br />

definition of "designated facility" that<br />

the <strong>Agency</strong> proposed on September 25.<br />

1989.<br />

This final rule completes the<br />

rulemaking regarding the Bevill status of<br />

mineral processing wastes until the<br />

completion of tbe required report to<br />

Congress <strong>and</strong> Regulatory Determination.<br />

In establishing the current status for<br />

these 20 mineral processing wastes, the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> has considered information<br />

presented in public comment on the<br />

September 25 proposal together with<br />

additional analysis of previous EPA<br />

industry siu-vey <strong>and</strong> field data <strong>and</strong>.<br />

where appropriate, has modified the<br />

decisions.<br />

As in tbe September 25 proposaL the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> evaluated the 20 mineral<br />

processing wastes by applying the high<br />

volume <strong>and</strong> low hazard criteria<br />

contained in the September 1.1989 final<br />

rule, using a three-step pnKess. Pint<br />

tbe <strong>Agency</strong> applied the high volume<br />

criteria to tbe available waste<br />

generation data. For each waste, the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> obtained facility-specific annual<br />

waste generation rates for the period<br />

19e3--1968 <strong>and</strong> calculated the highest<br />

average annual facility-level generation<br />

rate. Mineral pnx:es8ing wastes<br />

generated above the volume criteria<br />

thresholds (an average rate of 45,000<br />

metric tons per facility for non-liquid<br />

wastes, <strong>and</strong> 1.000.000 metric tons for<br />

liquid wastes) passed the high volume<br />

criterioa<br />

In the second, step, the <strong>Agency</strong><br />

evaluated each of the 20 wastes with<br />

respect to the low hazard criterion usin<br />

the relevant waste characteristics. EPA<br />

considered a waste to pose a low hazar<br />

only if the waste passed both a toxicity<br />

test (Method 1312) <strong>and</strong> a pH test.<br />

The third step involved consolidatinc<br />

the results from the first two steps to<br />

determine the appropriate Bevill status<br />

of the 20 conditionally retained mineral<br />

processing wastes. Applying these<br />

criteria, the <strong>Agency</strong> is today removfng<br />

the Bevill exclusion for the folloyving<br />

five mineral processing wastes:<br />

1. Furnace off-gas solids from elemental<br />

phosphorus production.<br />

2. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from piimat7 lead<br />

processing.<br />

3. Air pollution control dust/sludge from<br />

lightweight aggregate production.<br />

4. Sulfate process waste acids from<br />

titanium dioxide production.<br />

5. Sulfate process waste solids from<br />

titanium dioxide production.<br />

The following 15 mineral processing<br />

wastes are to be retained within the<br />

exclusion (in addition to thefive alreac<br />

retained in the September 1 rule),<br />

pending preparation of a Report to<br />

Congress <strong>and</strong> the subsequent Reguiato:<br />

Determination:<br />

1. Treated residue from roasting/leaching<br />

of chrome ore;<br />

2. Gasifier ash from coal gasification:<br />

3. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from coal<br />

gasification:<br />

4. Caldum sulfate wastewater treatment<br />

plant sludge from primary copper processin<br />

5. Slag tailings from primary copper<br />

processing<br />

e. Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid<br />

production:<br />

7. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from hydrofluoric<br />

add production:<br />

8. Air pollution control dust/sludge from<br />

iron blast furnaces;<br />

8. Iron blast fomaca slag:<br />

la <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from primary<br />

magnesitmi production by the anhydrous<br />

process:<br />

11. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from phosphoiic<br />

add production:<br />

12. Basic oxygen furnace <strong>and</strong> open hearth<br />

fumaca air poUuUon control dust/sludge in<br />

carbon steel production:<br />

13. Basic oxygen fumaca <strong>and</strong> open hearth<br />

furnace slag from carbon steel production:<br />

14. Chloride process waste solids from<br />

titanium tetradiloride productioi\: <strong>and</strong><br />

15. Slag from primary zinc processing.<br />

Today's rule also contains technical<br />

corrections to tbe September 1.1989<br />

final nile. The <strong>Agency</strong>'s review of the<br />

final rule, as weU as public comments,<br />

revealed slight differences between<br />

portions of the regulatory language anc<br />

the corresponding discussion in the<br />

preamble. As a result today's rule<br />

includes minor editorial changes to the


2328 Federal Regiater / Vol. 55, No. IS / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules aad RegulatloM<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has considered the<br />

comment <strong>and</strong> finds these arguments<br />

unconvincing. EPA believes that the<br />

type of reagent used is an important<br />

factor in determining the chemical<br />

nature <strong>and</strong> quantity of tbe sludge<br />

generated. As explained in the preamble<br />

to the April, 1989 proposed rule (54 FR<br />

15318), EPA believes that there are<br />

significant differences between these<br />

materials, <strong>and</strong> accordingly, has retained<br />

this distinction in today's final rule.<br />

b. Volume. Three commenters<br />

addressed the volume data for this<br />

waste. One commenter agreed with<br />

EPA's determination that calcium<br />

sulfate wastewater treatment plant<br />

sludge meets the high volume criterion.<br />

Another commenter contended that all<br />

wastewater treatment plant sludge front<br />

primary copper processing should be<br />

studied under the BeviU Amendment If<br />

the generation rates for calcium sulfate<br />

<strong>and</strong> sodium hydroxide sludges are<br />

added, they noted, the resulting average<br />

is above the 45.000 metric ton per year<br />

cutoff. The third commenter claimed<br />

that public comment data submitted by<br />

waste generators <strong>and</strong> survey data for<br />

those same wastes are net consistent<br />

The third commenter noted that in<br />

public comments, industry submitted an<br />

average annual generation rate for<br />

calcium sulfate wastewater treatment<br />

plant sludge from primaiy copper<br />

processing of 75,750 MT/yr (comments<br />

of Kennecott Utah Copper on October<br />

20.1988 NPR\f), while according to<br />

EPA's survey data, the average<br />

generation rate for this waste stream<br />

was 1.179,341 MT/yr. Because these<br />

data are not in agreement tbe third<br />

commenter concluded that all of the<br />

volume data are suspect especially<br />

when EPA had previously estimated an<br />

annual generation rate of 38.033 MT/yr,<br />

a volume that would not have supported<br />

a high volume determination.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> agrees that the volume<br />

data cited by the commenter appear to<br />

be inconsistent The <strong>Agency</strong> has<br />

reviewed the survey data <strong>and</strong> found that<br />

these apparent incooaiateacies arise<br />

from the fact that appnpdate wasta<br />

volume data sometlmea were reported in<br />

sectioiu 3 through 0 of Aa<br />

questionnaire, rather thaa section 2,<br />

which was used to develop average<br />

volume data for the proposed rule. As a<br />

result, these differences have since been<br />

rf?solved <strong>and</strong> are explained in Section<br />

UL below, <strong>and</strong> a background document<br />

in the docket which present tbe<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s revised waste generation<br />

estimates. Finally. EPA's previous<br />

volume estimate of approximstely 38.000<br />

V(T/yr average per facility was based<br />

un un aggregation of calcium sulfate <strong>and</strong><br />

sodium hydroxide sludge, which tbe<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> has concluded is<br />

Inappropriate. *<br />

c. Hazard. Two commenters<br />

addressed the hazard level of calcium<br />

sulfate wastewater treatment plant<br />

sludge from primary copper processing.<br />

One agreed with EPA's proposed<br />

determination that the waste meets<br />

EPA's low hazard criterion. However,<br />

another commenter asserted that EPA's<br />

sampling data demonstrated that<br />

calciimi sulfate wastewater treatment<br />

sludge from primary copper processing<br />

exhibits the hazardous waste<br />

characteristic of EP-toxicity for arsenic,<br />

cadmium, <strong>and</strong> selenium, <strong>and</strong> questioned<br />

why it was not proposed for removal<br />

from the Bevill exclusion on that basis<br />

alone.<br />

EPA finalized the low hazard criterioa<br />

in the September 1,1989 rule, <strong>and</strong> is not<br />

entertaining comments on it The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s rationale for the low hazard<br />

criterion is outlined in 54 FR 36592. As<br />

discussed in the September 25,1989<br />

proposaL the waste does not exhibit<br />

levels of toxic constituents above those<br />

established by the September 1,1989<br />

final rule.<br />

3. Slag Tailings From Primary Copper<br />

<strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

Two commenten supported EPA's<br />

proposed retention of slag tailings from<br />

primary copper processing for further<br />

study, asserting that EPA properly<br />

determined tbe waste to be high volume<br />

<strong>and</strong> low hazartL<br />

a. <strong>Process</strong>ing Criterion/Waste<br />

Definition. One commenter stated that<br />

at its facility, slag tailings are produced<br />

when tbe ore input to the mill is<br />

supplemented with slag from the<br />

facility's primary copper smelting<br />

operations. Because the slag tailings<br />

cannot be differentiated from the ore<br />

tailings, the commenter argues that the<br />

Bevill exemption, as either a processing<br />

waste or a benefidation waste, should<br />

be retained for the slag tailings.<br />

While EPA plans to study copper slag<br />

tailings in a report to Congress. EPA<br />

disagrees writb the commenter's<br />

contention that the fact that the waste is<br />

generated tn combination with a "<br />

benefidation waste is relevant to the<br />

decision that indusion in the report to<br />

Congress la appropriate. The <strong>Agency</strong><br />

has dedded to include this waste In tbe<br />

report to Congress because it Is a<br />

• Avallabla data liuficata thai iludga reaulting<br />

froiB tTsatnwot of araitcwtlen from piinafy copper<br />

procaating ulng KMiiuRi hydroxide i« gniera'ad In<br />

r.uch milUf aohaaaa Itkan ealchira tuifata «hi)u(lj(«.<br />

mineral processing waste that is both<br />

high volume <strong>and</strong> low hazard according<br />

to the criteria previously established<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> wiU, however, examine the<br />

current practices that involve comanagement<br />

of a beneficiation waste<br />

<strong>and</strong> a mineral processing waste in the<br />

report to Congress.<br />

b. Volume. Three commenters<br />

concurred that slag tailings from<br />

primary copper processing meet EPA's<br />

high volume criterion. One commenter<br />

submitted complete volume data for ihis<br />

waste stream in the Survey, stating that<br />

it generates more than a million metric<br />

tons per year of the waste stream.<br />

Another commenter claimed that about<br />

3,700,000 short tons of tailings, of which<br />

approximately 22,000 short tons were<br />

slag tailings, were generated by its<br />

facility,<br />

4. Air Pollution Contirol Dust/Sludge<br />

From Iron Blast Furnaces<br />

One commenter asserted that the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s proposal for retention of iron<br />

<strong>and</strong> steel industry wastes within the<br />

Bevill exdusion is fully supported by the<br />

data. These wastes are mineral '<br />

processing wabic:. <strong>and</strong> they meet the<br />

criteria as high volume, low hazard<br />

wastes.<br />

5. Iron Blast Furnace Slag<br />

One commenter asserted that the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s proposal for retention of Iron<br />

<strong>and</strong> steel industry wastes within the<br />

Bevill exdusion is fully supported by the<br />

data. These wastes are mineral<br />

processing wastes, <strong>and</strong> they meet the<br />

criteria as high volume, low hazard<br />

wastes.<br />

6. Basic Oxygen Furnace <strong>and</strong> Open<br />

Hearth Furnace Air Pollution Contit)l<br />

Dust/Sludge From Carbon Steel<br />

Production<br />

One commenter asserted that the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s proposal for temporary<br />

retention of iron <strong>and</strong> sted industiy<br />

wastes within tbe Bevill exdusion is<br />

fully supported by tbe data. These<br />

wastes are mineral processing wastes.<br />

<strong>and</strong> they meet tbe criteria as high<br />

volume, low hazard wastes.<br />

One commanter argued, however, tr.dt<br />

EPA's volume data is incomplete,<br />

because for some wastes, the voluTt.e<br />

determinations are based on only a<br />

fraction of tbe facilities generating the<br />

waste. ID tbe case of basic oxygen <strong>and</strong><br />

open hearth furnace APC dust/sludge<br />

from cartion steel production, the<br />

commenter maintained that EPA based<br />

its vohime determination on data from<br />

only four of 27 facilities. The commenter<br />

argued that tbe <strong>Agency</strong> made no effort<br />

to determine if these few facilities wer'*


FMhtat Iflgiate / Vol. 56. No. 15 / Tvadaf, Jmrnaty 23, 1999 / Rales aad Regniations 2925<br />

reduced or etintioated, to addittoa, EPA<br />

has iodnded aggregated CBI data in tba<br />

puhfidy availabk (iocamentaftion<br />

supporting tbe deeakfnicnt of today's<br />

rule to Uie extent Ibat this conld be dona<br />

without revealing ctmqiany-qiecific CK<br />

information.<br />

As discussed above. fodUties that<br />

submit either CBI or non-(SI data<br />

requested by EPA under RCRA 3007<br />

authority are subiect to enforcement<br />

action if they submit false data. As a<br />

result the <strong>Agency</strong> believes that data<br />

collected under Section 3007 authority<br />

can be relied upon without additional<br />

verification, regardless of whether it ia<br />

CBI or not In addition, as a practical<br />

matter, the schedule required by tbe<br />

Appeals Court for this rulemaking did<br />

not provide the time needed to condud<br />

such verification.<br />

One commenter stated that for some<br />

of the wastes of interest EPA volume<br />

determinations are based on a fraction<br />

of those facilities generating the waste.<br />

As a result the commenter contends,<br />

EPA lacks a sufficient basis for<br />

determining whether proposed wastes<br />

meet the high volume criterion. In<br />

instances where EPA lacks data no.<br />

more than 25 percent of the facilities<br />

generating the waste, the commenter<br />

believes that EPA should not make a<br />

volume determinatioa without<br />

determining whether the facilities<br />

providing the volume data are<br />

representative of the industry, the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> should also attempt to obtain<br />

data on the remaining facHItiea. The<br />

commenter maintained that in the<br />

absence of survey data. EPA should not<br />

rely completely upon data provided in<br />

public comments.<br />

EPA responds that aa dicBSsed abanra<br />

<strong>and</strong> ia toon AttailinSectitm Biol 6iim<br />

preamble, forlhsr analyaia of tb* vsmf<br />

data has shown that the survejr<br />

responses do in fact provide adequate<br />

waste vohnne data for aH but one of tbe<br />

20 mineral processing wastes covered<br />

by today's rulemaking. Wttb tbe<br />

exception of this one wasta. wasta<br />

volume data are avaHablt In tbe msmj<br />

for far more than 25 nrcsnt of the<br />

facilities genetatfaig aa waste. For tba<br />

one waste with UndbKf datm availabfe b<br />

tbe survey, basic uji|fea fhraace aad<br />

open heartb fuinaia aif poUuthn coBtTM<br />

dust/slndge from carbon steel<br />

production, data piuvlded by tbe<br />

Americaa Iron end Steei Institute (A15I)<br />

were used for the volume detenniBatien.<br />

These data wtiu vettfied tbrougb<br />

comparison wMb tbe sw»ey dats tbat<br />

ware provided for several af tbe<br />

fadlttia*


2328 Fednai Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations<br />

purification steps required to produce<br />

commerdal grade, also known as<br />

merchant grade, phosphoric add. Two<br />

commenters argued that ttie process<br />

wastewater generated from the uraitium<br />

recovery step of phosphoric acid<br />

production must be considered a<br />

component of "process wastewater from<br />

phosphoric acid production" <strong>and</strong>. thus,<br />

proposed it for retention within the<br />

Bevill Amendment.<br />

(iv) Comments on process wastewater<br />

from animal feed production. Two<br />

commenters maintained that process<br />

wastewater from animal feed production<br />

should be included in the definition of<br />

process wastewater from phosphoric<br />

acid production <strong>and</strong> thus retained in the<br />

Bevill exclusion. One commenter<br />

claimed animal feed process<br />

wastewater, st<strong>and</strong>ing alone, meets the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s high volume <strong>and</strong> low hazard<br />

criteria. This commenter further argued<br />

that the production of animal feed<br />

constitutes mineral processing, dting the<br />

following reasons: (1) Three key animal<br />

feed ingredients (dicalcium phosphate,<br />

mono- <strong>and</strong> dicalcium phosphate, <strong>and</strong><br />

defluorinated phosphate nick) are<br />

produced from beneficiation of either<br />

phosphate rock or limestone; (2)<br />

processing removes <strong>and</strong>/or enhances<br />

the characteristics of either beneficiated<br />

phosphate rock or limestone: (3) none of<br />

the materials used is a scrap materiaL<br />

(4) the processes produce final mineral<br />

products: <strong>and</strong> (5) no combination with<br />

non-mineral products is involved.<br />

Therefore, the commenter argued,<br />

process wastewater from sudi<br />

production should be retained within tbe<br />

scope of the Bevill Amendment<br />

The commenter also addressed<br />

several aspects of the production<br />

process, liie commenter argued that the<br />

defluorination step in animal feed<br />

production should not prevent process<br />

wastewater from animal feed production<br />

from remaining within the Bevill<br />

exdusion. The production of<br />

defluorinated phosphoric add involves<br />

essentially the same process as tbe<br />

production of undefhiarinated<br />

commercial grade phoapbnric add.<br />

Defluorination is only an additional step<br />

in add production in vAicfa Quorides are<br />

removed bom tbe add by baat <strong>and</strong> tba<br />

addition of a silicon mineral to facilitate<br />

removal of fluorine. No meaningful<br />

distinction can or should be made<br />

regarding defluorinated phosphoric acid<br />

simply because defluorination occurs<br />

before or after concentration to<br />

commerdal grade strength.<br />

The commenter further argued that<br />

the pnxluction of monoammonium<br />

phosphate, an animal feed product<br />

constitutes mineral processing, even<br />

though the process makes use of<br />

ammonia, a non-mineral ingredient The<br />

coinmenter indicated that ammonia is<br />

added to defluorinated commercial<br />

grade phosphoric acid in a granulation<br />

process, involving approximately 7,000<br />

gallons per minute of phosphoric acid<br />

production process water for particulate<br />

scrubbing. "The commenter maintained<br />

that this amount of water is<br />

"infinitesimal" compared to the mineral<br />

processing process wastewater<br />

generated on a daily basis, <strong>and</strong> thus this<br />

small granulation process should be<br />

considered co-management <strong>and</strong><br />

monoammonium phosphate process<br />

wastewater should be induded within<br />

the Bevill exclusion of phosphoric acid<br />

process wastewater.<br />

The commenter maintained that if<br />

EPA determined that returning to its<br />

source tbe 7,000 gallons per minute of<br />

phosphoric acid process wastewater<br />

used during feed grade monoammonium<br />

production would result in the removal<br />

of the entire phosphoric acid process<br />

wastewater system from the Bevill<br />

Amendment the production of feed<br />

grade monoammonium phosphate would<br />

be ceased <strong>and</strong> the product removed<br />

from tbe market.<br />

(v) Comments on superphosphate<br />

wastewater. One commenter contended<br />

that process wastewater from<br />

superphosphate production should be<br />

retained within the scope of tbe Bevill<br />

Amendment The commenter argued<br />

that data submitted by industry in the<br />

mineral processing survey demonstrates<br />

that this waste from superphosphate<br />

production meets the high volimie <strong>and</strong><br />

low hazard criteria. In addition, the<br />

conunenter claimed that superphosphate<br />

production meets the relevant aspects of<br />

the EPA mineral processing definition,<br />

stating that tbe production of<br />

superphosphate rock involves the direct<br />

reaction of phosphate rock with dilute,<br />

not merchant grade, phosphoric acid.<br />

(vi) Conunents on ammonia ted<br />

fertilizer wastewater. Two commenten<br />

argued that process wastewater<br />

generated in the production of<br />

ammonia ted phosphate fertiiizera (APF)<br />

should be retained within the scope of<br />

the Bevill Amendment The indusion of<br />

phosphoric add process wastewater<br />

with^ tbe scope of the Bevill<br />

Amendment should, tiiey contended,<br />

resolve the issue of whether APF<br />

process wastewater is included. The<br />

influent water to tbe ammoniated<br />

phosphate fertilizer process is the<br />

process wastewater from phosphoric<br />

add production, which remains under<br />

the Bevill exdusion. The commenter<br />

claimad that if APF process wastewater<br />

exhibits hazardous characteristics, it is<br />

solely because process wastewater from<br />

phosphoric add production is used in<br />

APFproduction. The commenter further<br />

argued that (be entire APF production<br />

process should not be removed from the<br />

Bevill exdusion, when the cause of the<br />

hazardous characteristic is phosphoric<br />

acid wastewater, which is covered<br />

tuider the Bevill exclusion.<br />

(vii) Comments on sulfuric add<br />

wastewater. One commenter contended<br />

that captive sulfuric acid production<br />

involves mineral processing <strong>and</strong> is<br />

absolutely essential to the production of<br />

phosphoric acid by the wet process. The<br />

commenter urged EPA to either clarify<br />

that sulfuric add wastewater produced<br />

as a result of sulfuric acid production is<br />

part of phosphoric acid process<br />

wastewater or revise its interpretation<br />

of the mixttire rule so that such process<br />

wastewater can continue to be managed<br />

in the soimd <strong>and</strong> cost-effective manner<br />

practiced today.<br />

(viii) Response to Comments. In the<br />

proposaL EPA noted that process<br />

wastewatera are generated at several<br />

points in the wet process, included<br />

phosphogypsum ti^nsport phosphoric<br />

acid concentration, <strong>and</strong> phosphoric acid<br />

temperatiire control <strong>and</strong> cooling. (See 54<br />

FR 39303) As stated previously, the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> did not intend to imply that<br />

these were the only sources of process<br />

wastewater from phosphoric acid<br />

operations.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has carefully considered<br />

the comments <strong>and</strong>. based on the<br />

information available, agrees, for the<br />

reasons described in the comments, that<br />

phosphogypsum stack runoff, process<br />

wastewater generated from the uranium<br />

recovery step of phosphoric acid<br />

production, process wastewater from<br />

animal feed production (including<br />

defluorination but excluding<br />

ammoniated animal feed production),<br />

<strong>and</strong> process wastewater from<br />

superphosphate production are also the<br />

result of mineral processing operations<br />

<strong>and</strong> should be considered part of<br />

process wastewater from phosphoric<br />

acid production.<br />

As discussed on September 1 (see 54<br />

FR 38621). the <strong>Agency</strong> does not consider<br />

the production of ammoniated<br />

phosphate fertili7.fr from phosphoric<br />

acid <strong>and</strong> ammonia to be a mineral<br />

processing operation. For the same<br />

reasons, the <strong>Agency</strong> does not consider<br />

the production of ammoniated animal<br />

feed from phosphoric add to be a<br />

mineral processing operation. As also<br />

discussed on September 1 (see 54 FR<br />

38623). the <strong>Agency</strong> does not consider<br />

wastes from sulfuric acid production to<br />

be part phosphoric add process<br />

wastewater.


tidmal Ka^ater / VeL 55t Pfo. IS / Taesday, fmmary 23, 199& / Rules taii RfcguIatioHg 2327<br />

representative ef tbe'indiiHdy bi generat<br />

or if fee facfflfiee were unnstiofly lasge<br />

or small <strong>and</strong>weeUPriiewlfae'dB^.<br />

iBFeepone&te AiecoEBBent EPAtes<br />

carai^Uy reviewed all dMa avsilabie<br />

from the industry survey nd from other<br />

sources. The <strong>Agency</strong>Yravised waste<br />

generation estimate (presented in<br />

Section UL below). Is based i^xm data<br />

obtained from the vast majority ol<br />

active carbon steel facilities. These data<br />

show that this is a high volume waste.<br />

7. Basic Oxygen Fumaca <strong>and</strong> Open<br />

Hearth Furnace Slag From Carbon Steel<br />

Production<br />

One commenter aeserted that the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s proposal fot tempocary<br />

retention of iron <strong>and</strong> steel industry<br />

wastes within the BeviU exdustoo ia<br />

fully supported by the data. Thea*<br />

wastes are minesal processing waateat,<br />

<strong>and</strong> they meet tbs criteria as bi^<br />

volume, low hazard waste&<br />

8. FIuorogyp>8um From ffydroffuonc<br />

Add Pnxluction<br />

a. Valutas. One commenter agreed<br />

with EPA's proposed determinatioa that<br />

fluorogypsum. from hydrofluoric add<br />

preduetion suets tba high volume<br />

criteriaik<br />

b. Hazard. One commentez agreed<br />

with EPA's proposed determination that<br />

fluorogypsum meets the IOMT hazard<br />

criterion.<br />

9 AirPoUtttion Coatrol Dust/Sbid^e<br />

From Ligbtwatght Aggregate Vtvductioa<br />

a. Volume. One commenter argued<br />

that EPA's volume data are tncomplete,<br />

because for this waste, the volume<br />

determination was based on only a<br />

fraction of the fadhties generating tba<br />

waste. Tbe commenter maintained tbal<br />

EPA based tts volume determination lor<br />

lightweight aggregate APC dtutftio^<br />

on data from only six ofthe 2tr facilities<br />

it believes to generate the waste. Tbe<br />

commenter argued tbat tbe Agpncy<br />

made no effort to detennine fftheaa fbw<br />

faciUties were representattv* of tba<br />

industry.<br />

In response to this oomment KPA bas<br />

carefufly reviewed* aa otv anitBTdie<br />

from the Industry sf Hjp aiHinuut otber<br />

sources. The Agencf^ miavif wasta<br />

generation esttaatB tareMBtBd tn<br />

Section IB. below^ is bvserf upon datk<br />

obtained from the ma Jul By ot acttw<br />

lightweight aggregate prodbctftm<br />

facilities. These data show that tbb ia<br />

not a higb vohime waste.<br />

la Piocaaa Waatawntar fm fiimmr$<br />

MngaaaiH» Psndiiotlan by tba<br />

AakydaawcMatbod<br />

a. Hazard One eammmtn<br />

EPAsdecision not to propos*<br />

removal from tbefcvil MtcTnskHt<br />

process wastewater from priraarjr<br />

magnesium processing by tbe an&ydroos'<br />

method even though ^A's sampBng<br />

demonstrated diat the waste exhibits<br />

the hazardous waste characteristic of<br />

corrosivity (pH level of 1.22). EPA<br />

should they contended further consider<br />

this data in preparing its Report to<br />

Congress.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> generally agrees with the<br />

commenter that relevant hazard data<br />

should be ctmsidered in the study of the<br />

waste stream when preparing tbe Report<br />

to Congress. However. EPA finalized the<br />

low hazard crflerion in the September 1.<br />

1989 rale, <strong>and</strong> is not currently<br />

entertafaiing comments on it The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s rationale for the low hazard<br />

criterion is outlined fa» 54 fT? 38592. As<br />

discussed in the 9/25/89 proposaL the<br />

waste does not exhibit a pH brfow the<br />

Bevifl hazard criterion value of 1.<br />

11. PiQcess Wastewater From<br />

Phospbaric Add Production<br />

Four commenters stated that EPA<br />

correctly prepoeed that process<br />

wastewater' u'uin pnospftoric eerd<br />

produt-ifoR be retained witbsr tbe aeope<br />

of the Bevill Amendment <strong>and</strong> tbet EPA<br />

should retafe dn's waste wi^kxn th^<br />

Bev^ exclusion bv Ae final ndei<br />

a. <strong>Process</strong>ing CriterionTWaste^<br />

Defuiitiott. One commenter argued tbet<br />

process water recircnlated in the<br />

phosphate complex, including the<br />

gypsum stacking system. t» not<br />

(fisearded. ftocess water's nutrfent<br />

value, which ia extracted for fertilizer<br />

prodteetSt <strong>and</strong> it»utifizatIon as a eootant<br />

<strong>and</strong> transport mediuBi. are net activitiea<br />

tbatsbovldcaaseit tobedssstfied as*<br />

souv waste ae uermetf oy tfte~ivBSOurce<br />

wOsae^vaQen ^RQ Recove^f Act<br />

EIPA responds that tbe defluitioo of<br />

sofiiT waste is an issue tbat is° not open<br />

for comment In connection witb today a<br />

nilenuuLbig. EFA wishes to point out<br />

however, tbat tbe issue of when esoUng<br />

water ie a sofhi waste bes been<br />

discussed hi previous rulemakings.<br />

Specifically, in the preamble to tt»<br />

Jamarrt MSfr (50 FR 614) Knef rate that<br />

established tbe current deftnitfos cf<br />

soM iraste. tbe <strong>Agency</strong> faidicated tbat<br />

cooling water raainged eatirelr ta •<br />

dosed-loop system wa» no( eaneidered<br />

to b^rvoasneQ antL tfans; would be<br />

eligible fbr tbe efooed-ieop excbiefan.<br />

Tbe <strong>Agency</strong> aiM indleated. however,<br />

tbat seocBoBy SMteriais manages HI<br />

impouncuuula would not bs eligftw fer<br />

tbe csaaetMiMp eKelnsinn. b adtfiHuifc<br />

tbe sarfcca>tepouBdtaeBla eoffeettng.<br />

cooliaf twtaroffefgjrpenm stadvare<br />

thai «t» enrtSBlft B» soM<br />

\xi Coramente on phosphogypsum<br />

transporf water. One commenter<br />

supported EPA> incbision of the water<br />

used to b^nsport phosphogypsum within<br />

tbe definition of process wastewater<br />

from phosphoric add production.<br />

(ill Comments on stack nmoff. Three<br />

conrmentere argued tbat "stack runoff'<br />

should be induded in the defimtitm of<br />

process wastewater from phosphoric<br />

acid production. One commenter<br />

maintained tbat stack runofi is<br />

comprised of "phosphogypsum<br />

transport" water, which is spedfically<br />

included in the definition of process<br />

wastewater from phosphoric add<br />

production. The commenter further<br />

stated ^at the definition of prtjcess<br />

wastewater from phosphoric add<br />

production, which includes "several<br />

points te the wet process." is intended to<br />

inclode aB process wastewater<br />

generated at all points within that<br />

process. A second commenter reasoned<br />

tbat iust a* process wastewater<br />

managed in a pond that receives<br />

predpitation continues to be process<br />

wastewater, gypsran transport water<br />

that is temporarily trapped wftKn a<br />

gypsBiB stack <strong>and</strong> receii^s prectpttation<br />

continues to be gypsum transport water.<br />

The commenter also irjdicated it^<br />

because runoff fhmi dry stacks rs not<br />

hezarthnia. <strong>and</strong> as runoff from wet<br />

stacks contains transport water which<br />

hae been retained stack runoff should<br />

also be retained within the Be\'ill<br />

Amendment.<br />

One commenter noted that ctimments<br />

from previous rulemakings <strong>and</strong> other<br />

documents may have led to the incctrrect<br />

impression that pbosphtjgypsum stack<br />

runoff st<strong>and</strong>ing atone exhibits<br />

characteristice of hazardous waste. The<br />

cnuuuenter atso- indicated that (hey<br />

believe tbe <strong>Agency</strong> bea resolved this<br />

issue satfaETactoriry. however, by<br />

bielttding water used fi3r<br />

phosphogypsonr transport m the<br />

description of pbospboric add process<br />

wastewater induded in the proposed<br />

rule. Tbe commenter further concluded<br />

that because only tbe phosphogypsum<br />

transport water entrained in<br />

piedpitation mnolT from<br />

phosphogypsum stadtr ever exhibits<br />

cbaiacterisQcv of hazardous waste.<br />

EPA't ptopoBal tir taducfe^<br />

pbosphogypemu transport water within<br />

tbe scope of tba EvrtH Ameuuiiient<br />

reaonee Ifts isaoe of oe status of<br />

predpita tfun nznoff.<br />

(iii) Comnentv on uranium recovery<br />

wastewater. Cooraenler* noted that the<br />

urannA reeivre^r ste^ of pnoepnorrc<br />

add preAtctrair reflows tbe reaction or<br />

phosphate reek <strong>and</strong> suffuilc acid snd<br />

precede* the oeneentration <strong>and</strong>


Federal RegUter / VoL 55> No. 15 / Tuaaday. January 23. 1990 / Roles aad Regulations 232{<br />

b. Volume. A commenter stated that<br />

the data collected by the <strong>Agency</strong> at its<br />

facility <strong>and</strong> similar facilities indicate<br />

that the process wastewater meets<br />

EPA's high voliune criterion.<br />

C. Hazard. Two commenters<br />

addressed the hazard level of this<br />

waste. One supported EPA's proposed<br />

determination that process wastewater<br />

from phosphoric acid production meets<br />

the low hazard criterion. However, one<br />

conunenter questioned why the waste<br />

stream was not proposed for removal<br />

from the Bevill exclusion because EPA's<br />

sampling data showed that process<br />

wastewater from phosphoric acid<br />

production exhibits the hazardous waste<br />

characteristic of corrosivity (pH values<br />

of 2.0. 2.1,1.8. <strong>and</strong> 1.5). EPA should Uiey<br />

maintained, further consider this data in<br />

preparing its Report to Congress.<br />

TTie <strong>Agency</strong> generally agrees with the<br />

commenter that relevant hazard data<br />

should be considered in the study of the<br />

waste sb^am when preparing the Report<br />

to Congress. However, EPA finalized the<br />

low hazard criterion in the September 1,<br />

1989 rule, <strong>and</strong> is not entertaining<br />

comments on it The <strong>Agency</strong>'s rationale<br />

for the low hazard criterion is outlined<br />

in 54 FR 3659Z The waste passes the pH<br />

criterion described in that rule.<br />

12. Chloride <strong>Process</strong> Waste Solids From<br />

Titanium Tetrachloride Production<br />

One commenter agreed %vith EPA's<br />

proposal to relate chloride process<br />

waste solids from titanium tetrachloride<br />

production witbte the Bevill exclusion.<br />

o. <strong>Process</strong>ing Criterion/Waste<br />

Definition. One commenter claimed that<br />

EPA. te its description ot the "chloride<br />

process waste soUds from titanhite<br />

tetrachloride production" te tba<br />

propoaaL described only tbe "diloride"<br />

process for manufacturing titanium<br />

dioxide <strong>and</strong> not tbe "cbloride-ilmenita"<br />

process. The <strong>Agency</strong> stated tbat "tb«<br />

chloride process mvolves fluidized<br />

roasting <strong>and</strong> chlorination of rutile.<br />

synthetic rutile. slag or benefidated<br />

ilmenites." This statement according to<br />

the commenter. essentially deacclbes tbe<br />

"chloride" process tet usee "bigbgrade"<br />

ores or bana^UAitad ores as<br />

feedstocks; the cfatorida flmmiita<br />

process, te cootraa^^ iiaaa "low-grade"<br />

ores as tbe principal feedstock for its<br />

process.<br />

In additioa the coinmenter contended<br />

the <strong>Agency</strong> incorrecUy stated tbat the<br />

product formed is "titanium<br />

tetrschloride." This may be true of tbe<br />

"chloride" princess that uses "highgrade"<br />

ores or previously benefidated<br />

materiaL but is only partially tr\ie of tbe<br />

chloride-ilmenite process, te the<br />

"chloride-ilmenife" process, the<br />

commenter contteued gaseous Iron<br />

chlorides are generated first <strong>and</strong> are<br />

subsequently condensed teto iron<br />

chloride "waste adds". This is the<br />

"benefidation" process. After this, the<br />

titanium te the ores is converted at a<br />

much slower rate teto titanium<br />

tetrachloride. Both of these processes,<br />

however, occur in a contmuous, "onestep"<br />

operation. The titanium<br />

tetrachloride generated by the chlorideihnenite<br />

process is then used as the<br />

feedstock for the ultimate production of<br />

titanium dioxide. The commenter<br />

expressed concern that EPA appears to<br />

incorrectiy consider the "chlorideilmenite"<br />

process to be covered within<br />

the "chloride process," for which the<br />

"mining waste exdusion" was<br />

elimteated for "chloride processing<br />

waste acids" te the September 1.1989<br />

final nde. The coinmenter objected to<br />

this conclusion because the chlorideilmenite<br />

process should not be "lumped"<br />

with a process that is clearly <strong>and</strong><br />

substantially different noting that the<br />

distmction between the two processes<br />

has been recognized stece at least 1970.<br />

The commenter claimed that its titaiuum<br />

dioxide plants could be materially <strong>and</strong><br />

advenely affected by EPA's<br />

determmations regarding whether or not<br />

"chloride-Umenite" plants are<br />

considered "benefidation" versils<br />

"processing" facilities. The commenter<br />

also claimed its "chloride-ilmtete"<br />

process is not covered by dther of the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s rulemakings (Sept 1 <strong>and</strong> Sept<br />

25.1989), <strong>and</strong> thus would be covered by<br />

an upcoming "special study" for<br />

benefidation wastes. The commenter<br />

urged EPA to make a determination that<br />

the "chloride-ilmenite" process is one of<br />

benefidatioaof low grade ilmenite on<br />

<strong>and</strong> "chlorination" <strong>and</strong> should be made<br />

sut^act to tbe upcoming RCRA 80Q2(p)<br />

special studies to determtee tbe<br />

appropriate waste management<br />

requirements.<br />

In response to these comments. EPA<br />

reviewed tbe court opinions <strong>and</strong> related<br />

EPA efiluent limitation guideltees died<br />

by tbe commenter for precedents for<br />

considering tbe chloride-ilmenite<br />

process to be significantiy different from<br />

tbe conventional chloride process. The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> also referred to written<br />

comments submitted by the same<br />

coomienter te response to previous<br />

proposed rulemakings addressing the<br />

scope of the Mteing Waste Exclusion.<br />

Based upon this review, EPA agrees<br />

with tbe commenter that tbe chlorideilmenite<br />

process is different than the<br />

conventional chloride process te tbat<br />

ilmenite ore used as the feed stock to<br />

the process contains much larger<br />

quantitias of Iron, whicb must be<br />

removed, than the feed stocks used by<br />

other chloride pnK:esses. te addition.<br />

EPA agrees that te part the chlorideilmenite<br />

process tevolves benefidation<br />

of ores or minerals. Nevertheless, the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> contteues to believe that it is<br />

reasonable to consider the chlorideilmenite<br />

process to be a part of the<br />

general "chloride process" category for<br />

purposes of this nilemaking because the<br />

process destroys the identity of the<br />

mineral, produces titanium tetiachloridf<br />

gas (a saleable mineral product), <strong>and</strong><br />

generates wastes which are fvmctionalh<br />

identical to, although larger in volume<br />

than, the wastes generated by other<br />

chloride process facilities. Moreover,<br />

because the "beneficiation" wastes .<strong>and</strong><br />

the "processing" wastes generated by<br />

the chloride-ilmenite process are<br />

inseparable, according to EPA effluent<br />

guideltees development documents <strong>and</strong><br />

as argued by the commenter, the Agenc;<br />

concludes that the "chloride-ilmenite"<br />

process must be considered a mineral<br />

processing operation for purposes of thi'<br />

rulemaking.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> also notes that the<br />

commenter's contention that the<br />

"chloride-ilmenite" process is not<br />

covered by the description ofthe<br />

chloride process provided te die<br />

September 1.1969 final or thaSeptembe<br />

25,1989 proposal is tecorrect While the<br />

description of the chloride process<br />

provided te these rules does not<br />

describe tbe "chloride-ilmenite" process<br />

te detail due to Confidential Busmess<br />

Information claims made by the<br />

commenter. tbe <strong>Agency</strong> has dearly<br />

considered this process to be one of the<br />

several chloride processes covered by<br />

these previoua rulemakings <strong>and</strong>,<br />

therefore, this rulemaking as welL This<br />

fact is dearly demonstrated by the<br />

tedusion of tbe commenter's facilities ir<br />

the background documentation for thest<br />

rulemaktegs. Accordingly, aU solid<br />

wastes generated by this process are<br />

subject fo BPA's reteterpretation of the<br />

Milling Waste Exdusion. tedudmg this<br />

rulemaking.<br />

b. Volume. One commenter agreed<br />

v«rith EPA's determteation that chloride<br />

process waste solids satisfy the highvolume<br />

criterion. Another commenter<br />

submitted volume data, claiming that<br />

the waste streams from the "chlorideilmenite"<br />

process are generated at over<br />

1.400,000 <strong>and</strong> 600.000 tons annually in<br />

two facilities.<br />

c. Hazard. One commenter agreed<br />

witb EPA's determteation that chlonde<br />

process waste solids satisfy the lowhazard<br />

criterion.<br />

13. Slag From Primary Ztec <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

One conunenter asserted thai EPA<br />

properly applied the high volume/low


2330<br />

Federal Re^slBr / Vol. SS, No. 15 / Tnesday, January 23, 1990 / Rides <strong>and</strong> Restdatians<br />

hazard criteria to slag from primary zinc<br />

processii^ te the Septenaber 25 proposal.<br />

a Hazard One coamentCT questioned<br />

EPA's decision not to propose to remove<br />

slag firen primary nnc processing from<br />

the Bevill exciuskm becanse tbe<br />

sampling data demoiutrated that the<br />

waste exhibits the hazardous waste<br />

charaderistic of EP-toxicity for leed<br />

They stated tiiat EPA should farther<br />

consider these data te prquring its<br />

Report to Congress.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> generally a^^es with the<br />

commenter that all relevant hazard data<br />

should be cixisidered te tbe study of the<br />

waste stream when preparing the Report<br />

to Congress. However, EPA finalized the<br />

low hazard criterion te tbe Septemt>er 1,<br />

1989 rale, aad is not currently<br />

entertaining cooiments on it The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s rationale for the low hazard<br />

criterion is outlteed in 54 FR 36592. As<br />

discussed te tbe September 25,1989.<br />

propoaaL the waste passes the toxidty<br />

criterion described te that nile.<br />

C. Cometents on the Seren Wastes<br />

Proposed for Removal<br />

This section discneses comments<br />

received on each of the seven mineral<br />

processing wastes for wbicb EPA<br />

proposed to reaiove fivn the BeriQ<br />

exemption. Tbe oooments received os<br />

each of tbe wastes generally are<br />

presented imder one (rf tlffee<br />

sabiieadingr Proceesaig Criterion/<br />

Waste Oeftoitioa. V«4«ne, or Hazard<br />

These subkeadiags appear only wben<br />

they are relevant ta oonmeats identified<br />

for the waste beiag discassed so for<br />

many of tba seven wasSea. ooe ormace<br />

of the subbaedings are not mdndrri.<br />

1. Roast/Leach Ore Residue From<br />

Primary Chromite <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

a. <strong>Process</strong>ing Criterioa/Waste<br />

Definitioa. Two cooBBasters resoarked<br />

on thie designation of ifaa'waatc stiwsm<br />

One oommealer ma tended tbat the<br />

origisal deaigsatian of roast/leach at»<br />

residue from primary processing ol<br />

chrome ore referred to tba ore residue<br />

solids te the form cumndy being<br />

disposed (after treatiMiA Jiot the form<br />

m which the waste ia fineMtad Tba<br />

commenter stated tbat|tlt SUB waste as<br />

disposed that has tba pOtadlUl to enter<br />

the enviraiunent <strong>and</strong> that tfds wasta ia<br />

low hazard <strong>and</strong> high vobiffla <strong>and</strong> should<br />

be retained. Another commenter argued<br />

thai because the ore used te production<br />

of cfnt)mi»mi chemicals contains not<br />

only chrome but also other compounds<br />

(e.g.. msgnesivm siftcate). tbe term<br />

"chrome ore" or "chromium ore" would<br />

be more appropnata for uae by the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>.<br />

EPA agrees svith both o( tbese<br />

commeots. in today's firtal rale, tbe<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> bases its evahiation of flns<br />

waste's compliance with the Bevill<br />

criteria on treated residue from<br />

roasting/leaching of chrome ore.<br />

b. Hazard. Three commenten<br />

addressed the apparent failure of this<br />

waste stream to meet the low hazard<br />

criterion. One commenter agreed with<br />

EPA's proposed determination, <strong>and</strong><br />

provided data that tedicated that treated<br />

waste from chromite ore processing is<br />

occasionally EP toxic, based on data it<br />

received from American Chrome <strong>and</strong><br />

Chemical.<br />

One commenter acknowledged that<br />

residue from the roastteg/leaching of<br />

chrome ore is hazardous at the pomt of<br />

generatioii. The commenter asserts,<br />

however, ^t diron^ treatment at the<br />

wastewater treatment plant te<br />

compliance with the facility's NTOES<br />

permit tbe waste stream ceases to<br />

exhibit the hazardoos waste<br />

characteristic for chronuum; both the<br />

liqmd <strong>and</strong> non-liquid fractions of die<br />

stream are rendered non-hazardous. The<br />

concenter states ^t this treatment<br />

prac^ce has been demonstrated to, <strong>and</strong><br />

accepted by, the State of North<br />

Caroltea.<br />

Anodier commenter maintateed that<br />

te making its hazard determteatiqn for<br />

this waete. EPA relied on samples taken<br />

from aa inapproprtste stage of the waste<br />

management procees. The csBsnenter<br />

dairaed tbat the materials from tbe posttwtment<br />

tia^, <strong>and</strong> in particular the<br />

soids. an aon-barardous <strong>and</strong> qualify<br />

for die exdusion. In adkfitioa. tbey<br />

contended this treatment does not<br />

aSect the volume of tbe waste.<br />

Hie <strong>Agency</strong> bas reviewed tbe<br />

available data <strong>and</strong> agrees witb %s<br />

commenten tbat dteee data teAcate<br />

that tbe tmXsdrasidQe fnm roosttag/<br />

leaching of cborae ore is low bazafd.<br />

The Ageocf no4es, bc%vever. tbat waste<br />

management activities assodated witb<br />

the oAreated wastes, mduding tbe<br />

UnatniBnt operatien itself, are not<br />

exempted from Subtitle C requirements<br />

by the Bev^ amendment beosnse prior<br />

to treatment tbe weste is not low hazard<br />

(«ltbo«^ any tanks tevolved te the<br />

treatment procew may qualify for the<br />

wastewater treatment imtil exemption<br />

under 40 CFR 284.1 (gH6)).<br />

2. <strong>Process</strong> Wastewater From Coal<br />

Gasification<br />

a. PncaaaiBg Criterion fWatta<br />

Defrnitiaa. One comenter descrttwd tbe<br />

prodediosi procesa for coal gasificatfon.<br />

The prodoctina of ooal gas (<strong>and</strong> thus<br />

process wastewater) involves, first tbe<br />

controlled oombostion of lignite. This<br />

produces a raw gas stream sent first to<br />

the Raw Cae Cooling <strong>and</strong> Shift<br />

Conversion units <strong>and</strong> then to the<br />

Rectisol unit. The Rectisol unit removes<br />

add gases COt. HiS, CSi, <strong>and</strong> COS) <strong>and</strong><br />

produces synthetic hiel gases. These<br />

gases undergo methanation <strong>and</strong> gas<br />

compressten <strong>and</strong> then are delivered ts a<br />

pipeline as synthetic natural gas A<br />

coproduct naphtha, is also produced.<br />

"Gas liquor" is also produced by the<br />

cooling <strong>and</strong> refining of the raw gas<br />

stream.<br />

Tlie commenter added that the<br />

Gasification, the Raw Gas Cooling Shift<br />

Conversioa <strong>and</strong> the Redisol units all<br />

produce gas liquor streams which are<br />

routed to the Gas Liquor Separation<br />

tmit Oaring tbe gas liqiujr separating<br />

process, another coproduct tar oiL is<br />

recovered AflerwaJds. tbe gas liquor is<br />

sent to tbe PbeDOSolvan onit where<br />

crude phenol is recovered Ammonia is<br />

dien recovered ia the Pbosam unit<br />

whicb dieduBges a "stripped gas<br />

Hqaor." Tbe stripped gas bquor is sent to<br />

tbe Ceofetg Tower ior use as a make-up<br />

vsater. Other tiquids used as make-up<br />

water include: small quantities of<br />

filtered Wssolved Ak Rotation water<br />

from tbe ofly water sewer systei^<br />

softened water frtnn tbe potaWewater<br />

treatment plant a smaH stream ftom the<br />

Rectisol imit <strong>and</strong> small vohnnes'irf<br />

(tietillatB water from tbe Multiple BSed<br />

Evaporators. Tbe comenter also notes<br />

that (1) Stiipped gas liquor comprises<br />

over 70 percent of the make-up water te<br />

tbe Cooling Tower (2) the Cooling<br />

Tower is operated with a blowdown<br />

rate of approximately 350 to 500 gallans<br />

per minule or 650.000 to 9S&iG56 metiic<br />

toiu per year, aad (3) the Cooliag Tower<br />

blowdown is din'^''


yp . •<br />

Faiaral Rag^star / Vd. 55. No. 15 / Ttmdav. Isnuary 23, 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> ReeuUtkKis 233-<br />

procesa wastewatK <strong>and</strong> remams a<br />

Bevill waste.<br />

b. Volume. TVfo ceasasenters urged<br />

EPA to reconsider its proposed<br />

determteatioa tbat prscess wastewater<br />

from coal gasification faila the high<br />

volume criterion. Tbey contended that<br />

the data cited by EPA te the September<br />

25,1989 Federal Register were not<br />

accurate. Both commenten stated that<br />

process wastewatera are actually<br />

generated at a rate that far exceeds cme<br />

million metric tons per year. One<br />

commenter daimed that rather than<br />

being generated at a rate of 5984)30<br />

metric tons per year, this waste is<br />

produced at a rate of approximately<br />

S.OOaoOO metric tons per year. Tbe<br />

commenter believed that this error was<br />

based on the A^^ncy's<br />

misunderstaner <strong>and</strong> projected dmnigh tbe end<br />

of the year.<br />

EPA bas carefully reviewed tbe<br />

comments <strong>and</strong> survey infonnatioa <strong>and</strong><br />

agrees that (1) Tbe fodlity<br />

mischaraterised die pomt of generation<br />

when it initially completed tbe 19n<br />

National Sta-vey. wbicb EPA used te<br />

developing tbe propoaafc <strong>and</strong> (2) procaas<br />

wastewater froin OMI gasiflcatioa meets<br />

the high vobimc aritetion bacaaaa it ia<br />

clearly genantad hi i|aasitltlis abeve tba<br />

applicable critatiosi vabie of \XHUm<br />

mt/yr snma^ par fadUty actabliabsd by<br />

the Septsrabar 1 final rak.<br />

c. Hasard. A i iiiiimasHiB aupportad<br />

EPA's pnqmsMl detenniaattosi tbat OMI<br />

gasifieatiaa psucaaa nastessMtai meets<br />

the low hazard cht<br />

3. Furnace Off-GeaSaBds From<br />

Elemental PhospMwaProdartina<br />

Onei<br />

dedason toi<br />

solids bom (<br />

prodtKtioD fivB tfaa BeviU i<br />

a. <strong>Process</strong>ing Criterion/Waste<br />

Definition. One rnasmaaler raiaed<br />

several iaaaea aboet tbe defiaffioa (rf<br />

this waste stream. Tbe onmmwtar<br />

supported EPA's propassd<br />

determination diat faraaca off-gaa soUda<br />

an "solids." even tei^ ana facility<br />

generates tba tvaate te tba form of a<br />

slurry. Tba commanter matkm tbet<br />

fumaoe off-gas solids from elmnental<br />

pbospborooB production ate generated<br />

eitiier as a solid waste stream or as a<br />

slurry <strong>and</strong> contends tbat tbe term<br />

"elemental phosphorus off-gas solids"<br />

was specifically defteed to indude,<br />

amoiig other things, "predpitator<br />

slurry." EPA's assertion that die<br />

commenter aggregated off-gas solids<br />

with scrubber blowdown is, tbe<br />

commenter claimed incorrect The<br />

commenter also daimed that further<br />

examteation shows that tbe material<br />

stream is more property dassified as<br />

"phossy water" <strong>and</strong> that one result of<br />

reclassification is that 1.5 million tons of<br />

furnace off-gas sohds should be<br />

reclassified as "phossy water." The<br />

commenter matetained that the<br />

regulatory status of "phossy water" for<br />

the September 1.1989 Fteal Rule was<br />

based upon data that understated the<br />

generation rate of this process stream by<br />

approximately one-halt Tbe commenter<br />

further mamtateed tbat all furnace offgas<br />

aolida waste streams need to be<br />

sinnlarly dassified to prevent this<br />

rulemaking from having mequitabie<br />

competitive effects between companies.<br />

EPA agreea that the waste stream te<br />

questioa sboold be defined uniformly<br />

acrosa all fadUties tbat generate it<br />

Becanae tbe waste stream is generated<br />

(<strong>and</strong> menaged) as a solid at the raaiority<br />

of facilities where it is generated EPA.'»<br />

position ia tbat the waste of teterest is a<br />

solid As a result at tbe two facilities at<br />

whicb the off-gas solids are collected te<br />

a bqaid tbe h^ volume <strong>and</strong> low hazard<br />

criteria have been applied to the sobds<br />

entrained witbte these liquid wastes, as<br />

detenained try the settled solids<br />

reported by the facilities in their<br />

reaponsaa to the National Sarvey. Tba<br />

liquid portions of tba wastes, as<br />

generated dearly fail die appUcabie<br />

high voiame criterion (average anniiai<br />

generatkm rate of more tban on* odllioa<br />

metric tone per year).<br />

It. Vahime. A comaamter stated that<br />

the waata stream encompassing fomaca<br />

off-gas sohds from elemental<br />

phosphorous production is generated as<br />

a liquid at one facility. The commenter<br />

concurred that the stream does not meet<br />

the high votooe criterion. Another<br />

caaaaaentar argued tbet because of tbe<br />

relattvety low volume of the furnace oflgas<br />

solids (4.686 mt/yr), the treatment of<br />

thaaa sobds as hazardoos waatea ts<br />

reasoaaUe SBKI practicable.<br />

Hoarwar. one commenter argued tbet<br />

the wdansa detarmination must ba made<br />

using data from all fadlitiea tbat<br />

generate fumaca off-gas soUda. ERA'S<br />

proposed datambiatian tbat tbe average<br />

rate of generation per facility ia 4.685<br />

metric tons par year was. tbey<br />

rontendad Imaed on incomplete<br />

information bccaase data from facilities<br />

that sabmitted data as Confidential<br />

Bosteesa Information were not tecluded<br />

The commenter furdier contended that<br />

when all five facilities' furaace off-gas<br />

solids material streams are considered,<br />

the per plant facility average for the<br />

"furnace off-gas solids" is 44.012 metric<br />

tons per year, <strong>and</strong> that this average is<br />

well withm any statistical margin for<br />

error <strong>and</strong> thus, furnace off-gas solids<br />

should be deemed a "high volume"<br />

waste.<br />

As stated above, "furnace off-gaa<br />

solids" generated at two facilities that<br />

reported using wet collection systems .<br />

are defined as the solids removed from<br />

the scrabber waten. Ftmiace off-gas<br />

solids generated by three other facilities<br />

are te fact solids as generated. Revised<br />

(<strong>and</strong> final) waste generation<br />

deterannations have been prepared on<br />

this basis <strong>and</strong> are presented in Section<br />

m. below. These data show that fnrnau<br />

off-gas sobds is not a high volume<br />

waste.<br />

c. Hazard. Two conunenten<br />

addressed the hazard level of furnace<br />

off-gas solids from elemental<br />

phosphorus fnoduction. Onacommente!<br />

statMl tbat the aaalyticai intemation it<br />

provided te tbe 1989 National Ssrvey<br />

demonstrated tbat the wastaatream is<br />

not a hazardoos waste under the RCRA<br />

charaderistic of corrosivity. The other<br />

commenter contended thst samples of<br />

the slurry of furnace off-gas solids were<br />

found to contate cadmium te<br />

concentratioDS as great as 249 percent c<br />

the regulatory level of 100 times the<br />

MCL.<br />

Review of EPA's samphng data<br />

indicated tbat this waste passes the )ov^<br />

hazard triterian. as discussed m Section<br />

mbebw.<br />

4. <strong>Process</strong> Wastewater From<br />

Hydroflaaric Add Productioa<br />

a. <strong>Process</strong>ing Criterion/Waste<br />

Defmitien. Two cvBuaentera described<br />

the byikofluoiic add prodection<br />

process. Tbe faydrofluoric add<br />

productioa prooaas extracts mteerel<br />

values by reaction ef mineral rock with<br />

sulfuric add creates a caldum sulfate<br />

co-product Saorogypsum. which is<br />

slnrrted to dispoaaL <strong>and</strong> circulates<br />

process waste«»atar through a pond<br />

system prior to reeae in tbe processing<br />

facility. One uoimuenter noted diat<br />

addttional procaaa wsatewater is<br />

generated by daaaing die hydroflooric<br />

acid gaa.<br />

One conenanter argued tfiat EPA's<br />

determiaatiaa to bat separately<br />

fluorogypaeto aad process wastewater<br />

fixim hydnAeortc acid production is<br />

impmiticaL The similarities tietween


2332 Federal Regiater / VoL 55, No. 15 / Tueaday. January 23, 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulationa<br />

the two waste streams are such that at<br />

the Calvert City. Kentucky hydrofluoric<br />

add plant the two are oMningled at the<br />

potet of generation. The commenter<br />

claimed that the proposed regulation<br />

would impose different regulatory<br />

requirements on two similar wastes<br />

(because fluorogypsum would remate<br />

excluded but process wastewater<br />

would not), which from a practical<br />

perspective, is unreasonable stece the<br />

requirements applicable to one will<br />

affect the management of the other. EPA<br />

should allow process wastewater from<br />

hydrofluoric add production to rotate its<br />

status under the Bevill exdusion. <strong>and</strong><br />

should not evaluate fluorogypsum <strong>and</strong><br />

process wastewater separately, because<br />

the two streams are essentially<br />

identicaL<br />

EPA disagrees. The two waste<br />

streams are identifiably distted (one is<br />

a solid <strong>and</strong> the other a liqtud) <strong>and</strong> are<br />

generated by different parts of the<br />

production process. The fad tbat they<br />

are currenUy co-managed does not<br />

imply that they should or must be comanaged<br />

b. Volimie. Two commenten<br />

disagreed vn\h EPA's proposed<br />

determination that process wastewater<br />

from hydrofluoric add production failed<br />

to meet tbe high voliune criterion. One<br />

commenter questioned the basis for<br />

EPA's dedsioa given the lack of data.<br />

The commenter argued that tbe waste<br />

was not induded te the 1989 National<br />

Survey of Solid Wastes from Mteeral<br />

<strong>Process</strong>ing Facilities. Therefore, te tbe<br />

September 25,1989 NPRM. tbe average<br />

rate of generation of process<br />

wastewater from hydrofluoric add was<br />

listed as "n/a". Yet EPA determined tbat<br />

this liquid wasta stieam was not<br />

generated te quantities over 1,000,000<br />

metric tons per year through<br />

calculations or teterpretations of survey<br />

results, which were not provided te tbe<br />

background dociunents. The second<br />

commenter argued that EPA may have<br />

overiooked or misundentood tba Sarvey<br />

data, te fact they stated ptocase<br />

wastewater from bydrofhatlo add<br />

prtMluction is generated at tm avaraga<br />

rale per facility far te mtatm al 1 mUllon<br />

metric tons per year. The^pauuantar<br />

resubmitted its Survey, nftkb indudaa a<br />

process flow <strong>diagram</strong> ot tfaa Iwdrofluoric<br />

add process. Infonnatioa is auo<br />

provided on the volume of process*<br />

wastewster generated <strong>and</strong> managed te<br />

sections 5 <strong>and</strong> 6 of the Survey.<br />

One commenter supported EPA's<br />

application of tbe higb voiuma critarian<br />

to tbe reported process wastawatar<br />

inflows to surface unpotrndoMata. Tba<br />

commenter mamiamed that tba flow<br />

rate to surface ia.^uundmants can be<br />

used to estimate process wastewater<br />

flow rates. According to the commenter,<br />

data available through plant NPDES<br />

records, the conunenter daimed<br />

tedicate that the flow rate does exceed<br />

the 1.000.000 metiric tens per year Bevill<br />

criterion. Specifically, the most recent<br />

water balance, submitted as part of the<br />

NPDES renewal application, tedicated<br />

that the inflow to surface impoundments<br />

from the hydrofluoric add production<br />

process was 2,079,400 gaUons per day,<br />

which is equivalent to 2.900.000 metric<br />

tons per year, according to the<br />

commenter.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has carefully reviewed<br />

these comments <strong>and</strong> the revised survey<br />

submitted by the commenter <strong>and</strong> agrees<br />

that process wastewater from<br />

hydrofluoric add production satisfies<br />

the higb volume criteriort as discussed<br />

below te section IIL<br />

c. Hazard. Two commenten<br />

addressed the hazard level of process<br />

wastewater from hydrofluoric add<br />

production. One commenter agreed with<br />

EPA's proposed determteation that tbe<br />

waste is low hazard Another<br />

commenter daimed however, that<br />

EPA's samphng data demonstrated that<br />

process wastewater bota hydrofluoriv.<br />

add pnxluction exhibits the hazardous<br />

waste charaderistic of corrosivity (pH<br />

values of 1.4 <strong>and</strong> 1.86), <strong>and</strong> questioned<br />

EPA's hilure to remove the waste from<br />

tba Bevill exdusion. The commenter<br />

also urged EPA to consider this data te<br />

preparing its Report to Congress.<br />

Ine <strong>Agency</strong> generally agrees %vith the<br />

commenter that all relevant hazard data<br />

should be considered te the study of the<br />

waste stream when preparing the Report<br />

to Congress. However. EPA finalized the<br />

low haiard criterion te the September 1,<br />

1989 rule smd ia not currentiy<br />

entertaining commentii on it The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s rationale for tbe low hazard<br />

aitarion ia outlteed te 54 FR 36592.<br />

EPA's sampling data tedicate tbat this<br />

waste does not exhibit a pH of less than<br />

1. <strong>and</strong> tberefcae, complies with the low<br />

hazard criterion.<br />

S. <strong>Process</strong> Wastewater From Primary<br />

Lead <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

a. PrtxaeMing Criterion/Waste<br />

Definitioa. One commenter daimed that<br />

EPA must study all process wastewaten<br />

from primary lead production,<br />

cont<strong>and</strong>iag tbat onca EPA completes its<br />

stiidy. it will realize tbat these are not<br />

wastaa, because process wastewaten<br />

from primary lead production are reused<br />

witbte tbe primary lead production<br />

circuit RCRA hazardous waste<br />

requiramants, tberefore. are not<br />

approprtate.<br />

In response to this comment EPA<br />

notes that tba extant to wbicb this waste<br />

stream is managed through "dosed<br />

loop" recycling, <strong>and</strong> hence, is'not<br />

subject to RCRA requirements, would be<br />

addressed te the Report to Congress, if<br />

this material were foimd to meet the<br />

Bevill special waste criteria. The waste<br />

does not meet these criteria, however,<br />

<strong>and</strong> thus will not be teduded te the<br />

Report to Congress. Nevertheless, if die<br />

waste is managed te such a way that it<br />

does not meet the definition of a solid<br />

waste, then RCRA hazardous waste<br />

requirements would not apply.<br />

One commenter urged EPA to clarify<br />

its defiiution of process wastewater<br />

from primary lead production so that all<br />

waten that are collected from<br />

processing operations are specifically<br />

teduded te teat definition. The<br />

commenter states that the only reason<br />

for EPA's tedudlng contad cooling<br />

water te the definition of process<br />

wastewater <strong>and</strong> not tedudlng acid plant<br />

blowdown Is tee arbitrary elimteation of<br />

one relatively large volume process<br />

water stream from the volume amount<br />

te addition, defining this waste as<br />

"waten that are uniquely assodated<br />

wite processing operations that haws<br />

accumulated contamteants to the p^tet<br />

that they must be removed bom the<br />

mteeral production system" is confusing.<br />

Do the waten need to be removed from<br />

tee system, or do tee contaminants need<br />

to be removed from tee waten?<br />

EPA responds teat tee reasons for<br />

distinguishing between different<br />

aqueous waste streams generated m tee<br />

mteeral processing tedustry have been<br />

discussed at lengte te previous<br />

rulemaking notices (54 FR 15316, April<br />

17,1989; <strong>and</strong> 54 FR 36592, September 1,<br />

1989.) Briefly. EPA believes tee<br />

disttections it bas made are appropriate<br />

based on tea available infonnation<br />

concerning tee waste cbaraderistics<br />

<strong>and</strong> potets of generation te the process.<br />

As explateed te the preamble to tee<br />

September 1.1988 final rule, EPA has<br />

considered add plant blowdown <strong>and</strong><br />

oteer wastewaten from primary lead<br />

processing to be two distted wastes<br />

because these wastes have substantially<br />

different characteristics. EPA believes<br />

teat tee definition of wastewater dearly<br />

tedicates tbat it is tee wastewater teat<br />

needs to be removed from tee system<br />

because it is tbe wastewater <strong>and</strong> not tee<br />

contaminants to wbicb the definition<br />

refen.<br />

b. Volume. One commenter stated teat<br />

tee volume EPA osad aa a basis for<br />

proposing to eliminate process<br />

wastowatar bom prtaiary lead<br />

productioa was UHM tban tee acteal<br />

amount generatad at tts plants. Tbe<br />

commenter argued tbat this tecorred<br />

determination was a result of artificial


v.y<br />

Fedeeal Begistar / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations 23:<br />

limitations on tbe acteal amount of<br />

water teat could be reported as "process<br />

wastewater" te tee National Survey of<br />

Solid Wastes from Mteeral <strong>Process</strong>ing<br />

Facilities, where EPA only solidted<br />

information on processing units<br />

associated wite the generation of<br />

process waters. According to tee<br />

commenter. EPA inappropriately<br />

reduced tee number of streams counted<br />

toward tee volume cutoff by focusing on<br />

only a few process water streams. The<br />

commenter mateteteed that its tetemal<br />

date tedicate teat tbe volumes of.<br />

process wastewater from primary lead<br />

production generated by its plants<br />

exceed the 1,000.000 metric ton<br />

threshold. Anoteer commenter was<br />

dismayed by EPA's condusion that<br />

process wastewater brxn primary lead<br />

processing was low volume, because<br />

teere is no way to verify tee numerical<br />

daU used to arrive at the average of<br />

785^62 metric tons per year.<br />

EPA responds that tbe Natiooal<br />

Survey requested date on tbe quantity of<br />

wastewater generated by all mineral<br />

processing operations at each fadbty<br />

surveyed <strong>and</strong> that the responses<br />

provided tedicate that process<br />

wastewater is not a large volume waste.<br />

EPA is limited te the amount of<br />

information it can present on tbe waste<br />

generation cjlculations used to develop<br />

tee September 25 proposal because one<br />

of tee commenten hajs requested<br />

Confidential Business infnrmatinn atetas<br />

for teeir information.<br />

c Hazard One commenter objected to<br />

EPA's on-site sampling methods. IL te<br />

tee survey, the <strong>Agency</strong> requeste<br />

information on process wastewaters,<br />

oteer waste streams, such as process<br />

water from stetering. should not be<br />

sampled for tee ha^rd determination.<br />

Because of tee scheduling constratete<br />

imposed by tee Court of Appeals, EPA's<br />

waste sampling effort had to be<br />

conducted before tee final contoure of<br />

tee benefidation/processteg boundary<br />

had been established Thus, EPA<br />

sampled wastes teat are, in hlndaigbt.<br />

outside the scope of tbe current<br />

rulemaking. Tbe analytical residts for<br />

wastes teat an ariMda Hie scope of tfaia<br />

rulemaking (1.8.. pncesa water from<br />

smtertng) have BSl^mBn used te<br />

evaluating compBanoa wtib the low<br />

hazard criterion, bataad EPA has used<br />

resufts from samples of wastes teat are<br />

tee subiect of this rulemaking (I.e.. slag<br />

granulation water) te detemteilng that<br />

teis is not s low hazard waata.<br />

6. Sulfate <strong>Process</strong> Waste Adda Praaa<br />

Titanium Dioxide Prodactka<br />

a, tiuunj. One oannentar slatad that<br />

sulfate proceea weste acida from ite<br />

facility meet BPA's km hazard critarian<br />

<strong>and</strong> should therefore be reteteed m tee<br />

Bevill exclusion. The commenter<br />

disputed tee selenium concentrations<br />

pablished te tee proposed rule, stating<br />

teat if EPA asserte that tee sample<br />

exceeding the criterion comes from the<br />

commenter's facility, teen tee <strong>Agency</strong> is<br />

mistaken. The commenter notes teat tee<br />

sulfate process waste add sample was<br />

essentially analyzed three times: once<br />

as is. once using tee SPLP, <strong>and</strong> once for<br />

EP toxidty. te the leaching procedures<br />

(SPLP <strong>and</strong> EP Toxidty) the sample is<br />

filtered <strong>and</strong> tee filtrate analyzed. The<br />

solids (if any) are leached <strong>and</strong> tee<br />

leachate is analyzed Stece teere were<br />

no solids, tee three analyses should<br />

have agreed, te actuality, tee<br />

concentration for selenium was below<br />

tee detecteble limit for two of tee<br />

samples, while selenium showed up on<br />

tee SPLP sample at a level of 6.3 mg/l.<br />

The commenter retamed a portion of tee<br />

sample teat was collected for EPA <strong>and</strong><br />

had it analyzed for EP Toxicity.<br />

Selenium concentrations were below<br />

detectable limits. The commenter also<br />

claimed to have made fadlity<br />

improvements which have caused<br />

sulfate process waste adds to betxjme<br />

less sddic. The overall average pK trom<br />

1984 throng 1988 was 1.02.<br />

EPA agrees teat tee reported'^^P<br />

seleniam concentratimi that is<br />

qeestioQed by the conunenter does<br />

sppear to be anomalous, but bebeves<br />

teat tee oteer data, tedudlng tee pH<br />

data, collected during EI'A's sampling<br />

visite are accurate <strong>and</strong> provide a<br />

auffident basis for applying tbe low<br />

hazard criterion to this waste stream.<br />

The average pH date provided by tee<br />

commenter are not relevant to tbia<br />

twtamaking because average pH values<br />

do not have meaning <strong>and</strong> are net<br />

consistent wite tbe date reqaireaents<br />

specified te the low hazard criterion for<br />

tee pH test<br />

7. Se^te <strong>Process</strong> Waste SoRds From<br />

Titaniimi Dioxide ProdiKtion<br />

a. Volume. Two commenten urged<br />

EPA to reconsider its prelinunary<br />

condusion teat sulfate process waste<br />

solids fafl to meet tee high volume<br />

crtterion. One commenter tedicated teat<br />

sulfate process waste solids are<br />

generated te tee form of a slurry, at a<br />

rate of 86.800 short tons (78,728 metidc<br />

tons) per jrear as indicated te tee<br />

November 21.1988 comments <strong>and</strong> the<br />

response to EPA's National Survey of<br />

Solid Wastes from Kfineral <strong>Process</strong>ing.<br />

Another faidnstry commenter daimed<br />

that EPA miscalculated tee vohme of<br />

sulfate pwceae waste sobds generated<br />

annually. Tbe commenter stated that a<br />

total of 4B.900 metric tons are b<strong>and</strong>ied<br />

The values used for suspended solids<br />

were from tbe commenter's quarteriy<br />

samples, wbicb have been taken since<br />

1984. According to tee commenter, tee;<br />

volumes confirm teose given, m<br />

comments provided m response to the<br />

October 10.1988 proposal of 85,000<br />

tons/year, which teduded chloride<br />

wastes. The commenter further<br />

indicated teat'teese wastes, togeteer<br />

wite tee treatment residuals, will brinj<br />

tee total solids h<strong>and</strong>led to well over<br />

500,000 tons per year.<br />

It is EPA's position teat the waste of<br />

interest is Ae dewatered waste solids'<br />

taken from tee drum filter at one facili<br />

rateer tean tee slurry from the darifiei<br />

as suggested by the conunenter, becau<br />

tee available information indicates tec<br />

tee primary purpose of tee dewatering<br />

operation performed by tee drum filter<br />

to retura product solution to tee<br />

production process <strong>and</strong> thus, it<br />

resembles a processing operation more<br />

closely tean it does a waste treatment<br />

operation. Accordingly, EPA has used<br />

tee reported quantity of drum filter cal<br />

rather than tee quantity of slurry sent<br />

tee drum filter te evaluating tee<br />

compliance bf this waste stmam wite<br />

tee high volume criteria. A&er furteer<br />

analysis, tee <strong>Agency</strong> bas conduded te<br />

tee revised waste generation rates<br />

reported by tee second commenter are<br />

reasonable, though the underlying dati<br />

are not readily apparent in tee<br />

commenter's response to tee National<br />

Survey. Revised (<strong>and</strong> final) waste<br />

generation estimates, which tedicate<br />

teat this is not a high volume waste, ar<br />

presented te section QL below.<br />

D. Relationship ofthe Proposed Rule C<br />

Subtitle C of RCRA<br />

1. The Mixtore Rule<br />

a. General comments, te teefr<br />

commente on tee September 25<br />

proposaL a mnnber of commenters<br />

objected to tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s mterpretatior<br />

of the mixture rule ta tee September 1,<br />

1968 final rule <strong>and</strong> questitmed what thr<br />

impad of tbe mixtm^ rule would be<br />

upon tee Bevill determmations<br />

contained ta tee September 25 prcposf<br />

Commenten requested teat EPA<br />

reconsider its teterpretation of tee<br />

mixture rah as it applies to Bevill<br />

excluded wastes teat are mixed with<br />

relatively small vohnnes of nonexduded<br />

wastes. Commenten noted<br />

teat a mixture of a Bevill exduded<br />

waste <strong>and</strong> a diaracteristically<br />

hazardous waste wtrald be conside.'-ed<br />

non-excluded hazardcms waste.<br />

Particdaifyb) tbe phosphate industry,<br />

commenten obfetited to this<br />

dassBmtluu. arguing teat if tee nanexduded<br />

waste te a mixture shares th>


2334 Foderal Ragiatar / VnU 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rales <strong>and</strong> ReguJations<br />

same hazardous charaderistic as tee<br />

Bevill excluded waste, tee J3evill status<br />

of tee resul ting mixture should not be<br />

witedrawn.<br />

Commenters also requested teat tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> clanfy the mixture rule te a<br />

number of vva vs. First, teey suggested<br />

teat EPA clanfy whether mteeral<br />

processing wastes that are temporarily<br />

excluded from R CRA SubtiUe C<br />

requirements may be used (e.g., as air<br />

pollution control scrubber water) te<br />

production units that dp not generate<br />

Bevill wastes, <strong>and</strong> similarly wheteer<br />

non-Bevill excluded wastes may be used<br />

m production units that generate Bevill<br />

excluded wastes, te particular,<br />

commenten requested clarification of<br />

tee states of a Bevill-exduded waste<br />

teat is used te a non-Bevill production<br />

unit when tee waste exhibits a<br />

characteristic or hazardous waste afier<br />

use te tee non-Bevill operation only<br />

because tee Bevill waste teat is an teput<br />

to tee non-Bevill process exhibito tee<br />

hazardous characteristic.<br />

te addition, commenten argued teat<br />

tee October 28.1989 supplemaat to tee<br />

proposed regulations for burning of<br />

hazardous waste te boilen <strong>and</strong><br />

muustrial furnaces (54 FR 43718)<br />

conflicte wite tee teterpretetion of the<br />

mixture rule established ta tee<br />

September 1.1989 fteal rule. The<br />

proposed rule on burning stetes' tbat<br />

residues would remate witbte tee Bevill<br />

exdusion if tee charader of tee residual<br />

is detennteed by tee Bevill materiaL In<br />

contrast tee September 1 final rule<br />

stetes teat any material burned with a<br />

low volume, non-Bevill waste would be<br />

regarded as hazardous even if tbe<br />

charaderistic exhibited Is tbe same aa<br />

tee characteristic of tee Bevill waste.<br />

Commenten requested tbat tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />

reconcile teese conflicting<br />

teterpretations of tee mixture rule by<br />

adopting tee approach te tbe pmpoeed<br />

rule on burning.<br />

b. Comments related to phosphoric<br />

acid production. Ccmmentata from tba<br />

phosphoric add industry teqoaated tbat<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> provide a i<br />

explanation of ite i<br />

as it relates to pho<br />

wastewaters, ajid i<br />

comment The ami<br />

fertilizer (APF) procesa i<br />

wastewater as an tefluant <strong>and</strong> than<br />

returns it to tee originating phosphate<br />

complex pond One commenter<br />

contended teat APF process wastewatat<br />

does not exhibit hazardous<br />

characteristics when generated<br />

separately from a facility tbat produces<br />

phosphoric acid Therefore, tba<br />

commenter argued APF wastewater<br />

must not contribute tee hazardous<br />

characteristic found te phosphoric acid<br />

process wastewater, <strong>and</strong> teus it should<br />

not trigger tee removal of phosphoric<br />

add process wastewater from tee Bevill<br />

exclusion. Phosphate industry<br />

commenten urged tee <strong>Agency</strong> to reject<br />

any teterpretation of tee mixture rule<br />

teat would remove phosphate complex<br />

pond water from tee BeviU exemption<br />

because it contamed process<br />

wastewater used te the APF process.<br />

CJommenters luged the <strong>Agency</strong> to<br />

adopt an teterpretation of the mixture<br />

rule consistent wite tee position<br />

advocated te tee October 28,1989<br />

proposal (54 FR 43718) on burning, <strong>and</strong><br />

allow small amounts of sulfuric add<br />

process wastewater to be combined te<br />

tee general process wastewater system<br />

witeout tee removal of tee entire system<br />

from tee Bevill exclusion. Phosphate<br />

tedustry commenten objected to tee<br />

mixture rule teterpretation contamed te<br />

tee September 1,1989 final rule te whicb<br />

tee addition of sulfuric acid process<br />

wastewater to a phosphoric add<br />

complex's water recirculation system<br />

would residt te tee entire system being<br />

removed from tee Bevill exdusion.<br />

According to one commenter. alteougb<br />

sulfuric add process wastewater<br />

displays tee same characteristic of<br />

corrosivity as phosphoric add procesa<br />

wastewater, tee addition of sulfuric add<br />

process wastewater may constitete less<br />

tban ona percent of tee dady<br />

wastewater generated at an average<br />

facility, <strong>and</strong> teus should not affed tbe<br />

BeviU stetna of tee entire waste stream.<br />

c Caaunenta related to hydrofluoric<br />

acid production. One coinmenter<br />

requestad clarification on tee use of<br />

hydrofluoric acid process wastewater ta<br />

•n almnlanm fluoride plant <strong>and</strong> asked<br />

tbe Agancy to address tee use of Bevill<br />

exshidad charaderistic wastes as a<br />

source of influent to oteer processes.<br />

Tba on—nantw argued teat hazardous<br />

cfaaractarlstlcs displayed by water<br />

existing tba alumteum fluoride facility<br />

ara iolely from hydrofluoric add (HF]<br />

proossa wastewater. Thus, tee<br />

ommnantar asserted tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s<br />

iatarpretetion of tee mixture rule should<br />

have no bearing on wheteer HF process<br />

wastewater remains withm tee BeviU<br />

axchttton. The commenter requested<br />

that if tha <strong>Agency</strong> teterpreU the mixture<br />

rule sucfa teat tea use of process<br />

wastawatar ta tea alumteum fluoride<br />

plant resulte te all water ta tee pond<br />

whara that water is finaUy disposed<br />

being removed from tee BeviU exdusion.<br />

EPA should supplement tee proposed<br />

rule with Ite rationale for such a<br />

dedsioa <strong>and</strong> allow for additional public<br />

cominant<br />

d. CoBuaeata related to coal<br />

gasification. One conunenter objected to<br />

the <strong>Agency</strong>'s possible determteation.<br />

based upon tee mixture rule, that<br />

process wastewater from coal<br />

gasification is hazardous. The<br />

commenter asserted teat if process<br />

wastewater was disposed of<br />

immediately rateer than used in a<br />

cooling tower, tee waste stream would<br />

not demonstrate hazardous<br />

characteristics; however, important<br />

water conservation <strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

practices cotdd not teen be practiced.<br />

Thus, tee commenter concluded, the<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> should not withdraw the Bevill ,<br />

exclusion for coal gasification process<br />

wastewaten based upon hazardous<br />

characteristics when teose<br />

characteristics result from appropriate<br />

water conservation <strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

practices.<br />

e. Response to comments, te response<br />

to teese questions <strong>and</strong> issues raised by<br />

commenten regarding tee mixture rule,<br />

EPA makes tee fbUowing observations.<br />

Pint like tee criteria esteblished for<br />

identifying wastes eligible for tee Bevill<br />

exemption, tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s position mi tee<br />

mixture rule was finalized on September<br />

1.1968 <strong>and</strong> is not open for comment as<br />

part of this rulemaking. Second tba<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> plans to add commente to the<br />

docket for tee October 28te notice<br />

regarding tee aUeged contradiction<br />

between tee Odober 26.1989 (54 FR<br />

43718) supplement to tee proposed<br />

regidations for burning of hazardous<br />

waste ta boden <strong>and</strong> tedustrial furnaces<br />

<strong>and</strong> tee mixture rule te tee September 1,<br />

1986 final rule. Third wastes from<br />

operations that are not mteeral<br />

processing operations based on tee<br />

definition of mteeral processing<br />

contained ta tea September 1 final nde<br />

ara not mtaeral processing wastes<br />

regardless of tee nature of any tepute<br />

(teduding BeviU wastes] to teat process.<br />

Finally, tee mixture rule is not a factor<br />

ta today's decision to retata tee BeviU<br />

exemption for process wastewater<br />

becanse BeviU wastes are being<br />

evaluated not mixtures.<br />

2. L<strong>and</strong> Disposal Restrictions<br />

Two commenten expressed concern<br />

about tea impad of L<strong>and</strong> Disposal<br />

Restrictiona (LORs] on wastes newly<br />

removed from tha BeviU exdusion. One<br />

commentar steted teat tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />

cannot accurately estimate tee<br />

economic ioqiad of tee proposed rule<br />

untii tbe "Third Tbird" rule is<br />

promulgated<br />

Tba second commenter requested teat<br />

tba Agenoy considar mteerel processing<br />

wastaa removed from tea BeviU<br />

exdusion. "newly identified" wastes


Federal Regirt» / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations 2331<br />

under tee LDRs. Stece "chlorideilmenite"<br />

wastes from titaiuum<br />

production were not considered RCRA<br />

hazardous wastes on November 9,1984,<br />

tee date of HSWA enactment tee<br />

commenter asserted teat teey must be<br />

considered newl^ identified wastes. The<br />

commenter argued teat witeout terming<br />

these wastes newly identified tee<br />

facility would unfairly have to meet tee<br />

hammer date of August 8,1990 for<br />

Cahfornia List wastes. Facilities teat<br />

generated a waste subject to CaUfornia<br />

List restrictions on underground<br />

injection were granted a two year<br />

national capacity variance during which<br />

teey could eiteer plan new capacity or<br />

submit a "no-migration" petition. TTie<br />

commenter mamtateed that equal<br />

opportimity must be granted to mteeral<br />

processing facilities to develop new<br />

capacity or submit no-migration<br />

petitions.<br />

te addition, tee commenter asked teat<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> delay tee applicability of tee<br />

LDRs to chloride-ilmenite wastes by<br />

determining teat such wastes are<br />

beneficial wastes <strong>and</strong> subject to furteer<br />

study by EPA. This would aUow tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>, according to tee commenter.<br />

additional time to evaluate the<br />

protectiveness of underground tejection<br />

for chloride-ilmenite wastes.<br />

EPA responds teat as explateed te<br />

tee September 1.1989 fteal rule <strong>and</strong> te<br />

tee proposed l<strong>and</strong> disposal restrictions<br />

(LDRs) for tee third teird schedule<br />

wastes (54 FR 48372.48378: November<br />

Z2.1980). tee <strong>Agency</strong> believes tee<br />

wastes teat are brought under SubtiUe C<br />

regidation by today's final nde to be<br />

"newly identified" wastes for purposes<br />

of establishing LDR st<strong>and</strong>ards under<br />

section 3004(g)(4) of RCRA. (54 FR<br />

36624). Accordingly. EPA has proposed<br />

teat newly identified mteeral pnxxssing<br />

wastes not be subjed to tee BOAT<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards teat tee <strong>Agency</strong> proposed on<br />

November 22.1989 (54 FR 483721 for<br />

characteristic hazardous wastes. Aa<br />

required by RCRA aection 3Q04(gK4KCl.<br />

CPA plans to stodylha mineral<br />

processing wastaa taoMved from tba<br />

temporary exwmpHam to datarmina<br />

BOAT for ones that axhflrit ona or mora<br />

characteristics oi a hazardoos wasta.<br />

(See 54 FR 48483.) Tha Agancy baa taken<br />

comment on this issue ta r^nnectjon<br />

wite tbe LDR proposal <strong>and</strong> wiU address<br />

tee issue, tedudteg tea costs, if any, of<br />

requiremente whan it promulgataa tbat<br />

rule. FInaUy. tba reader should lafar to<br />

the disctission oa individual waste<br />

streams <strong>and</strong> process dafinltlana far<br />

clarification of tba stetua of chlorldailmenite<br />

wastes.<br />

3. Retroactive Application of Subtitle C<br />

Requirements<br />

" One commenter expressed concern<br />

over tee retroactive application of<br />

SubtiUe C to chromium-contamteated<br />

fill, <strong>and</strong> criticized tee <strong>Agency</strong> for not<br />

specifically considering chromiumcontaminated<br />

fill in redefining tee scope<br />

of tee Bevill exclusion, tee economic<br />

impact screening, or tee sampling effort<br />

The commenter asserted teat EPA<br />

should make a separate BeviU<br />

determination regarding tee states of<br />

chromium-contaminated fiU. The<br />

commenter wished to confirm teat<br />

chromium-contaminated fiU already te a<br />

lined contaiiunent facility would not be<br />

affected by tee loss of Bevill exempt<br />

states, te addition, tee commenter<br />

stated teat if fill excavated after tee<br />

effective date of tee rule was subjed to<br />

RCRA SubtiUe C regulation, it could<br />

impose a severe economic burden upon<br />

tee commenter.<br />

The commenter argued teat samples<br />

gateered by tee <strong>Agency</strong> te tee summer<br />

of 1989 from operating plante are not<br />

representetive of tee chromium<br />

contaminated fiU te question at tee<br />

commenter's facility. The commenter<br />

maintateed that tee conditions at tee<br />

faciUty demonstrate teat tee waste<br />

stream satisfies tee low hazard<br />

criterion. Due to ite mixture with soils<br />

<strong>and</strong> oteer non-hazardous materials, long<br />

in-situ residence time, <strong>and</strong> weateering,<br />

tee chromium fiU material may be of a<br />

different physical <strong>and</strong> chemical nature<br />

tean tbe wastes from chrome ore<br />

processing generated at operating<br />

plants, according to tee commenter.<br />

Alteougb sod samples from tee initial<br />

excavation of this waste stream exceed<br />

tee EP toxidty levels for chromium,<br />

mora recent samples <strong>and</strong> ground-water<br />

samples have not been EP toxic. The<br />

commenter conduded teat retaining<br />

chromium contaminated fiU «vitbta tbe<br />

BeviU exclusion would aUow for hazard<br />

testing of tba material <strong>and</strong> adequate<br />

time to develop treatment optiona.<br />

Based on tee svadable information.<br />

EPA baUeves teat chromiumcontaminated<br />

fiU is not a separate,<br />

discrete mineral processing wsste<br />

because tt may be. <strong>and</strong> likely is, as<br />

noted by tea conunenter. comprised of a<br />

mixture of mteeral processing waste,<br />

noo-minaral processing waste, <strong>and</strong> nonwaste<br />

(a.g.. soU) matenals. ta addition.<br />

EPA obsMves that tee untreated residua<br />

from roasting/leaching of chroma on te<br />

not low hazard <strong>and</strong> teua, te not eligibla<br />

for tee BeviU exemption. As a result the<br />

comaante on tba stems of chromiumcontaminated<br />

fiU are only geimana tf dia<br />

fiU contalna treated residua from<br />

roasting/leeching of chroma ore similar<br />

to teat whicb is currenUy being<br />

generated which wiU need to be<br />

determined on a case-by-case basis.<br />

Because tee composition of tee fill <strong>and</strong>.<br />

teerefore, the relevance of any data cn<br />

tee chemical composition of the fill is<br />

unclear, tee <strong>Agency</strong> believes inclusion<br />

of such data te reaching a conclusion or<br />

tee states of treated residue from<br />

roastteg/leaching of chrome ore would<br />

be bote teappropriate <strong>and</strong> impractical.<br />

E. Costs <strong>and</strong> Impacts ofthe Proposed<br />

Rule<br />

1. Technical Feasibility<br />

Two commenten claimed that it<br />

would be technologically infeasible to<br />

manage teeir wastes according to<br />

subtitle C requirements. One cominentt<br />

argued teat it would be technologically<br />

infeasible to manage fluorogypsum or<br />

process wastewater from hydrofluoric<br />

acid production according to tee<br />

minimum technology requirements or<br />

tee LDRs. Anoteer commenter<br />

mateteteed teat insufficient l<strong>and</strong> is<br />

available to retrofit existing waste<br />

management systems te order to manae<br />

phosphate rock processing wastes unde<br />

subtidc C <strong>and</strong> the LDRs.<br />

Because bote of teese wastes are<br />

retateed withte tee BeviU exclusion by<br />

eiteer tee September 1 final rule, or<br />

today's rule, teey will be studied in the<br />

Report to Congress which will address,<br />

among oteer issues, tee technical<br />

feasibiUty of managmg'Bevill wastes<br />

under subtiUe C of RCRA.<br />

2. CompUance Cost Estimates<br />

A commenter disapproved of EPA's<br />

analysis of economic impacts,<br />

contending teat tee <strong>Agency</strong> should<br />

tedude tee txiste due to corrective<br />

action requiremente <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

restrictions (LDRs). because by ignoring<br />

teese costs. EPA has underestimated th<br />

total coste-of compliance. The difficulty<br />

of estimating teese coste is, tee<br />

commenter claimed no justification for<br />

assuming zero coste for teese<br />

requirements. Two of tee wastes<br />

proposed for witedrawal from tee BeviJ<br />

exclusion are high-volume, <strong>and</strong> for teos<br />

materials, LDR treatment is likely to be<br />

very cosUy. ta addition, corrective<br />

action may impose high costs at some<br />

faciUties.<br />

Q>A did not estimate tee costs<br />

assodated wite l<strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

restrictions because it te not possible.<br />

nor is it <strong>Agency</strong> poUcy, to estimate tee<br />

effecte of imposing regulations teat do<br />

not yat exist These economic impacts,<br />

any. wiU ba addressed by tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />

when It promulgates l<strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

restriction treatment st<strong>and</strong>ards.


Noneteeleaa; EPA bar. kabotkiv<br />

September 2S{vepaaeii <strong>and</strong> tadag^ fend<br />

rule, estimatsdtfaec<br />

stabdizmg resfduea bancUqidA i<br />

treatment so aa to aialsB tham.<br />

ameadahde to l<strong>and</strong> (<br />

while it n not posnfalel atpaaaanti te<br />

define BDAT (<strong>and</strong> tbua. kSRlmpacto)<br />

for any wastes removed bea tbe Bevill:<br />

exdusion, EPA he* attempted te capteie<br />

some of the likely coste aseedsted svitfa<br />

future waste disposal activities.<br />

Prospective corrective action costs are<br />

by nature site-specific <strong>and</strong> difficidt to<br />

estimate. CurrenUy available<br />

information does not allow EPA to<br />

estimate these ctMte w^ cenfidlBsce. To<br />

tee extent teerefare. tbat my addftliBae?<br />

facilities: are tiroagfat Bite> On-sobtflte C<br />

on-site waste menagemend syirfem by<br />

teis nde. EPA may have aoderastlmatatf<br />

cost <strong>and</strong> economic impaGts^ Tba readar<br />

is referred to secttoa W bakne Ibr<br />

additional discusstae of tbe spanHlu<br />

features of die meteodoiogy aaiplDyad<br />

A commenter alao iodtEatad mat tie<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> elan should rscDgnine that<br />

commodity pioducare c<br />

cempiianaa coste on te pivdact<br />

EPA responds ui^ta tha Bcaaamie<br />

Impact AnaLystapsavidad ia tbe<br />

September 2S NPRM,. tbe Agpnqi<br />

considered on a cammodity spariflr<br />

basia the extent to which pefpnti al<br />

compliance ooste- coold ba passed<br />

through toconsumatSk Aa-indiratad ta<br />

this ajudysis (<strong>and</strong> rastated ta iCuctiaa<br />

vn. below) EPA befieeeathat Uia<br />

commenter's suggestion teat aU mteeral<br />

processora te all commodity sactsia are<br />

"price takers." having n»abiUty to pass<br />

terough cost tecreases <strong>and</strong> therafora<br />

having to absorb teem tetemaUy,. Gi<br />

demonstrably untrue.<br />

One commenter maintataedthat &l<br />

order to accurately esttmolB tha<br />

ecenomir <strong>and</strong> regnlBtory impacts of tha<br />

proposed role. EFA must first resoiva<br />

tee issues of tee "mixture nde,"<br />

retroactivity <strong>and</strong> regeneratadwanas. fri<br />

particular, one ciuiiiiiBUtBi dtpyrfthat"<br />

EPA has not conztdbad<br />

Executive Oder t229t<br />

impact of exdncfing<br />

cimtamutated fill from<br />

Also, to truly tdentli^<br />

regulatory impacB of<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> snotnd oetafii<br />

bom aU Inactive fadlitiea.<br />

EPA responds tbat thaav<br />

addressed ii» Ibe Saytaibaa T. ll<br />

rule ateri aaa aa« seiaeam ».dd«<br />

ruleBddag.lSa bsfeflpnalsl^lbr<br />

poaicfaae audtoad >» ttM> ItulmJm<br />

regutaHanewdtnot bnaapaaaJ<br />

re troactlaaljc<br />

managemeitf oi aa<br />

A ^N£ 551 Ba. g ^ •Btwaday. jmaoMTf 23, WBO< / Kfcfer mat Kagul—gaa<br />

accaaribttao et wasta wiB soblacf •<br />

facdity to SubtiUe C regulatiaavit**<br />

material axbibite ona or more<br />

charactaristica of a bazardoua waste.<br />

3. CoiB|^eB€»G(Dst Msicet, ani<br />

Economic bnpaet Estbnatee<br />

a. Treated residue ^om roasting/<br />

leaching of chrome ore. According to<br />

one commenter. if tbe <strong>Agency</strong> imposes<br />

subb'Ue C requirements for chrome ore<br />

processing waste used as fiU. oa-site<br />

treatment ofthe QUwiH become<br />

burdensome aad expeoBivB. Also, if<br />

future excavated fiU must be managed<br />

as a hazardaus waste, depending, on tee<br />

amounte ofbazardous waste mvofved a<br />

severe economic burden may result<br />

witeout any commensurate gain ta<br />

healte oc environmental beaefite. Ea<br />

addition, bss of BeviU status for tba<br />

chromium-contaminated fiH ai a Qty of<br />

Baltimore wastewater treatment plant ta<br />

PatHpsco, Maryl<strong>and</strong> may prematurely<br />

teterrupt tee process of developing<br />

treatment al fematives.<br />

Tbe <strong>Agency</strong> dtMs not view this issue<br />

as relevant ta the states of the 2t) waste<br />

streams adtfressed ta today's nde<br />

because ft fr irof dear that the fSH.<br />

material to one ofthe nuneral processfrig<br />

waster covered by today's ndle.<br />

Conunenttore cnntended tbat' the costof<br />

compliance witb RCRA snbtftf^C fbr<br />

teactira fadlKiee snotdd be atfdressed.<br />

byD^ A commenter mateteinedteaf<br />

tee aadcet sBotdd taciuda iuniriuation<br />

on exiatfriKbiactise weste <strong>sites</strong> as weu.<br />

as tbe number or dinsine uie luT sitee<br />

teat wiU be affcded by tbe proposed<br />

nde.<br />

EPA wepende that Inactive fedfitfce<br />

wereael'auuipled because teey are not<br />

pertfioasf te-ttfs rufeuiaking.<br />

Seveset eeeamenters- dtaa^eed witlt<br />

tee iWBipirBiioecest estiraateferreeidtie<br />

frxim mastftig/H'iirhfrrg ef ebraoe are.<br />

One csaaBantar argued teat? tte wesOsboaMllto^nHaiiMdta<br />

tea Bev«<br />

axaBpttasbeeaosa at Itte sigidflcaHt<br />

coste tkataoMactt^<br />

cotdd fanpona. AccvnUng to tha<br />

mm—nter, dliipasal <strong>and</strong> treatmenf<br />

coate wiU ba af tana* ai>adifillenal-Sa<br />

milUon aeaa *a AgeeayVasttoaOaaf<br />

compUsaaa caste. Anetbar eomaieatar,<br />

howevaa;^oiallBodit&atrbee8aeeite waste<br />

V^H^H^V IV^ ^^VB^^FV ^^PVWr ^^ffCiCv IBS<br />

fbdlilr>MPBB8penifl ndtta ttaatad<br />

waatola-navtacardbun diere ia BO saarf<br />

for l»fcaian tb leadllj ii aay way<br />

ar dapeaal praetfoaak<br />

aoAtfeaa Ifeaaelii aoaaaC tat oaafiaBae<br />

roaating/liaiJlfcH etcfaagaae era I<br />

th*] "<br />

estimated baaause BPA did aet^ My<br />

evaluate aVaf tfeetafcrnetfen provided<br />

te tie Natiaaai Sbrvey of MBtoeral<br />

PraaassorsulbiaddiBant aetalof tbe<br />

sample* takan frees tba fiacdity by EPA<br />

were analyzed<br />

EPA responds ftet ff used avaifable<br />

Method 1312 diata tD^evafuete<br />

compliance wite tbe kiw hazard<br />

criterion. Because of time constraints,<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> analyzed tbe samples<br />

collected en an "as generated' basis<br />

prior fo ^miyzing those coffected on aa<br />

"as managed'*' basisr tbe ftirmer are<br />

direcUy pertinent to <strong>and</strong> necessary (er<br />

tbe BftviB ndemaking process while tee<br />

latter are primarily of uae ta^ prepermg<br />

tee Report teCoagrasa. Since<br />

pubUcatiaa ef tea September 25<br />

propoaaL boweverrtbe <strong>Agency</strong> bas had<br />

an oppestaKty ta analyze additional<br />

samples. Baaed apon these new<br />

analyses <strong>and</strong> analyses performed its<br />

•ufipoBl of teeSeptamberS peoposaL<br />

the AgeoiT agrese teae Uie teeate


11<br />

Fad<strong>and</strong> Re^er / VoL 55. No. 15 / Tueaday. January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations 23:<br />

As discussed ta section UL below,<br />

based upon further data m tee form of a<br />

revised stuvey response provided by tee<br />

facility te question. EPA now concludes<br />

teat tee waste sbream doe's satisfy tee<br />

high volume criterion <strong>and</strong> so wiU be<br />

retained for further stedy. Discussion of<br />

the prospective economic impacts of<br />

removing tee waste from tee BeviU<br />

exclusion as part of this rulemaking is,<br />

teerefore, moot<br />

c. Furnace off-gas solids from<br />

elemental phosphorus production. One<br />

commenter agreed teat due to tee low<br />

cost of compliance wite subtiUe C<br />

regulations, treatment of furnace off-gas<br />

solids from elemental phosphorus<br />

production as hazardous wastes is<br />

reasonable <strong>and</strong> practicable. One<br />

elemental phosphorus industry<br />

commenter asserted teat this company's<br />

waste stream is not hazardous, <strong>and</strong><br />

teerefore, no compliance costs wiU be<br />

tecurred. EPA was imable to confirm<br />

this for tee particular facility ta<br />

question, <strong>and</strong> tee commenter-supplied<br />

data was tesufficient to confirm that tee<br />

facility's waste wiU not exhibit a<br />

hazardous characteristic. The <strong>Agency</strong><br />

has. accui'dingly, matetamed ite<br />

conservative approach to estimating<br />

potential cost <strong>and</strong> economic impads<br />

associated wite this nde by assunung<br />

teat tee waste is hazardous <strong>and</strong> teat tee<br />

facility wdl be affected by tee rule even<br />

teough teis may not turn out to be tee<br />

case.<br />

d. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from<br />

hydrofluoric acid production. One<br />

commenter reported teat becaue of tbe<br />

co-mingling of fluorogypsum <strong>and</strong><br />

process wastewater at tee Calvert Qty,<br />

Kentecky plant tee annual estimated<br />

flow would be 2.900,000 metric tons per<br />

year, <strong>and</strong> not 103.528 metiric tons per<br />

year as assumed te tbe Technical<br />

Background Document "Development of<br />

tee Cost <strong>and</strong> Economic Impacte of<br />

Implementing tee BeviU Mteeral<br />

<strong>Process</strong>ing Waste Criteria." Because<br />

teese volumes differ by an order of<br />

magnitude, the aSact on EPA's<br />

estimstion of »JII^W«IW^ aoste for<br />

hydrofluoric add'Waate streams sub)ed<br />

to subtiUe C at • Galvert Qty plant<br />

would be signlfi^aai. Aa discussed<br />

below te sactian JB, baaed opon frirther<br />

date ta tba form of a revised surrey<br />

provided by one of tbe fadUties ta<br />

question <strong>and</strong> detailed written ctnnmente<br />

from tee oteer, it appean tbat tee wasta<br />

stream meete tee high volume criterion<br />

<strong>and</strong> tee compUanca costs that<br />

commentar claimed would ba significant<br />

wiU ta fad not ba tacurred<br />

e. Sulfate process waste solids from<br />

titanium dioxide production. Ona<br />

commenter questioned EPA's conclusion<br />

teat tee proposed rule woidd have no<br />

economic impact on tee commenter's<br />

facUity. The coinmenter underat<strong>and</strong>s<br />

teat under EP.Vs policy, non-excluded<br />

wastes which are disposed prior to tee<br />

effective data of tee rule which would<br />

make teem subject to SubtiUe C<br />

requirements would not be subject to<br />

direct SubtiUe C controls such as<br />

closure <strong>and</strong> post-closure care<br />

requirements, fa tee commenter's case,<br />

solid wastes from tee sidfate <strong>and</strong><br />

chloride processes were accumulated in<br />

surface impoundments untd October of<br />

1988. Smce that time, however, only<br />

non-hazardous wastes have been added,<br />

The commenter assumes that consistent<br />

with EPA's policy, teese impoundmente<br />

vn\l not be subject to closure <strong>and</strong> postclosiu^<br />

requirements.<br />

EPA responds teat tee commenter is<br />

correct te his assimiption as long as tee<br />

wastes previously placed te tee surface<br />

impoundments are not actively managed<br />

after tee effective data of today's rule.<br />

As discussed te tee September 1,1989<br />

final rule, EPA wiU not be applying<br />

SubtiUe C requirements retroactively.<br />

For furteer discussion of this issue see<br />

54 FR 36592.<br />

/. Wastes from phosphoric acid<br />

production. Commenters from tee<br />

phosphate rock processing tedustry<br />

contended teat tee tedustry could not<br />

competitively witest<strong>and</strong> tee coste of<br />

complying wite SubtiUe C or tee LDR<br />

requirements. They contended teat it Is<br />

infeasible, if not impossible, to manage<br />

process wastewaster from phosphoric<br />

add production in compUance wite<br />

subtiUe C requirements, espedaUy ta<br />

view of tee upcoming l<strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

restrictions on characteristic wastes. It<br />

te essential teat tee <strong>Agency</strong> retata<br />

process wastewater from phosphoric<br />

add ta tbe BeviU Amendment exdusion.<br />

As discussed below, EPA believes '<br />

that prt)cess wastewater from<br />

phosphoric add production compUes<br />

wite tee high volume <strong>and</strong> low hazard<br />

criteria <strong>and</strong> teerefore tee waste steam te<br />

today reteteed witete tee BeviU<br />

exdusioa The need for <strong>and</strong> technical<br />

<strong>and</strong> economic feasibiUty of subjecting<br />

tbte material to SubtiUe C requiremente<br />

wiU be addressed te tee Report to<br />

Congress.<br />

P. RequeetM for Clarifications/Technical<br />

Corrections on the September 1,1989<br />

Pinal Rule<br />

One commenter brought to tea<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s attention a difference between<br />

tee preamble <strong>and</strong> rule language ta tha<br />

September 1,1989 fteal rulemaking, ta<br />

tea preamble to tee final nda, tba<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> states that "roasting <strong>and</strong><br />

autoclaving are ctmsidared benefidation<br />

operatiotu if teey are used to remove<br />

sulfur <strong>and</strong>/or oteer impurities te<br />

preparing an ore or mteeral, or<br />

beneficiated ore or mteeraL for<br />

leaching." (54 FR 36818) to addition. L^<br />

commenter tedicated teat tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />

states teat<br />

chlorination is sometimes used prior to goU<br />

leaching operations In a procedure<br />

functionally identical to roasting <strong>and</strong><br />

autoclaving (i.e., to change a sulflde ore to<br />

chemical form more amenable to leaching].<br />

EPA recognizes that this type of pretreatrnt<br />

operation may be an integral part of leachi<br />

operations, <strong>and</strong> accordingly, considers non<br />

destrucUve chlorination of ores, minerals, i<br />

beneficiated ores or mmerals when used a?<br />

pretreatment step for leaching, to be a<br />

beneficiation operation. (54 FR 36618)<br />

The commenter noted, however. t.ha<br />

tee language of tee rule differs slighUy<br />

<strong>and</strong> refere specificaUy only to "roastir.<br />

m preparation for leadung." The<br />

commenter requested teat EPA cla.-ify<br />

tee language of tee September 1 final<br />

rule so teat pretreatment autodaving<br />

<strong>and</strong> chlorteation. as weU as roasting, ^<br />

clearly considered benefidation<br />

operations.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has reviewed tee<br />

language of the S^^^temberl, 1989 fina<br />

rule <strong>and</strong> agrees wite tee commenter tltee<br />

rule could be read so that<br />

pretreatment autodaving <strong>and</strong><br />

chlorteation might not be considered<br />

benefidation activities. As discussed<br />

tee preamble, this was not tee Agenc><br />

tetention. Thus, tee languge of<br />

i 261.4(b)(7) has been revised te todav<br />

rule to read<br />

Tor purposes of tliis paragraph,<br />

beneficiation of ores <strong>and</strong> minerals is<br />

restricted to the following activities; * * *<br />

roasting autodaving, <strong>and</strong>/or chlorination<br />

preparation for leadiing (except where the<br />

roasting (<strong>and</strong>/or autodaving <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

chlorinationl/leaching * • •"<br />

G. Coacerna With Administrative<br />

Procedures<br />

Commenten on tee proposed rule<br />

made a number of requeste to tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> regarding tee procedures EPA<br />

has followed for administering tee<br />

mteeral processing ndemaldngs. One<br />

commenter requested teat EPA defer<br />

final action on tee proposed rule<br />

pending: (1) fudidal review of tee<br />

September 1.1989 final rule; (2)<br />

darification of tee appUcability of tec<br />

rules to teactive processing facilities;<br />

<strong>and</strong> (3) a review of tee mixture rule.<br />

Another commenter requested teat th><br />

<strong>Agency</strong> publish ite rationale <strong>and</strong> allov<br />

lor pubUc comment If EPA decides thf<br />

procesa wastewater from tee product:<br />

of animal feed ammoniated phosphat<br />

fertilizer, <strong>and</strong> phosphate complex por<br />

ara not withte tee scope of tee Beviil<br />

exdusion. The same commenter askf


23M Fniiaaal B^htor / Vd. SSt. No- IS / Tuaadayy lannary 23, Iflgft / Rdea aad Ragalalionf<br />

teat aU documaateBsad iar pievioua<br />

rulemakings beinchidadta tba cuaeat<br />

docket (MW2ff). Ona caamanteraakad<br />

EPA to assess tee aBai)i#Baksesulte ef<br />

tee hazard san^Uag date aad cars&Uy<br />

compare teem wite tee commentar'a<br />

own split samples. FinaUy, one<br />

commenter sought additional time tar<br />

public review <strong>and</strong> comment on the<br />

backgroimd documente for tbe higb<br />

volume criterion. The coaimeater<br />

daimed teat the documents were net<br />

cvadable for comment b^ie the<br />

September 2Ste proposed nde. yat<br />

support tee criterion made final ta tbe<br />

September 1st nde.<br />

Because of court-imposed deadUaea.<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> is compeUed to promulgate<br />

today's fcral role on an accelerated<br />

schedule (signature by January 1ft 1990)1.<br />

ta order to ensure tbat aS tafbnnetfoa<br />

compiled for preTtuua retemakiRgt Iv<br />

fuRy avadabfe- to tbe pubfic tbe <strong>Agency</strong><br />

has incorporated by reference prenoae<br />

mineral prucessiiig waste dbdbrtr.<br />

except for tee KnT nife'reBistiflg sir<br />

smelter wastes (59 FR XtiZ September<br />

13.1988). teto tee current docket EFA<br />

believes teat tbe pobUr bas been<br />

provided an adequata opportuni^ t9<br />

comment on tnis relemaking <strong>and</strong><br />

teerefore, an additional comment perkM<br />

is not required ta addHfon. H>A<br />

believes dar ui cation of tne appUcabmty<br />

or the rules to taaetfve reclHttee <strong>and</strong><br />

review of ffie nilAture rule are not<br />

required or appropriate ta tbe cuutext of<br />

(tlie rulemaking becanse EPA's paeitMiy<br />

on teese issues was estabUshedtetbe<br />

September l..lflaB final i<br />

nLRevfaadAOTdlraHnnafthaFfaal<br />

Qitaria fas Osfinbi«,BcsiirifinaraI<br />

This section of tha praamftb preaenlk<br />

clarifications to tee waste stream<br />

defiruttonansod te tta paoponi levteed<br />

waste volume date <strong>and</strong> addittaaii<br />

discussion of salartad data uaadln.<br />

evaluatiag. onmpltancw edtb tha-fcae<br />

hazacd calarinn Okdy i<br />

streama for %vbich i<br />

have been ouda te I<br />

d iscuaaed in dated, A aoiMqiaf tfca<br />

Be vdl statue of tbe201<br />

processing wastaa ia I<br />

A. ClarifleetkMi of<br />

DefinOtotn<br />

Based on catafid revfaas afpublta<br />

caaiaaat^Mul "^^j''^*^!! ^nyly^la"^<br />

pcavioua EPA studies <strong>and</strong> ~'*'i'*"y<br />

respoaaeatotbniaaaNarinnal Snrvayaf<br />

Solid Wastaa from Miaatal BBQcaaaia^<br />

Facditiaar tbe Agancy has made tbe<br />

tallnwine '^^is'ima ronnar*^Tw tha<br />

definiUan. of caodidata BrsiD waste.<br />

stoaania» nlatad DBQcaaa deaeriBtlona»<br />

<strong>and</strong>thenunberaoftsfilities generating<br />

eacb waata.<br />

1. Tteated Itaeidue Tmm Rsaating/'<br />

Leeching of Chrome Ore<br />

Tbe resklua fromroasting/Iaachlng of<br />

chrome oce af concern te this rule is tee<br />

setUed residue fdUowing treatment of<br />

tee slurried leachmg waste. Bote<br />

faciUties teat reported generating<br />

residue from roaating/Ieaching. of<br />

chrome: ore pump teeir untreated waste<br />

direcUy to an onsite freafment unit ta<br />

cantrast to tee September 25 NPRH this<br />

final nde temporajdy retains tee<br />

exclusion fsom hazardous waate<br />

Gej^dations for on^ teose treated soUda<br />

which are entrained m tee slurry as il<br />

leaves tbe treatment faciUty <strong>and</strong> which<br />

setUe out ta disposal impoundments.<br />

Ayadable date indicate thai tbfs mineral<br />

processing waste is bote low hazard <strong>and</strong><br />

high- vohme^ Aa taificated ta the<br />

proposal the untreated waate ia not law<br />

hazanL<br />

2. ne«ea» Wastewater From Coal<br />

Gasificaltoa.<br />

Tbe d^ftafilon of process wastewater<br />

frtjm tee coal gasification operation bas<br />

been ravteedto dari^ teat procesa<br />

wastewater bom coal gasification is tee<br />

"stripped gas Uc^or^ generated during,<br />

teegaaiffcatfon of tbe coaL This procesa<br />

wastewater may be run through several<br />

suhsaqpent stocagB. treatment <strong>and</strong><br />

reuse opasatlona. Tliis stripped gas<br />

U'qjior was origtaaUy notnoimnated by<br />

tee fad&ty because of a<br />

mfsunderst<strong>and</strong>tag about ite statiis as a<br />

solid waste, ta commente provided on<br />

tha Septambet 25 proposaL however, tee<br />

coBipany has requested that tee entire<br />

stripped gas Uqiior stream be considered<br />

**prooeaa wastewater^ ratber tean ^t<br />

th^poEttaa reported pr^ouaty. EFA<br />

belbvaa diet (bnslrfppadgas Gquoc Is a<br />

soUd waste at tha one faciUty teat<br />

genarataa tha wasta. <strong>and</strong> has evaluated,<br />

tbaraxlanl to which tba material<br />

accon&giy. Because the lacility's<br />

taspnasa ta the 1989 National Survey<br />

Imfirataa that the fracasa stieanu ta<br />

pact.iaalatad ia surface impoundmente,<br />

EPA doaanotannsiderite maoagement<br />

system to be dosed-loop recycling<br />

laaaning tbat for present purposes, the<br />

ngBnCy oaAavae sue aiaf e^rat le nar<br />

eli^Ma np tne fjuaad loop exemptfoau<br />

However, thu does not affed tbeBbetf<br />

•tetus oi ^waatek<br />

X SlagTaningir Rom Ptliuaiy Cbppar<br />

Pracessiny<br />

EPA hm idantiflad. as a taault of<br />

public ««»««««*« a» additional fadUty^<br />

thntpaacaaaaa sla^fttMB primasy oopiiat<br />

prnrasslng <strong>and</strong> thasaby gaaerataeslag<br />

tailing^. Tkirincxeasas.tfae numher of<br />

faailltiaaknaivB by EEA to generate slag<br />

tailinga to tbcea.<br />

4, PumoceOff-CaeSofida Ft


Fadaral SagiBtar / VaL 55. No. 15 / Teesday, faaaary 23, 1990 / Rtdes mi KegefatJons 2S3<<br />

benefidation-chkirmatioB" ps<br />

not saparabla. Acoerdini^, tha waatea<br />

gencsatad by this chlarteatf^ paoocas<br />

an aubjad to GPA's


2340<br />

Federal Ragistw / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> RegtdatioHa<br />

or quantity of sludge generated from<br />

scndiber water settling] were tee<br />

volumes ascribed to teose fadUties for<br />

purposes of developing the sector-wide<br />

annual waste generation rate. 'Ihe<br />

average per-fadUty volume of this waste<br />

contteues to be below tee high volume<br />

criterion.<br />

6, <strong>Process</strong> Wastewater From<br />

Hydrofluoric Acid Production<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> proposed to witedraw<br />

this waste stream as a low volimie<br />

waste due to tee fadure of tee fadUties<br />

to provide waste generation date te tee<br />

commente te which tee waste streams<br />

were origteaUy nomteated or te teeir<br />

responses to the National Survey. Bote<br />

faculties reportedly producing BieviU<br />

waste from hydrofluoric add production<br />

have subsequenUy presented tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> with volume date ta commente<br />

<strong>and</strong> (ta one case) a revised faciUty<br />

survey. The <strong>Agency</strong> has reviewed teese<br />

tedustry commente <strong>and</strong> tee additional<br />

survey date <strong>and</strong> has concluded that<br />

process wastewater bom hydrofluoric<br />

acid production satisfies tee high<br />

volume criterion for Uquids. As tee<br />

waste stream has been determtaed to be<br />

low-hazard the process wastewater u<br />

retateed te tee BieviU exclusion.<br />

7. <strong>Process</strong> Wastewater from Primary<br />

Lead Production<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has reevaluated its<br />

meteodoiogy for volume estimation of<br />

this waste stream, <strong>and</strong> has subsequenUy<br />

removed from tee analyste one fadUty<br />

which was not operated on a consistent<br />

basis (37 days te 1988). The <strong>Agency</strong>'s<br />

analysis tedicates, however, that<br />

alteougb removal of this faciUty from<br />

tee analysis tecreases tee average<br />

annual per-fadUty waste volume, tee<br />

process wastewater te not generated on<br />

a sector-wide basis ta quantities<br />

suffident to meet tee high volume<br />

criterion. The waste stream, teerefore.<br />

has been %vite(frawn from tee BeviU<br />

exclusion. The value reported te Table 1<br />

is tee volume of process wastewater<br />

from tee remaining non-CBI fadUty^ this<br />

is not tee acteal sedor fadUty average<br />

used to make tee high volume<br />

determination.<br />

8. Air poUution control dust/sludge from<br />

lightweight aggregate production<br />

EPA has revued its estimate of tee<br />

volume of this waste stream based on<br />

additional analysis of information<br />

tecluded ta tee surveys submitted by tee<br />

majority of tee lightweight aggregate<br />

fadUties. Waste management date<br />

submitted ta tee survey were analyzed<br />

to determine mora accurately tee actual<br />

generation of solids, ta Ueu of basing tee<br />

estimates on solids entzateed te<br />

wastewaten. These revised estimates,<br />

confirmed by date submitted by<br />

commenten addressing tee earUer<br />

proposed retaterpretetions, were used to<br />

calculate a new sector average for tee<br />

»aste stream. Tbe <strong>Agency</strong><br />

acknowledges tbat tee faciUties teat use<br />

air poUution contols oteer tban wet<br />

scrubbers, a mtaority ta the sedor, have<br />

not been represented te tee analysis<br />

because date are not available on tee<br />

quantities of APC dust teat teese<br />

faciUties may generate. Data coUected ta<br />

tee National Survey for tee iron <strong>and</strong><br />

steel tedustry. however, tedicates teat<br />

APC dust resulting from dry coUection<br />

methods te typicaUy of lower volume<br />

tban sludges generated bom wet<br />

scrubbara. As a rasult EPA beUeves teat<br />

tedusion ol APC dust volume data te<br />

tee analysis would not tecrease tee<br />

faciUty average, much less double tee<br />

average as would be needed to meet tee<br />

higb volume criterion. Based on EPA's<br />

revised estimate, air poUution control<br />

dust/sludge from lightweight aggregate<br />

production does not pass tee high<br />

volume criterion <strong>and</strong> is hereby<br />

withdrawn from tee BeviU exclusion.<br />

9. Sulfate <strong>Process</strong> Waste SoUds from<br />

Titanium Dioxide Production<br />

Waste soUds from tbe production of<br />

titanium dioxide using tee sulfate<br />

process are removed from tee<br />

processing operations <strong>and</strong> managed m<br />

mtdtiple ways at tee two faciUties teat<br />

employ tee sulfate process, te iU<br />

origmal response to tee 1989 National<br />

Survey, one faciUty reported an<br />

aggregated volume of waste soUds from<br />

chloride <strong>and</strong> sulfate processing<br />

operations. Because EPA was unable to<br />

disaggregate tbe volume of wastes from<br />

chloride v. sidfate processing operations<br />

at tbte faciUty, EPA used date provided<br />

by tee oteer sulfate process faciUty as<br />

tee basis for tee everage aimual per<br />

faciUty waste generation rate te tha<br />

proposal, ta commente on tee proposed<br />

nde. tee faciUty teat had previously<br />

reported aggregated volume date<br />

provided separate volume data for<br />

choride <strong>and</strong> sulfate process waste<br />

soUds. As a result for today's proposal.<br />

EPA bas developed a revised per-facility<br />

average annual waste generation rate<br />

teat is based on date from bote<br />

faciUties. However, as ta tee proposal,<br />

tee waste te not high volume. The waste<br />

stream, teerefore, has been witedrawn<br />

from tee BeviU exdusion.<br />

TABLE 1.—RESutTs OF APPLYING THE HKJH VOUAK CRTTSWON TO TWENTY CoNomoNALLY RETAINED PROCESSING WASTES*<br />

Coalgae-<br />

Coatgaa..<br />

Eiafnante ptioaphorus.<br />

H^^Soauofic add<br />

Iran.<br />

Sodwa<br />

CofTvnotfty Mctor SoMorlqUd<br />

4P«i hearth tedust/eudoa.<br />

c9Sh haarti %M'<br />

SoSd<br />

Uqud<br />

Sow<br />

Sold.<br />

So«d.-<br />

SoW...<br />

Uquid..<br />

Sold.<br />

Sow.<br />

UquM-<br />

SOW.,<br />

UMd-<br />

Uqud-<br />

Sow..<br />

Sow.<br />

Sow.<br />

Tnrtwn dtadds.. Uedd-<br />

Avaragapar<br />

OanaraDOfi<br />

24aooo<br />

4330,000<br />

78,000<br />

SOMIS<br />

11.044<br />

208.780<br />

4.300.000<br />

St,a8t<br />

724,506<br />

866.000<br />

1SA13<br />

2,468^)00<br />

67,402.000<br />

W/H<br />

Vrt.111<br />

W/H<br />

B<br />

c<br />

AB.D<br />

C<br />

AC<br />

C<br />

C<br />

ac<br />

B<br />

KCO<br />

a.c<br />

B<br />

Aa.c<br />

AB<br />

ACf<br />

AB<br />

AB<br />

Naof hign<br />

voi««ns<br />

1<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

S<br />

2<br />

2<br />

24<br />

16<br />

S<br />

17<br />

1<br />

16<br />

2<br />

29<br />

26<br />

2<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Na<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Na<br />

Na<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.


-ft,,<br />

/ VoL 5S, Wo. 15 / Tnesday, January 23, t9at> / Roles <strong>and</strong> RegaJeftona 23^<br />

TAauE 1.—RESSLTB OF APPLYBSQ THE HI6H VOLUME CnriEteON TO lyrENTV COMDmoM>iLLV RETAMED I^400ESSING WASTES'—<br />

Oontinuad<br />

T'tantum dtoxida..<br />

Titarkufn tatracnionde..<br />

Zinc<br />

Total nunitwr al wastes<br />

Total number ol wastes<br />

high voluaria criterion<br />

high volume oUetion<br />

CondWooaBy retained wasta Soaderlquid<br />

Sulfate procsas waste sdids _.<br />

CNonde process waste solids.<br />

Slag -....<br />

SoSd.<br />

Sew..<br />

Sow.<br />

Averaos par<br />

faoSly<br />

generation<br />

(mi/yr)<br />

W/H<br />

88.349<br />

157.000<br />

Notes<br />

A.C<br />

A,B<br />

8<br />

No_ot<br />

repomng<br />

Passes hi<br />

votume<br />

cmonor<br />

'Data aneiTQW I9aa National Survey al Solid Wastes torn Mkwral processing Facilitiaa, except as noted.<br />

W/r4'.~4wi^neio S9 at^id dnctosmg conaoenoai oosmees mli^.iviaiKjn t^^).<br />

A DM data lor one or more al me genecaiing tacsties are CSL<br />

B. Geaeraoon data are ootamed directly trom the survey.<br />

C. Caicuaied or mterpreiad t>y EPA cased on intormaoon provided in the survey an6 ptMc comments.<br />

. 0. Data prsserned is fnxn one taclllty; one or more o> Ihe generasng taaHlies ara CBI. Reponed numtMr was not used to make Bevill determination;' ever,<br />

including CBI ractnies does not cnange BeviH status.<br />

E. Generation data was obtained Irom tne survey for 12 facilitiea: data for 13 facMiea was reported by AISI.<br />

C. Compliaoce with the Low Hazard<br />

Criterion<br />

Consistent wite tee low hazard<br />

criterion established on September 1.<br />

1989, the <strong>Agency</strong> haa used oidy waste<br />

analysis data derived using EPA Meteod<br />

1312 because teere was no compell^<br />

evidence that aay of the aO auaeral<br />

processteg wastes "is geaented st five<br />

or more facilities: <strong>and</strong> substantial<br />

additional relevant date are avadabie<br />

<strong>and</strong> tee preponderance of teese<br />

additioiul data tetficate teat the waste<br />

should be considered low hazard." (See<br />

S4 FR astua] The mafority of the<br />

Meteod 1312 data used are the result of<br />

EPA samphng at selected fadUties. but<br />

some resulte are for eplit samples or<br />

oteer sample analysis resulte provided<br />

by operettag facilities.<br />

te addition, for today's final nde, tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> bas utilizwl newly avaiilabte<br />

data from EPA's 1969 waste sampBng<br />

e^ort to make low hazard deteantaadon<br />

for certata waste streams or compooente<br />

of waste streams that may have been<br />

teduded by redefinition or darificatioa<br />

of tee waste stream or tee operation's<br />

process te today's final rule. Fteal<br />

resulte of ^A's apphcation of tee low<br />

hazard cntenon are presented te Table<br />

2.<br />

1. Treated Residue fixmi Roasting/<br />

Leaching of Chrome Ore<br />

Wite tee clarification teat tee waste<br />

te question is tee treated residue from<br />

roaating/leachiag of chrome ore <strong>and</strong> not<br />

the waste as it leaves the leadung<br />

openticm, EIPA has reviewed fts waste<br />

sampling data of tee treated residue,<br />

<strong>and</strong> has confirmed that tea treated<br />

residue passes the low haznd cntertoB.<br />

2. <strong>Process</strong> wastewater fr


23^ Fadetai Raglater / VoU 55> No. 15 / "ryeaday. January 23, 1990 / Rnlea <strong>and</strong> RegHJationa<br />

Steel<br />

Steel<br />

TABLE 2.—RESULTS OF APPLYING THE LOW HAZARD CRITERION TO TWENTY CotoimoNALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSINQ<br />

WASTES—Continued<br />

Commodity<br />

Titanium dioxide<br />

Titanium dioxide<br />

Titanium tetraehioride..<br />

Zinc<br />

Total number of wastes meeting low hazard criterion..<br />

Total number of wastes failing low fiazard criterion.....<br />

D. Bevill Status of Conditionally<br />

Retained Mineral <strong>Process</strong>ing Wastes<br />

The BeviU states of tee 20<br />

conditionally reteteed mteeral<br />

processing wastes is presented te Table<br />

CondWonaSy retained wasta<br />

Basic oxygen fumaoe <strong>and</strong> open hearth lurnaoe<br />

air poAullon oontrol duet/sludge.<br />

Baaie oxygen hjmaca <strong>and</strong> open fiaerth fur-<br />

No. of fac.<br />

beSevedio<br />

3. Fifteen of tee 20 wastes have been<br />

retamed <strong>and</strong> wid be stedied te tee<br />

Report to Congress <strong>and</strong> addressed by<br />

tee subsequent Regulatory<br />

Determteation. Tbe oteer five wastes,<br />

27<br />

27<br />

2<br />

2<br />

0<br />

1<br />

No. of fac<br />

san»iadBy<br />

No^offac.<br />

aubmitting<br />

13121<br />

Paasea low Reason for<br />

taiiurs<br />

Yea..<br />

Yea_<br />

No...<br />

Yes-<br />

Yes..<br />

Yes..<br />

N/A<br />

N/A<br />

pH, Cr<br />

N/A<br />

N/A<br />

N/A<br />

IB<br />

2<br />

wiU, as of tee effective date of this rule,<br />

become subjed to regulation as<br />

hazardous wastes under subtitle C of<br />

RCRA d teey exhibit hazardous<br />

characteristics.<br />

TABLE 3.—RESULTS OF APPLYING BOTH BEviii. CRITERIA TO TWENTY CONOITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES<br />

CommodKy CondMonaSy roiainad waata<br />

Coal Gaa.. 1 Ya<br />

Coaf Gaa-<br />

Coppar.<br />

Ooppar-<br />

I lySrAMlt Acid.,<br />

r^^^wjw Men..<br />

b«n.<br />

Pttoapfiorte Aod-<br />

Sodhsn Chromaia/Olchfoniass.<br />

SlMl-<br />

THarsan DkBsda.<br />

Tsarwiv.utoMRSe.<br />

Titarataii TasrecrSmUa.<br />

Zkw<br />

Total nwTtoar of 1<br />

Totalnumfiar of (<br />

rv. Analyste of <strong>and</strong> I<br />

CoiBmeiiti on i<br />

Definitioa of'<br />

Modlficatioa of dia Stanf<strong>and</strong>b<br />

la<br />

lafha.<br />

AppUcabia to Cenentors of Haaardoua<br />

Waata<br />

ta tha proposed rule of September 25,<br />

IBBS. EPA proposed a clarification te the<br />

definition of designated facility<br />

regarding waste shipmente from a stete<br />

where a waste U subjed to the<br />

hazardous waste regulations to a stete<br />

when tee waste is not yet regulsted as<br />

Mr poWaon 001*01 duat/sfudga-<br />

Sananoa aaq<br />

Air poSuSon ooneoi duat/sfudga.<br />

AiSiyiSuua ppuoaea wastveatar.<br />

SQRI leasSng/laecfwio of cfvuraa<br />

Basic QKygan aananoa <strong>and</strong> open haartfi fumaca air<br />

poSuSon coneo) duat/studga.<br />

hazardoua. This circumstance can arise<br />

whan EPA llste or identifies a new<br />

waste as hazardous under ite pre-<br />

HSWA authority, ta such a case, tee<br />

waate te subject to RCRA hazardoua<br />

waste regulationa only ta teose states<br />

teat do no< have taterim or final<br />

authorization to operate tee RCRA<br />

program, ta a state auteorized by EPA to<br />

operate a baavdous waste program ta<br />

lieu of tha federal program (under tee<br />

auteority of section 3008 of RCRA). tee<br />

waste would not be subject to RCRA<br />

Naol<br />

fac<br />

1<br />

2<br />

2<br />

S<br />

3<br />

3<br />

30<br />

30<br />

S<br />

28<br />

1<br />

26<br />

2 Ya<br />

27<br />

27<br />

2<br />

2<br />

a<br />

1<br />

Yas-<br />

Yas-<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa-<br />

No-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa.<br />

No-<br />

No-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

No-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Vaa-<br />

Yaa..<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa-<br />

YaajYaa-<br />

Yea-<br />

Yea-<br />

No-<br />

Yea-<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yaa..<br />

Yaa-<br />

Yea-<br />

No.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yea<br />

Rfained<br />

wiOblBevi<br />

Yes.<br />

Yea.<br />

Yea.<br />

Na<br />

Yea.<br />

Yea.<br />

Yea.<br />

Yea.<br />

Na<br />

Na<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yaa.<br />

Yea.<br />

Na<br />

Na<br />

Yes.<br />

Yea.<br />

15<br />

. 5<br />

requiremente untd tee state revises ite<br />

program to dassify tee waste as<br />

hazardoua <strong>and</strong> receives EPA<br />

auteorization for teese requiremente.<br />

This set of drcumstances residte from<br />

tea fact teat RCRA aUows states a<br />

specified time to adopt new regulations<br />

in order to mtnimiT* disruptions to tee<br />

implementetion of auteoi^ed stete<br />

programs, ta contrast test siteation<br />

diies not occur when tee wastes are<br />

mewly listed or identified pursuant to<br />

tee HSWA auteorities stece Congress


Fa«leral Ragiatiy / Vot. S5, No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regidations 234<br />

specified teat HSWA provisions are to<br />

be implemented by EPA te ad stetes<br />

until such time as stetes are auteorized<br />

to implement tee new regulations.<br />

EPA's generator regulations require a<br />

generator of hazardous waste to<br />

"designate on tee matefest one fadlity<br />

which is permitted to h<strong>and</strong>le tee waste<br />

described on tee manifest* (See 40 CFR<br />

262.20). The regulations dearly state<br />

teat tee facility designated on tee<br />

manifest is tee "designated fadlity" as<br />

defined te S 260.10 (See tee direct<br />

reference te tee definition of<br />

"designated facility" to tee m<strong>and</strong>est<br />

requirement te S 262.20). A designated<br />

facility as currentiy defined te 40 CFR<br />

260.10 must eiteer (1) have an EPA<br />

permit (or teterim stetes) te accordance<br />

wite parts 270 <strong>and</strong> 124, (2) have a permit<br />

from a state auteorized te accordance<br />

wite part 271. or (3) be a recycling<br />

facility teat is regulated under<br />

i 261.ti(o)(2) or subpart F of part 266. <strong>and</strong><br />

must also be designated on tee m<strong>and</strong>est<br />

by tee generator pursuant to § 282J20.<br />

It has become apparent teat when<br />

promulgated te 1980. tee definition of<br />

"designated fadlity" did not<br />

contemplate tee above siteation which<br />

has potentially broad impacte on tee<br />

RCRA program. EPA's current<br />

teterpretetion of tee stetete is that tee<br />

m<strong>and</strong>est requirement <strong>and</strong> tee definition<br />

do not apply to materials teat are not<br />

ofiicially identified as RCRA hazardous<br />

wastes te tee state teat is receiving tee<br />

wastes. Today's clarification amends<br />

tee definition of "designated facility"<br />

<strong>and</strong> tee st<strong>and</strong>ards applicable to<br />

generatora of hazardous waste te 40<br />

CFR 262.23, te order to make tida<br />

teterpretation dear to tee public <strong>and</strong> tha<br />

regulated community.<br />

A. General Comments on the Propoeed<br />

Definition<br />

A number of commentera supported<br />

EPA's effort to clarify tee extetisg<br />

regulations so teat tee parties affeded<br />

by non-HSWA waste identifications <strong>and</strong><br />

hstings know tee stetus of these waatea<br />

<strong>and</strong> the management st<strong>and</strong>ards that<br />

apply to teem whan they ara shipped<br />

across state bordan. These commettera<br />

tedicated teat tha popoaed revteion to<br />

tee definition of "daa^ted fadUty" ta<br />

{ 260.10 off en additioaal clarity <strong>and</strong> an<br />

appropriate level of flexibility to aasiat<br />

bote the regulatory agendas <strong>and</strong> tba<br />

regulated community. Several<br />

commenten also supported tha<br />

proposed change to | 28ZJZ3 by adding<br />

paragraph (e) to clanfy tba raqniremant<br />

teat tee generator must ensure that tha<br />

designated fadbty returns tha m<strong>and</strong>est<br />

to tee generator to complete tba wasta<br />

tracking procedures as required by<br />

RCRA reguUtions.<br />

Two commenten argued teat tee<br />

statate probibite EPA from making this<br />

change to tee definition of designated<br />

facility. These commentera poteted out<br />

teat RCRA Section 3002 (a)(5], which<br />

sete out st<strong>and</strong>ards applying to<br />

hazardous waste generatora. requires<br />

use of a manifest system<br />

* * * to assure that all such hazardous waste<br />

is designated for treatment storage or<br />

disposal in <strong>and</strong> arrives at treatment storage,<br />

or disposal facilities (other than facilities on<br />

the premises where the waste is generated)<br />

for which a permit has been issued as<br />

provided in the subtitle * * • (emphasis<br />

added).<br />

Section 3003(a)(4). pertaining to<br />

transportera. contams substantially<br />

simdar language.<br />

The commenter argues teat teese<br />

provisions require materials teat<br />

officially have tee states of RCRA<br />

hazardous waste to go to facilities<br />

holding SubtiUe C permits. EPA<br />

generally agrees wite teis view. EPA,<br />

however, notes teat tee mining wastes<br />

teat become hazardous wastes as a<br />

result of teis federal rule will not have<br />

ofiidal stetus aa RCRA SubtiUe C<br />

wastes te ad states at tee same time.<br />

New RCRA rules—teduding new waste<br />

identification rules—teat are<br />

promulgated using statetory auteorities<br />

te effect before tee 1984 HSWA<br />

amendments take effect oidy te states<br />

that are not yet auteorized to implement<br />

tee pre-1984 RCRA hazardous waste<br />

program. CurrenUy. only 7 states lack<br />

authorization for the pre-1984 program.<br />

Consequendy, today's rule wiU take<br />

effed only te teose states, ta all oteer<br />

stetes, SubtiUe C regulation of teese<br />

wastes most wait for tee states to<br />

promulgate parallel regulations or<br />

stetetory changes, <strong>and</strong> obtata EPA<br />

approval to implement teese new<br />

additioiu to teeir SubtiUe C programs.<br />

Tlite pnx:e8s can take many months. See<br />

generally 50 FR 2872^-28730 (July 15,<br />

1B65). describing RCRA Section 3006.<br />

See also tee state auteorization section<br />

to today's notice.<br />

Consequendy. EPA believes teat tee<br />

"permitted facdity" requiremente of<br />

sections 3002(a)(5) <strong>and</strong> 3003(a)(4) apply<br />

only witbte tee txiundaries of those<br />

states where tee relevant mining wastes<br />

have ofBdaUy attained tee status of<br />

RCRA-regulated subtiUe C "hazardous<br />

wastaa." Status as a "hazardoua waste"<br />

is, tedaad. tba basic prerequisite for tha<br />

exerdsa at any subtide C jurisdiction. If<br />

a matarial te not yet a hazardous waste<br />

ta tha stete to which It is sent for<br />

treatmant storage, or disposal, no<br />

subtitle C regulations apply. A m<strong>and</strong>est<br />

is not legaUy required, <strong>and</strong> tee faciUty<br />

tbat accepte tee waste need not have a<br />

subtide C permit EPA, te fact would b<br />

unable to enforce manifest <strong>and</strong><br />

permitting requirements te a state whe;<br />

a material is not yet a subtiUe C<br />

hazardous waste.<br />

Stece at least two teterpretations of<br />

tee statete are possible. EPA may<br />

exercise ite discretion to choose tee<br />

view teat best promotes tee overaU<br />

policy goals of RCRA. EP.A believes te;<br />

teere are sound policy considerations<br />

favoring tee "jurisdictional" view, whi^<br />

considers tee materials RCRA<br />

hazardous waste status to be a<br />

jurisdictional prerequisite.<br />

The commenters' interpretation of<br />

RCRA sections 3002(a)(5) <strong>and</strong> 3003(a)(would<br />

force newly regulated wastes Ih<br />

are generated te unauthorized states tc<br />

be managed te teose states. Essentially<br />

teese wastes would be "trapped" te<br />

teese imauthorized states, <strong>and</strong> teey<br />

could only be managed te avoidance<br />

wite tee treatment storage, <strong>and</strong> dispoE<br />

alternatives teat are available te teose<br />

states (which could be limited). This is<br />

primarily because TSD facilities te<br />

auteorized states would not be able to<br />

obtete tee necessary permit'<br />

modification or change m teterim steti*<br />

Stece tee wastes are not yet hazardou;<br />

te teese states. One problem which cai<br />

arise from this siteation is teat tee<br />

facilities best suited to tee managemer<br />

of wastes which are newly listed or<br />

identified may not be located te tee<br />

states where tee rulemaking is te efiec<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> believes teat such facUitie<br />

should not be precluded from acceptin<br />

wastes from states where tee rule is in<br />

effed whde tee state m which teey an<br />

located te seeking auteorization for tec<br />

waste stream.<br />

One example of particular teteretate<br />

concern tevolves a mixed waste strear<br />

(te., a waste stream teat contams both<br />

hazardoua waste <strong>and</strong> radioactive was;<br />

ceded sctetillation cocktaUs.<br />

Sdntidation cocktails are commonly<br />

generated by approximately 10.000<br />

hospitals <strong>and</strong> universities across tee<br />

country. Tbis waste stream became<br />

regulated punuant to non-HSWA<br />

auteority as described m tee ]uly 3,<br />

1966. Federal Regteter notice, <strong>and</strong><br />

teerefore were initially regulated unde<br />

tee RCRA program only te tee<br />

unauteoriaed states. Approximately 8C<br />

percent of tee national capacity for<br />

treatment of teese particular wastes<br />

resides with one fsdlity. The <strong>Agency</strong><br />

underst<strong>and</strong>s teat this fadlity is ta<br />

compiianca wite state st<strong>and</strong>ards teat<br />

ara equivalent to tee federal RCRA<br />

reqidremante. However, tee facdity is<br />

located ta a stete teat has not yet<br />

recaived mixed waste suteorization. a<br />

therefore tha facility does not have a


2844 Fa«l«al Begiatar / VoL 55, No. 15 / Tueaday. January 23, 1900 / Ridea <strong>and</strong> RagulatiOBa<br />

RCRA pumiiar tatartm rtatua. tf aU<br />

teese scmtdlatioa cocktails were<br />

required to go to RCRA pomitted<br />

facilities as suggested by these<br />

commenters, a significant number of<br />

waste shipments frcNn thoas<strong>and</strong>s of<br />

generators would be disrupted, ta fact<br />

in teis case tee <strong>Agency</strong> believes that<br />

such a restriction would generady result<br />

in less protective waste management<br />

since it is doubtful teat tee wastes<br />

wotdd be treated <strong>and</strong> recovered to the<br />

same degree as is presenUy occurring at<br />

teis large facility.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> wotdd also like to potet<br />

out that, witeout tee flexibility provided<br />

by today's rule, teere would Idcely be a<br />

significant disincentive for stetes to<br />

adopt new waste listings unless teey<br />

were confident teat adequate treatment<br />

storage, or disposal capadty existe for<br />

wastes withte the stete. This is because<br />

generatora te tee first few stetes to<br />

adopt the waste listing would not be<br />

able to send teefr wastes to faddties te<br />

oteer auteorized stetes (which an the<br />

vast majority of stetes) that have not<br />

adopted tee hsting because the TSO<br />

facilities te teese stetes would not be<br />

able te obtete tee necessary RCRA<br />

permit modifications or dianges ta<br />

teterim status. EPA believes that thte<br />

distecentive would not be desirable.<br />

Tba same two commentera, ta arguing<br />

teat EPA's proposal should be<br />

witedrawn, contended teat there te no<br />

firm evidence that tbe problem<br />

hypoteeticaUy facing the regulated<br />

community actuady extets. Tbe<br />

commenten steted tbat tee problem is<br />

miniecule. d not completely illusory. Tba<br />

commenten indicated that tfaa problem<br />

teat EPA attempts to address ta tbe<br />

rulnmaking oouid only arise if Q>A liste<br />

or identifies a waste as hazardowe<br />

pursuant to noa-HSWA audtoritiaac tea<br />

generator needs to send tha waste offsite<br />

<strong>and</strong> tee only avadabie off'«ite waate<br />

facilities capable of tnar\agir\fl tee waste<br />

are located ta authorizad stelaa. Tho<br />

commenten tedicated thte iiMasiln<br />

would occur te only a vacy Uaitad<br />

number of cimmiitsnra»jpid thasaibra<br />

does not warrant any GiM|M le tha<br />

definitioa of riasignatad tajlltff. Urn<br />

commaotan go on to say ifcat ITfl can<br />

only identify thraa aon-HSWA<br />

rulamakiaga raaulting ta aaw^ Uatad oa<br />

identiflad ivaataa.<br />

EPA stioi^ disa^aes wtth UM<br />

•tatemaot that thte te an dluaocy<br />

problem iot tba foUowlag raaaooak la tha<br />

September 25 prapoaal EPA idaatlAad<br />

diree racaet aoo^iSWA ndaa oaly aa<br />

Ulustmiva ananipiaa of ailuatiiMM arfaasa<br />

tetenteta ahipmaate ooald ba a praUaaL<br />

Hosvevai; that* have baaa othari<br />

HSWA ralaa (hat Uat oc btlat ta J<br />

waste streams, namely. Redefinition of<br />

solid waste (January 4.1965): <strong>and</strong> mixed<br />

waste Quly 3,1986). Furthermore, the<br />

Ag«icy rec<strong>and</strong>y proposed additional<br />

non-HSWA Ustings for wood preserving<br />

wastes, <strong>and</strong> may te the future consider<br />

tee regulatten of oteer waste streams<br />

under tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s pre-HSWA<br />

authority. Furthermore, as discussed te<br />

tee mixed waste sctetillation cockteil<br />

exampte above, tee <strong>Agency</strong> has already<br />

encountered situations of teteretate<br />

shipments affecting teous<strong>and</strong>s of<br />

generatora. Indicating teat tee problem .<br />

being addressed te today's rule is a real<br />

one <strong>and</strong> deserves clarification.<br />

The same two commentera argued<br />

teat EPA's proposal could create a<br />

distecentive for waste generatora to ship<br />

teeir wastes to licensed hazardous<br />

waste fadlitiea. This disincentive could<br />

result bom allowing tee generator to<br />

choose to ship its hazardous waste to<br />

eiteer a hazardous waste fadlity or a<br />

nonhazardous waste fadlity. Given tee<br />

alternatives, a generator may simply<br />

choose tbe least cost option.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> acknowledges that this<br />

approach to teterstate shipments may<br />

appear to be a disincentive to the<br />

management of teese hazardous wastes<br />

te subtide C fridllties. However, tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> beUeves that teere ara oteer<br />

circumstances teat mitigate this<br />

apparent dDsincentive. Firat this<br />

siteation Is temporary. Stetes are<br />

required to adopt federal RCRA waste<br />

listings or Identifications witete<br />

spedfled deadlines. Second, until teat<br />

regulatory adoption, teese wastes wid<br />

be regulated under subtiUe D of RCRA<br />

<strong>and</strong> any other applicable requiremente<br />

of tee receiving stete. Last soma<br />

generatora wlu aled te send their<br />

wastes to siihdlle C faddties or other<br />

facilitiea that perform equivalent<br />

treatmantta order te mlnimire any<br />

potential hitura liability resulting from<br />

the maaagemant af their wastes.<br />

Tha two onmmantera also noted teat<br />

tha practice of shipping newly listed or<br />

identified wastes to faddties te stetes<br />

when tha waate te unregulated would<br />

ba Itautad to tha period of time an<br />

authorlaad stete raqaires to promulgate<br />

tha aaw Usttaf ot characteristic.<br />

Howevac tha coaaaantan matetained<br />

teat wbla aach a pariod te finite, U te<br />

not naaaaaarily alMct <strong>and</strong> can take up to<br />

thraa <strong>and</strong> a h^ yaara, assuming that<br />

aiAariaad atataa coaupky wite BPA<br />

rwaaUtloiM iar Bavtelag stete prayams.<br />

The comoMBtaf fastheD Indicated thai<br />

then araao t—aadlB>« cooaaquanoaa<br />

for tha state or tha lafstatad oonunoalty<br />

ta dMi aiaia if tha atete fade to meat<br />

teaaai<br />

It shoaki be rcoognixed teat tee three<br />

<strong>and</strong> a half year peftod te tbe maximum<br />

aUowed by tee stete aotborization<br />

regulations. Generally, stetes are<br />

required to adopt federal program<br />

changes withta two yean (or three years<br />

if tee stete needs to amend ite stetute).<br />

Some extensions of teese deadltees are<br />

available. However, EPA recognizes<br />

teat white some states have been able to<br />

meet tee auteorization deadlines, others<br />

have not due to tee number <strong>and</strong><br />

complexity of tee dianges to RCRA<br />

regulations in tee past few years. The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> tetends to place Increased<br />

emphasis on prompt stete adoption of<br />

new waste Hstings to ensure uniform,<br />

national coverage of newly Usted or<br />

identified wastes. It should also be<br />

noted teat teere is a lag time between<br />

state adoption of a requirement <strong>and</strong> tee<br />

offidal EPA action to auteorize teat<br />

state to implement tee regulation under<br />

RCRA authority. Therefore, te many<br />

cases states are regtdating teese new<br />

activities te a manner equivalent to tee<br />

RCRA program wed before Aey have<br />

received authorization.<br />

B. Relationahip Between Today's<br />

Clarification aad Non-RCRA State '<br />

Hazardous Waatee<br />

One commenter was concerned about<br />

tee situation where a waste is generated<br />

te a stete which, as a matter of state law<br />

only, regulates tee waste as hazardous,<br />

but Is transported to a receiving state<br />

teat does not ta this case, tee receiving<br />

state is under no federal compulsion to<br />

amend ite regulations to add teat waste<br />

to ite list of hazardous wastes, stece tee<br />

listing of tea non-RCRA waste is a<br />

matter ot state law. EPA has no<br />

jurisdiction over this siteation. Thus,<br />

thte darification of tee definition of<br />

designated facility does not apply to<br />

state Usted non-RCRA hazardous waste.<br />

A second commmter shared tbe<br />

above conoein but alao steted tbat<br />

EPA's propoeed darificatton does not<br />

disttaoHteh between stete <strong>and</strong> federady<br />

dassilad hazardous wasta. Tbe<br />

commaatec contended teat tha <strong>Agency</strong><br />

shouhl stipalata tbat this clarification<br />

only appliaa to fadaraUy regulated<br />

waatea, that tha Agancy dki not tatend<br />

to precluda tha raoaiving steta from<br />

designattai tha typa of facility wtach<br />

can maaafa each atata-daaaifiad<br />

hazardous waata, <strong>and</strong> that fadaral<br />

auteorization te fatalavant to tbe<br />

tetecatata tiantpaitation of steteclaaaifiad<br />

waatea,<br />

Tha Afancy lacoyiliaa tfaa laaue<br />

piuaantad by tha ooaBantar howvvar.<br />

EPA baUavaa that thte is not a oomment<br />

on die olaiUkiatlau ta tfaa daflnittoo of<br />

tee term "designated fadlttty" aa<br />

X


*. t<br />

J 1<br />

Federal Registar / Vol. 55, No. 15/ Tueaday. January 23. 1990 / Rulds <strong>and</strong> Regulations 234<br />

proposed on September 25.1989. Rateer,<br />

tee issue raised by this commenter<br />

concerns tee requiremente of tee current<br />

definition, tedeed, tee current definition<br />

does not apply to non-RCRA hazardous<br />

wastes since it only applies to tee<br />

hazardous wastes teat tee Federal<br />

government has auteority to regulate<br />

(i.e.. federally listed or identified<br />

hazardous wastes). If a state chooses to<br />

be moi'e stringent <strong>and</strong> regulate<br />

additional wastes not regulated under<br />

RCRA. teat state must adapt it's RCRA<br />

regulations wite regard to tee definition<br />

of designated facility to accommodate<br />

these new wastes. Each state must<br />

detennine. teerefore, how it wiU regulate<br />

the out-of-state shipment of state-listed<br />

wastes. Furthermore, tee <strong>Agency</strong> does<br />

not under tee origmal definition or this<br />

subsequent clarification, tetend to<br />

specify to auteorized states tee types of<br />

facilities teat can manage stateclassified<br />

hazardous wastes. Fteally,<br />

EPA also does not wite teis clarification<br />

or tee origteal rule, seek to regtdate tee<br />

interstate transportation of stateclassified<br />

wastes. Neiteer tee origmal<br />

federal definition, nor today's<br />

clarification has any impact on tee stete<br />

regulation of state-classified hazardous<br />

wastes or tee out-of-stete shipment of<br />

teese wastes.<br />

C. Who Can Qualify as a Designated<br />

Facility?<br />

One commenter argued teat EPA's<br />

proposed darification raised<br />

ambiguities by suggesting t^at some<br />

kmd of approval is needed te a stete<br />

receiving a waste, even d none te<br />

required by stete law. The concept of a<br />

state having to provide an "adowance"<br />

to a facility te order for it to accept<br />

wastes teat are not regidated ta tee fint<br />

place appeared to be burdensome <strong>and</strong><br />

unnecessary. One commenter steted<br />

teat EPA should acknowledge that a<br />

waste teat is not regulated te a recaivtag<br />

state can be sent to any fadUty te tbat<br />

state so long as "'^^•'^ under stete law<br />

disqualifies it bam. receiving such waste.<br />

EPA would Uka to clarify teat under<br />

today's rule, tee laws of tea receiving<br />

state determtee which fadUttea may<br />

accept <strong>and</strong> manage tha wasta streams.<br />

The receiving stete also determines<br />

what prior approvals, licenses, permits,<br />

etc. if any, are necessary. Today's<br />

clarification adds no addittanal<br />

approval requiremente on faddties<br />

managing non-hazardous wastes from<br />

oteer states. The requiremente placed on<br />

teese facilities are a matter of ststed<br />

law..<br />

D. Which St<strong>and</strong>ards Apply to Interstate<br />

Shipments?<br />

Anoteer commenter argued teat tee<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards of tee state where tee<br />

generator is located should apply to tee<br />

treatment storage, or disposal of<br />

hazardous waste, rateer tean tee<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards of tee receivteg state because<br />

it would be extremely burdensome for<br />

tee generator of a hazardous waste to<br />

keep track of tee continuously evolving<br />

hazardous waste regulations of all fifty<br />

states.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> disagrees wite teis<br />

commenter. A state can only apply its<br />

laws <strong>and</strong> regulations to facilities over<br />

which teey have jurisdiction (i.e.,<br />

facilities within the stated boundaries).<br />

Therefore, if a generator is sending<br />

wastes to a facility out-of-state, tee<br />

treatment storage, or disposal<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards teat apply are teose of tee<br />

state where tee "TSD facility is located.<br />

It is mcumbent on tee generator to know<br />

tee requirements of tee states where tee<br />

wastes wid be managed. However,<br />

much of tee responsibility for complying<br />

wite tee receiving state's regulations<br />

falls on tee TSD facility. In most cases,<br />

tee generator simply has to ask a<br />

potential receiving TSD facility if it is<br />

allowed to manage tee generator's<br />

wastes by ite state government The<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> does not believe teat teis is<br />

particularly burdensome to the<br />

generator.<br />

E Other Comments<br />

A nunor technical correction is also<br />

teduded te tee rule language of<br />

"designated facdity" to clarify teat an<br />

teterim states facility m an auteorized<br />

state may be a designated facUity. EPA<br />

believes teat it is univenally underatood<br />

teat teese teterim stetus facilities can<br />

accept hazardous waste shipmente. <strong>and</strong><br />

diis waa tee origteal tetent of tee<br />

provision. Therefore, te tee firat<br />

sentence of tee rule a parenteetical<br />

clause te added wite the words "or<br />

teterim states".<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has noted <strong>and</strong> corrected<br />

tee typographical error teat appeared te<br />

tee proposed rule as foUows: Under<br />

proposed i 260.10(4). tee generator is<br />

designated on tee m<strong>and</strong>est punuant to<br />

8 282.2a not i 260.20.<br />

P. Manifesting requirements<br />

Today's darification will not alter tha<br />

requirement teat a generator offer his<br />

waste oidy to transportera who have<br />

EPA identification numbera. (See 40 CFR<br />

282.12(c)). Thus, if a newly listed waste<br />

te transfered between transporters te a<br />

state where tee waste te not yet<br />

hazardous, bote transportera should be<br />

Identified on tee manifest The initial<br />

transporter if stiU required to keep the<br />

copy of tee manifest on file.<br />

ta order to ensure teat tee waste<br />

reaches tee designated facility, EP.^ is<br />

requiring tee generator to arrange that<br />

tee designated facUity owner or<br />

operator sign <strong>and</strong> return tee manifest ti<br />

tee generator, <strong>and</strong> teat out-of-state<br />

transporters sign <strong>and</strong> forward the<br />

• manifest to tee designated facility. The<br />

return of tee manifest to tee generator<br />

will "dose tee loop" on tee disposition<br />

of tee generated waste <strong>and</strong> allow the<br />

generator to attempt to resolve any<br />

discrepancies in the manifest as -<br />

required by 40 CFR 262.42. This new<br />

requirement parallels the requireme.nt?<br />

in 40 CFR 264.71 <strong>and</strong> 265.71. However.<br />

as opposed to teose sections, which<br />

require tee receiving facility fo ret".:m<br />

tee m<strong>and</strong>est S 262.23(e) puts the burde<br />

cn tee generator to ensure tee return o;<br />

tee manifest when tee waste is sent to<br />

fadlity te a state not yet authorized to<br />

treat the waste as hazardous. EP.^<br />

believes teat teis approach is<br />

appropriate, stece the facility receivir.;^<br />

tee waste <strong>and</strong> any out-of-state<br />

transporters may not be subject to<br />

subtitle C regulation, d teey do not<br />

oteerwise h<strong>and</strong>le any RCRAhazardou:<br />

wastes. It should be noted teat wite th<br />

approach the designated facility <strong>and</strong><br />

out-of-stete transporters are not<br />

required to obtain EPA identificetio.T<br />

numbera smce tee waste is not<br />

hazardous te teeir state. (Of course.<br />

once tee state becomes authorized to<br />

regulate tee particular waste as<br />

hazardous, the facility would need a<br />

RCRA SubtiUe C permit (or mteriin<br />

states) to contteue managmg tee was:.<br />

<strong>and</strong> all transportera would need EP.A<br />

identification numbera.)<br />

V. Regulatory Impleraentetioa <strong>and</strong><br />

Effective Dates of tee Ftaal Rule<br />

EPA te finalizing this rule in<br />

accordance wite the March 14.1969<br />

order of tbe U.S. Court of Appeals for<br />

tbe D.C Circtet (see <strong>Environmental</strong><br />

Defense Fund v. £PA 852 F.2d 1316<br />

(D.C Cir. 1988) cert denied. 109 S.Ct.<br />

1120 (1966)). As of tee effective date of<br />

this final nde (i.e.. six montes after<br />

today or July 23.1900. tee five mineral<br />

processing wastes for which tee<br />

temporary exemption from subtiUe C<br />

regidations (previously provided by<br />

RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is beir<br />

removed by today's ndemakmg may b<br />

subject to subtide C requiremente in<br />

teose stetes teat do not have<br />

auteorization to administer teeir own<br />

hazardous waste programs te lieu of<br />

EPA Generatora. transporters, <strong>and</strong><br />

treatment storage, <strong>and</strong> disposal (TSD<br />

fadlities teat manage any of these Hv)


29M Fedanl Regiatg / 'Vol 55. No. 15 / Tnesday, Jazmary 23, 1990 / Rnks <strong>and</strong> Ragulstkina<br />

wastes ta auteorized stetes wid be<br />

subject to RCRA requiremente imposed<br />

as a result of this final rule only after tee<br />

state revises ite program to adopt<br />

equivalent requiremente aad EPA<br />

auteorizes tee revision.<br />

The requirements imposed as a result<br />

of removing tee temporary exemption<br />

mclude: Determining whether the solid<br />

wastefs) exhibit hazardoos<br />

characteristics (40 CFR 262.11) <strong>and</strong>. for<br />

those wastes teat are hazardous,<br />

obtateing an EPA identification number<br />

for managing hazardous wastes (40 CFR<br />

262.34): complying wite recordkeeping<br />

<strong>and</strong> reporting requiremente (40 CFR<br />

262.40-262.43); <strong>and</strong> obtaining teterim<br />

status <strong>and</strong> seeking a permit (or<br />

modifying teterim stetus, teduding<br />

permit applications or modi^ing a<br />

permit as appropriate] (40 QH Part<br />

270).<br />

A. Section 3010 Notification<br />

When EPA published its September 1.<br />

1989 final rule (54 FR 38592). tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />

removed tee temporary exemption from<br />

subtitle C regulations for ad but twentyfive<br />

mineral processing wastes. In teat<br />

ru!emal±ig, tee <strong>Agency</strong> tedicated teat<br />

all persons generating, transporting,<br />

treating, storing, or disposing of one or<br />

more of teose wastes were to notify<br />

eiteer EPA or an auteorized state withta<br />

90 days (i.e.. by November 30,1989) of<br />

such activities, pursuant to section 3010<br />

of RCRA. if teose wastes are<br />

characteristically hazardous nntler 40<br />

CFR part 281, subpart C. (see 54 FR<br />

36632.) FoDowinfi tee publication of tea<br />

September rule, however, a number of<br />

facilities expressed confusion regarding<br />

tee notification requirement because<br />

section Vn of tbe presrable to tbe<br />

September 1.1989 Snel rule also states<br />

teat "tha final nde te not efiactiva ta<br />

auteorized stetas because ite<br />

requiremente are not being imposed<br />

purauant to tee Hazardoua <strong>and</strong> Solid<br />

Waste Amendmente of 19B4." (Saa 54 PR<br />

36633). Ttas stetement was oonact ta<br />

regard to tfaa raqteremaat ts flia a part A<br />

permit application <strong>and</strong> TBP Bf ataidi<br />

It was not correct ta i<br />

3O10 ootifieatioa. wMcbf<br />

apply to ad persons i<br />

transporting, treating, i<br />

disposing a hazardoos i<br />

by charactartetics nigarijiaaa ef \<br />

m an aathorizad state or not. I<br />

tea Saptambar 11980 final rula raamvad<br />

a teaipuraiy axaopttoa md tfans<br />

ident^ad aa charactartstlcaily<br />

hszardous SOOM waataa, Bacbaa BHO<br />

requtrad aotlficatlan wMhta BO days.<br />

Because soma potantlally affaoted<br />

facilitiaa aiay have baan confuaad by tha<br />

September 1 premafaia aad bacauaa tfaa<br />

<strong>Agency</strong> has not yet pabAiabad a<br />

clarification. EPA te today eliminating<br />

tee notification requirement established<br />

by tee September 1 final nde for<br />

facilities te auteorized stetes. For<br />

faddties te unauteorized stetes. the<br />

deadlme for compliance wite tee<br />

notification requirement esteblished by<br />

the September 1 rule te being extended<br />

untd 90 days fodovring today's<br />

publication (1.8^ April 23,1990). EPA has<br />

concluded teat it te appropriate to waive<br />

tee notification requirement te<br />

auteorized states because (1) tee<br />

univeree of newly regulated activities<br />

wid be identified when state regulations<br />

are revised, as teey must be for tee<br />

states to retam auteorization: <strong>and</strong> (2)<br />

RCRA Identification numben provided<br />

to notiden te auteorized states are<br />

obtamed by tee state from EPA so te<br />

this way EPA is informed of tee<br />

notifications that authorized states<br />

receive.<br />

Accordingly, not later than 90 days<br />

fodowing today's publication (i.e.. Aprd<br />

23,1990), ad persous te unauteorized<br />

states who ganarata, transport treat<br />

store, or dtepose of wastes teat (1) ara<br />

removed bwa tee Bevtd exemption by<br />

this final nsle,^ <strong>and</strong> (2) are<br />

charactehsticady hazardous under 40<br />

CFR part 2S1. subpart C must notify<br />

EPA of such activities punuant to<br />

Section 3010 of RCRA. Notification<br />

instructions ara set forte te 45 FR 1274&<br />

Persoiu who previously have notified<br />

EPA or an auteorized state of teeir<br />

activities pormant to section 3010 of<br />

RCRA. (I.a.. persons who previously<br />

have notified EPA or an authorized stete<br />

teal they generate, transport treat store<br />

or dtepose of hazardous waste <strong>and</strong> have<br />

received an identification number^—eee<br />

40 CER 28217. X3.ll <strong>and</strong> 265.1) need not<br />

re-notil^,5FBnona widiout EPA<br />

identification numbera ara prohibited<br />

from traaspoftiag, oSering for transport<br />

treating, ttaria^ or disposing of<br />

hazardous wastes.<br />

For tba aama raasoos discussed<br />

abeva, facilitiaa managing wastes<br />

removad bam tha axdnsion ta<br />

auteortiad stetoa need not notify EPA or<br />

an authorlaed stete withta 90 days of<br />

today's rule. Section 3010 Notiflcalioa<br />

wid be required of such facdittes after<br />

tee state receives auteorization or<br />

odierwtsa amends Ite program to<br />

regulate these or require such<br />

nt^catloa.<br />

* Uaasf Hw SalM Waata rHirr-nl Aaaa^Msia ol<br />

Itaa (Pub. L.SS-«;) BPA mi fivaa tha opdon of<br />

waiviiif ika aotlfleaUoa lagultemant utxlsr sacHoa<br />

3016 ef BdtA Mewait M'Maa of Iha sasaoa asai<br />

. at MM iliasiaaM of ika Ai^ilrMaaelia.<br />

B. Compliance Dataafor Today's Rule<br />

1. teterim States <strong>and</strong> Permit<br />

Modifications ta Unauteorized States<br />

Facilities ta imauthorized stetes teat<br />

currenUy treat store, or dispose of<br />

wastes teat have been removed from<br />

temporary Bevid exdusion <strong>and</strong> ore<br />

characteristically hazardous under 40<br />

CFR Part 261. Subpart C but have not<br />

received a permit purauant to Section<br />

3005 of RCRA <strong>and</strong> are not operating<br />

purauant to teterim stetus, may be<br />

eligible for interim status (see Section<br />

3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) of RCRA. as an^ended).<br />

ta order to operate pursuant to interim<br />

status. suchiacUities must submit a<br />

Section 3010 notice pursuant to 40 CFR<br />

270.70(a) withte 90 days of today's final<br />

rule (Le» by Aprd 23.1990. • <strong>and</strong> must<br />

submit a part A permit application<br />

witete six months of today's final rule<br />

(i.e.. by July 23.1990). Under section<br />

3005(e)(3). l<strong>and</strong> disposal fedlities<br />

qualifying for teterim status under<br />

section 3tX)S(e)(l)(A)(ti) must also<br />

submit a part B application <strong>and</strong> certify<br />

teat tee fadlity is te compliance with all<br />

nnplicable ground-water monitoring-<strong>and</strong><br />

financial responsibility requiremenH<br />

withte IS months of today's final nds<br />

(i.e.. by July 23.1991). If Uie facdity fads<br />

to do so. teterim states wid termmate on<br />

teat date.<br />

Completion of final permit application<br />

wid require mdividual faddties to<br />

develop <strong>and</strong> compUe information on<br />

teeir on-site ivasta management<br />

operations including, but not limited te.<br />

tee following activities: Ground-water<br />

monitoring (d waste management on<br />

l<strong>and</strong> is tevidved); m<strong>and</strong>est systems,<br />

recordkeeping, <strong>and</strong> reporting dosure<br />

<strong>and</strong>. d appropriate, post-cloeure<br />

requirements; <strong>and</strong> finanfial<br />

reaponaftiility requirements. Tba permit<br />

appdcationa may alao require<br />

developmant of engineering plans to<br />

upgrade existing fadlitiea. ta addition,<br />

many of teese faddties wid, te tee<br />

future, be subjed to l<strong>and</strong> disposal<br />

restricttans (LDR) st<strong>and</strong>ards. As<br />

explateed ta tee September 1.1989 final<br />

rule <strong>and</strong> ta tbe proposed LDRs for third<br />

scheduled wastes (54 FR 48372.48492:<br />

November 22,1969) EPA considen<br />

wastes Aat ara brongfat <strong>and</strong>er Subtitle C<br />

regnlaHoa by todajr's ftaal rule to lie<br />

"newly idantifiad" wastes for purposes<br />

of astebhshmg LDR st<strong>and</strong>ards undor<br />

section 90IM(gK4) of RCRA. (54 FR<br />

38824). Acoordtagty, BPA has proposed<br />

teat nawly tdast^ad niaaral processing<br />

•BMaelpa > whs psaifciusli kate aoUllad<br />

EPA or aa I<br />

transport, treat iton or dlapoae of haurdou* wutt<br />

<strong>and</strong> hava received an Identiflcatlaa Dumber.


Fedwal ReglStor / ¥ci 55. Nc. 15 /Tuesday, Janiary 28. IBQO / Riites <strong>and</strong> Itagulations 2347<br />

wastes not be subject ta tee BDAT<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards that die <strong>Agency</strong> proposed on<br />

November 22.1968 for chanacteristic<br />

hazardous wastes. As required by<br />

RCRA section 8004^)^(0. EPA plans<br />

to study tee mineral processing wastes<br />

removed from tee temporary exemption<br />

to determine BDAT for ones teat exhibit<br />

one or more characteristic of a<br />

hazardous waste.<br />

All existing hazardous waste<br />

management faddties (as defined te 40<br />

CFR 270.2) teat treat store, or dispose of<br />

hazardous wastes covered by today's<br />

final rule, <strong>and</strong> that are currenUy<br />

operating pursuant to teterim states<br />

under Section 3005(e) of RCRA. must file<br />

with EPA an amended Part A permit<br />

application witete six months of today's<br />

publication (i.e., by July 23,1990), te<br />

accordance wite S ^.72(a).<br />

Under current regulationa. a<br />

hazardous waste management EaciHty<br />

teat has received a permit pursuant to<br />

Section 3005 may not treat store, or<br />

dispose of tee wastes removed from tee<br />

temporary exclusion by today's final<br />

rule, if teose wastes are<br />

characteristically hazardous imder 40<br />

CFA Tart 281, Subpart C when tee final<br />

rule becomes effective (i.e, July 23,1990]<br />

unless <strong>and</strong> until a permit modification<br />

allowing such activity has occurred te<br />

accordance wite § 270.42. Consequently,<br />

ownen <strong>and</strong> operaton of such facUities<br />

will want to fUe any necessaiy<br />

modification appticattens nvlth EPA<br />

before tee effective date of today's final<br />

rule. EPA has recenUy amended ite<br />

permit modification procedures for<br />

newly listed or identified wastes. (See<br />

40 CFR 270.42(g).) For more detefls on<br />

tee permit modification procedures, see<br />

53 FR 37S12. September 28.1988.<br />

2. teterim Status <strong>and</strong> Psmit<br />

Modificationa m Autbooiaad St^as<br />

Until the state Is auteorized to<br />

regulate tee wastes teat are being<br />

removed from temporaiy exdusion by<br />

today's final rule <strong>and</strong> that.ara hazardoos<br />

under 40 CFR part 281, sobpaltC no<br />

permit requiremente tg^.Fhdiitiet<br />

lacking a permit tboufuia, need not<br />

seek interim status oflO Stete<br />

auteonzation ts graatad. Any fadttty<br />

treating, storing, or (Bsposlug of thsaa<br />

wastes on tee eftecttwa dote of state<br />

auteortzolton may quaWy for teterim<br />

states under appllcafate state Jaw. fitate<br />

teat te order to be no teasatrhigaBtdtan<br />

tee Federal program, the stete "te<br />

existence" date far data miningintarim<br />

status ehgibfhty may nat Plater than<br />

tee effective date of EPA's autheriaatiea<br />

of the state to reguiato Ifaesa waslaa.<br />

These faddties must provide the state's<br />

equivalent of a part A permit<br />

application as required by autbcaized<br />

state law.<br />

Fteally. RCRA section 3006f«) (teterim<br />

status) or any auteorized stete analog<br />

apply to waste management facilitiea<br />

qualifying for stete teterim status. For<br />

those facilities managing wastes under<br />

an existing state RCRA permit state<br />

permit modification procedures apply.<br />

VI. Effed oD Stete Authotizations<br />

Because tee requirements te today's<br />

final rule are not being imposed<br />

pursuant to tee Hazardous <strong>and</strong> Solid<br />

Waste Amendments of 1984, teey wid<br />

not be effective in RCRA auteorized<br />

states until the state program<br />

amendments are efffedive. Thus, tee<br />

removal of fte temporary exclusion wid<br />

be applicable six montes afrer today's<br />

pubdcation (i.e., on July 23,1990) oidy te<br />

teose few states teat do not have final<br />

auteorizalitm to operate teeir ov\m<br />

hazardous waste programs te lieu of tee<br />

Federal program, ta auteorized states,<br />

tee reteterpretation of tee regulation of<br />

non-exchided processing wastes wid not<br />

be applicable until tee state revises Ite<br />

program to adopt equivalent<br />

requirements under state law <strong>and</strong><br />

receives auteorization for teese new<br />

requiremente. (Of course, tee<br />

requirements wiU be applicable as slate<br />

lafw ff tbe state law is effective prior to<br />

auteorization).<br />

Based on tee scope of today's final<br />

rule, states teat have final auteorization<br />

(40'(7R 2n.21(e)) must revise Uiefr<br />

programs to adopt equivalent st<strong>and</strong>ards<br />

regulating non-Bevill mteeral processing<br />

wastes thiat exhibit hazardous<br />

characteristics as hazardous t>y July 1,<br />

1991 tf regulatory changes only tue<br />

necessary, or by July 1.1992 d statetory<br />

chai^as ore necessary. These deadlines<br />

caa ha anitanried by up .to sfat months<br />

(l.e.. untdfanuary 1.1962 <strong>and</strong> January 1.<br />

1993. respectively) te exoeptional caaas<br />

(40 CFR.27X21(e)(3)). Once BPA<br />

approves tbe ravioion. tee-state<br />

requiramente tietiume RCRA Soblitte C<br />

requirements te that stete. States are net<br />

auteorlsad to regulate any wastes<br />

subject to today's final nde untd EPA<br />

approves their regulations. Of course,<br />

states siote existing st<strong>and</strong>ards teat<br />

addrass thoaa wastes may continue to<br />

adndatetar <strong>and</strong> enforoe their regulations<br />

as a mattar af state tew.<br />

Can<strong>and</strong>y unauthorued stetas tbat<br />

submit aa official appdcattan for final<br />

auteofiaatiaa tess than 12 mondis after<br />

tee«aacttva date of today's final rula<br />

(La., bakae January 22. IflBt) may ba<br />

approvod arithout inclnding an<br />

equivateot^BDidatan (i^a.. to address<br />

non-Bevid atineral prooeesing wastaa) ta<br />

tee appiioatioa. However, once<br />

auteortead. a state muat revise tte<br />

program to include an equivalent<br />

provtaioB luaroiding to ihe requiremente<br />

<strong>and</strong> deadltees provided at 40 CFR<br />

271.21(e).<br />

vn. Economic Impad Screentag<br />

Analysis Purauant to Executive Order<br />

12291<br />

. Sections 2 <strong>and</strong> 3 of Executive Order<br />

12281 (46 FR 13193) require teat a<br />

regulatory agency determtee wheteer a<br />

new regulation will be "major" <strong>and</strong>. if<br />

so, teat a Regulatory Impact Analysis-<br />

(RIA) be conducted. A major rule is<br />

defined as a regulation teat is likely to<br />

result te one or more of tee following<br />

impacte:<br />

(1) An aimual effect on the economy<br />

of SlOO miUion or more;<br />

(2) A major tecrease te costs or prices<br />

far consumers, tedividuals. mdustries,<br />

FederaL State, <strong>and</strong> local government<br />

agencies, or geographic regions: or<br />

(3) Significant adverse effeds on<br />

competition, employment tevestinent<br />

productivity, innovation, or on tee<br />

abidty of United States-based<br />

enterprises to compete wite foreignbased<br />

enterprises te domesticor export<br />

markets.<br />

Today's ftaal rule completes tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>'s revised teterpretation of tee<br />

Bevill Mining Waste Exclusion for<br />

mteeral processing wastes. The first pan<br />

of this reteterpretation, dealing with the<br />

vast majority of individual mteeral<br />

processing waste streams, was made<br />

final on September 1,1989. The<br />

preamble to the September 1 rule<br />

presented tbe resulte of the <strong>Agency</strong>'s<br />

economic impact screening analysis,<br />

covering scoras of smad volume mineral<br />

processing wastes, <strong>and</strong> examming cost<br />

impacte aaaodated svite 39 potenuady<br />

hazardous low volume wastes te detail.<br />

This analysis tedicated a total annual<br />

rnvnftiancm Btmt for Bubtitie C waSte<br />

management of about S54 midioiL As<br />

indicated ta section OI of this preamble.<br />

today% final Tute removes five<br />

additional pracessii^ wastes from the<br />

Bevid exclusion <strong>and</strong> subjecte teem to<br />

regulatioa under subtide C of RCRA if<br />

teey eodiibit hasardous characteristics.<br />

Consistent wite Executive Order<br />

12281, the A^em^ has completed a<br />

revised eosoomic impad screening<br />

analyste fivttfaa £«e mineral processing<br />

wastes tamovad from the Bevid<br />

exduaian by today's rule. T^iese<br />

revisions aoQOont for dianges te tee<br />

Bevid status of certate wastes since tee<br />

September 25, IfiBS. NPRM <strong>and</strong><br />

comaoaote raoatvad on tbe original<br />

analjRite. Rasalte of this revised analysis<br />

suggest ibat three of tee five waste<br />

streams are likely to exhibit hasardous<br />

characteristics at some or ill of tee


234S Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1§90 / Rtdes <strong>and</strong> Regulations<br />

faciUties teat generate them. One<br />

additional waate stream (air podution<br />

control solids from lightweight aggregate<br />

production) may be regulated at some<br />

fadlities under tee subtide C "derivedfrom"<br />

rule. As a consequence, as many<br />

as eleven mineral processing facUities m<br />

four different commodity sectora may<br />

Lnciu' compliance costs due to this rule.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> estimates teat total annual<br />

compliance costs are not likely to<br />

exceed $18.5 million <strong>and</strong> teerefore<br />

concludes teat today's final role ia not a<br />

"major rule" according to tee first<br />

criterion of E.0.12291.''<br />

Wite respect to tee oteer E.0.12291<br />

criteria, the <strong>Agency</strong> does not predict a<br />

substantial increase te costs or prices<br />

for consumers or a significant effect on<br />

international trade or employment te<br />

connection wite today's final rule. Some<br />

mdividual mteeral processing faddties<br />

in tee lightweight aggregate <strong>and</strong><br />

titanium dioxide sectora may experience<br />

significant compliance coste which<br />

would affect teefr abidty to compete te<br />

their respective commodity sectora. On<br />

balance, however, tee <strong>Agency</strong> concludes<br />

teat today's rule does not constitute a<br />

major rule as defined by E.0.12291.<br />

"The foUowing paragraphs of this<br />

section briefiy restate tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s<br />

economic impact screening approach<br />

<strong>and</strong> assumptions, <strong>and</strong> provide revised<br />

results.<br />

A. Approach<br />

1. .Meteodoiogy <strong>and</strong> Assumptions<br />

The revised screening analysis<br />

prepared for today's ftaal rule used<br />

essentially tee same meteodoiogy<br />

employed for <strong>and</strong> described te tee<br />

September 25.1S89. NPRM (54 FR 39312-<br />

15) <strong>and</strong> accompanying background<br />

documents, to which tee reader te<br />

referred for details.<br />

Substantial differences between tbe<br />

scope <strong>and</strong> resulte of tee analysis<br />

described te the proposed nde <strong>and</strong> those<br />

reported here primarily refled a shift ta<br />

tee Bevid status of serenl hay waste<br />

streams based on newtafonaatkm on<br />

waste generation rains iMllnltenilcnl<br />

cbaraderistics, as daaortbad ahova ta<br />

section DL Spedficaflyg^bs Ihal nda<br />

restores tee Bevid stotos-fia tan wastes<br />

for which tee <strong>Agency</strong> has ptavtonsly<br />

estimated compiianca cost impacte ta<br />

tee September 25 .NPRM (roast leach ore<br />

residue from chromite processing <strong>and</strong><br />

process wastewater from hydroflooric<br />

' The Prvunble to the Se^ember 29. issa<br />

propoeed rale pmeiiied aa amtaal oaB^Haaos eoet<br />

ntiaaU of ISJ aiiboa Ear S afieclad ladHOas a I<br />

commodity (aoors. Tha aai tooeaae le SlSJ mllUaa<br />

is atmbuubl* entirely to tba iddltian of Ugbtweiftrt<br />

•gsresete APC scrabber loUds to tbe Hit of ifTected<br />

wines.<br />

add production), teus obviating tee<br />

predicted impacte for teese two sedOTS.<br />

On tee oteer h<strong>and</strong>. APC dust/sludge<br />

from tightweight aggregate production<br />

(proposed for retention withte tee<br />

exclusion based upon preliminary<br />

review of EPA survey data) has now<br />

been removed from tee Bevill exdusion<br />

following a closer examteation of tee<br />

data, which tedicates teat average<br />

scrabber solid volumes are well below<br />

tee high volume criterion.<br />

Because EPA waste samplmg data<br />

<strong>and</strong> information submitted both in<br />

response to tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s RCRA section<br />

3007 letter <strong>and</strong> in public comment<br />

indicate teat APC solids from<br />

lightweight aggregate are unlikely to<br />

exhibit hazardous waste characteristics,<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> beheves teat removing this<br />

material from tee Bevdl exclusion wid<br />

not impose any cost or economic<br />

impacte on most of tee 30 or so facilities<br />

teat generate it Noneteeless. it is weU<br />

known teat several lightweight<br />

aggregate production faddties currenUy<br />

bum listed hazardous wastes as a<br />

primary fuel <strong>and</strong> would hence<br />

experience subtiUe C regtdatory<br />

compliance costs as a consequence of<br />

tee "derived-from" nJe (see 40 CFR<br />

261J(b)(2)(i)).<br />

EPA bas not substantially modified ite<br />

estimates of tee distribution <strong>and</strong><br />

magnitede of tee coste or impacte for tee<br />

remaining four affected waste streams<br />

whose stetes remateed unchanged from<br />

tee September 25 NPRM (elemental<br />

phosphorus off-gas solids, primary lead<br />

process wastewater, titanium dioxide<br />

sudate process waste acids, <strong>and</strong><br />

titanium dioxide sudate process waste<br />

solids).<br />

Ol tha five waste streams reviewed<br />

for potential hazard cbaraderistics. tee<br />

preliminary screening assessment<br />

suggeste thattwo—lightweight<br />

aggregate APC scrobber solids <strong>and</strong><br />

sulfate process waste sodds from<br />

titenium dloxida production—are not<br />

likely to exhibit hazardous<br />

choracteiistia under current RCRA<br />

hazardotts waste test procedures.<br />

Thereidca, BPA has assumed ta tte<br />

economic impact screening analysis that<br />

taddties generating these wastes wid<br />

experience no compliance cost impacte<br />

assodated wite potential subtiUe C<br />

regulation of these wastes. The primary<br />

exception relates to five (out of 30)<br />

lightweight aggregate prtiducera teat<br />

currendy bum dated hazardous wastes<br />

as fuel. EPA's taformatlon tedicates that<br />

five faddties operated by tee Solite<br />

Corporation <strong>and</strong> one facUity operated<br />

by tha Nordte Corporation burn<br />

hazardous waste as fuel: one of tee<br />

Solite fadlities apparenUy does not<br />

generate any solid wastes. Wite few<br />

specific exceptions (based on waste<br />

samplmg data), tee remateteg three<br />

waste streams were considered<br />

hazardous at aU facilities, for tee<br />

characteristics specified, as follows:<br />

• Elemental phosphorus o&-gas solids<br />

(from wet collection)—EP toxic for cadmium<br />

• Primary lead process wastewater—EP<br />

toxic for arsenic, cadmium, <strong>and</strong> lead,<br />

corrosive<br />

• Titanium dioxide sulfate process waste<br />

acids—EP toxic for chromium, corrosive<br />

Fourteen facilities te teese four<br />

affected commodity sectors, were then<br />

furteer analyzed on a site-specific basis<br />

te terms of current (baseline)<br />

management practices m order to<br />

determtee consistency wite current<br />

subtiUe C management requirements<br />

<strong>and</strong> lo select reasonable site-specific<br />

compliance options as a basis for<br />

estimating costs.<br />

EPA determmed teat one of tee 14<br />

faddties analyzed on tee basis of<br />

company-provided data is currenUy<br />

managing hazardous wastes m<br />

compliance wite current subtiUe ^<br />

requirements, "rd teus may not is|cur<br />

additional coste when today's rul^<br />

becomes effective. The data suppAting<br />

this finding were obtamed from<br />

responses to EPA's 1987-88 National<br />

Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment<br />

Storage, DisposaL <strong>and</strong> Recycling<br />

Faddties (TSDR Survey).* For some<br />

oteer tadividuol faddties. Date from tee<br />

National Survey of Solid Wastes from<br />

Mtaeral Prt>ces8ing Faddties document<br />

teat current practice for several of tee<br />

wastes (particularly tbe wastewaten)<br />

removed by today's rule tedudes<br />

treatment ta a wastewater treatment<br />

plant direct discharge via NPDES<br />

permit provisions, <strong>and</strong>/or recycling to<br />

tee process generating tee waste te<br />

question. EPA bos reviewed this<br />

information, <strong>and</strong> used it to develop<br />

baseline <strong>and</strong> subtide C compliance<br />

scenarios for this analyste. As a result<br />

estimated compdonce coste at several of<br />

tee faciUties affected by today's final<br />

rule are zero. That is, removal of tee<br />

waste from Bevid wid impose no<br />

operational or economic impacte<br />

because teese faddties already appear<br />

to employ management practices<br />

consistent wite subtide C requirements.<br />

2. Costing Assumptions for Lightweight<br />

Aggregate APC Scrubber Solids<br />

As discussed above, five faciUties<br />

producing lightweight aggregate air<br />

• <strong>US</strong>EPA. ISSa Ceve/opoMfft oftiM Higil Vo.'une<br />

CrJIehoti for Mineral Prxxaatwg Wastaa. Special<br />

Wajtee Branch. OtRce of Solid Waste. August m<br />

lose.


J^daral Bagiatar / Ual. Si,Ho. IS J Tuasdodf, {oanary 23, 1990 / Aales «ad tegnlattaos tMS<br />

pnlliition.control |APC] sonihber solids<br />

wdl face economic impT^* due to tha<br />

removal of this waste stream horn the<br />

BeviO exdusion by today's final rule.<br />

because thpy hum HatnHT»nTm.fl«iia<br />

waste as fueL Because this sector was<br />

not evaluated te the origteal screening<br />

analysis for tee NPRM. tee fodowing<br />

paragraphs present the <strong>Agency</strong>'s costing<br />

approach <strong>and</strong> iengineering design<br />

assumptions for evaluating compliance<br />

options <strong>and</strong> eatimating costs.<br />

In general teere are a multitede of<br />

possible compliance options available to<br />

lightweight aggregate pioducera, varying<br />

from conversion to iossd fuels to various<br />

possible waste reduction nieteods to<br />

possible delisting petition cations.<br />

Because of lack of date necessary to<br />

perform quantitative cost estimates for<br />

most of teeae alternatives (as wed as<br />

time constrainte on this final courtordered<br />

rule), tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s screening<br />

analysis has been forced to focus ooly<br />

on the extremely high-cost option of<br />

managing the APC scrubber solids<br />

(generated as wet sludges) as Subtitle C<br />

hazardous wastes. 'Die <strong>Agency</strong>'s coot<br />

estimates ase teus based en the<br />

difference te dis^sal coste between<br />

maaaging tha reported sludge vnhimas<br />

m unlined impoundmente or waste pdes<br />

veraus disposal ta a permitted subtiUe C<br />

londfid. For teese <strong>and</strong> other reasons<br />

ouUined below, the <strong>Agency</strong>'s cost<br />

estimates ibr this sector should be<br />

regarded as upper-bound eetimatas.<br />

The waste quantities potentiady<br />

subjed to subtitte C londfiO dirpf TBI<br />

have been estiaiated using responses to<br />

tee tedustry survey <strong>and</strong>. te one case.<br />

%vritten public comments. Methods for<br />

developing teese estimates are<br />

described te a supplemental technicsil<br />

background daoiaDant that ssay ba<br />

found ta the daclcBt for today's nde.*<br />

Hie <strong>Agency</strong> bos a«"'i'"'"i that ^y^f i«»fif^^<br />

quantities reported by tee faddties<br />

represent relatively dry laoterial. <strong>and</strong><br />

that dewatering would aot be feasibte as<br />

s volume redaction mcfcad prior to lani<br />

disposal ff dewateriug wauhl be<br />

possible, then tha muBtdy af waste for<br />

subtitle C l<strong>and</strong>fid dispaaaltas been<br />

overestlmstad <strong>and</strong> to Miasctent EPA<br />

bas. accortfingly oraiaaMuiated<br />

compiianca costs, ivfafc&an direcdy<br />

related to the mass of wastsibat must<br />

be disposed.<br />

The <strong>Agency</strong> has aisD-eoRserratively<br />

assumed teat aU lightwaighlJiggregate<br />

kdas st each affected focilMy (most<br />

• Add<strong>and</strong>um la Iha Tac/inkialW^ienund<br />

Doeumant DanhpatatH of Iha Coit <strong>and</strong> Sconomtc<br />

Impacts af lapiaamnlia$ Uta tmiU Ulnaml<br />

PtBcauinf HaataaCntonaBaoMaiicAiiahrsIs<br />

Stafl Office anelld Wa«ta, ISBPA. Taaaaiy tz.<br />

facihUas operate thiae to &re fcilaa] do<br />

<strong>and</strong> wid continue to bum listed<br />

hazardaus wastes as fiial Consequently.<br />

m this analysis tee entire scrubber<br />

solids stream for ad faddties is assumed<br />

to be affeded by tee derived-from nde<br />

<strong>and</strong> teerefore subject to subtitle C. To<br />

tee extent teat some or od faddties do<br />

not bum listed hazardous wastes te ad<br />

of their kites <strong>and</strong>/or do (or could)<br />

segregate Usted aixd non-listed<br />

(characteristic) hazardous wastes prior<br />

to thai use as fuel, EPA bas further<br />

oveiestimated costs <strong>and</strong> impacts.<br />

te addition, the <strong>Agency</strong> has some<br />

concerns about the waste volume date<br />

reported by one of the two affected<br />

firms, tee SoUte Corporation. Solite's<br />

fadhUes report waste generation rates<br />

that are oubetantially higher tean any<br />

other lightweigfat aggregate producer,<br />

even when corrected for differences te<br />

plant size <strong>and</strong> production rate. Tbe<br />

waste-to-produd ratio calodated by<br />

EPA for SoUte's faddties ranges from 15<br />

percent to more than 25 percent This is<br />

from two <strong>and</strong> one had to 210 times tee<br />

ratio calculated for tee other reporting<br />

facilities generating the same waate.<br />

NoDeteeleaa. the date reported ta the<br />

Natinoal Survey <strong>and</strong> used ta this<br />

analysis ore consistent vrite tnfoanatian<br />

previously submitted to EPA by tee<br />

company. This may or may not be<br />

related to the issue of moisture content<br />

discussed above. It should be noted,<br />

howevec that these very high reported<br />

waste ^ner&tien rates lead direcdy te<br />

significant compliance coet estimates. U<br />

acteal waste generation rates are lower,<br />

acteal compliance costs <strong>and</strong> associated<br />

impacte will be less than tboee predided<br />

here.<br />

Anoteer conservative assumption teat<br />

tba <strong>Agency</strong> bas made te conducting this<br />

anal^'sfsls teat affected firms would<br />

contteue using current air pollution<br />

control meteods <strong>and</strong>. teerefore, continue<br />

SDgeneratewat APC scmtifoer soUds.<br />

Newly one baV of tee l^tweight<br />

aggregate indnstry ourenty uses dry<br />

couection meteods. induding one of tee<br />

faddties cpareted by SoUte teat burns<br />

hasardous svaste fuel. Waste generation<br />

rates using dry coUection methods are<br />

generady sigE^cantly tower tean teose<br />

ststaig wet caOection metbods. ta<br />

additioa infonnation snbmJtted to EPA<br />

indicates teal at some faddties. tee APC<br />

dost te recycled into tes lightweight<br />

asragate kilas from which tf is<br />

fsnerated. subh teat tee prooess does<br />

nat generate any subatoatlal quantity of<br />

solid wastes. To tee eKtent that tee<br />

faddties sscamteed te teis analysis coald<br />

Inalal dry dat coUectian systems snd<br />

Tscssle tee seUds rathorlhan contteus<br />

tBssa wet GoBactioo sysfaams, coste aad<br />

related tnqiacte-CDuld be reduced even ij<br />

tee-fadUftes continued te utilize Usted<br />

hazaadauB wastes as fuel supplements.<br />

Fteally. the affeded firms, SoUte <strong>and</strong><br />

NorUte. could potestiaUy avoid subtitie<br />

C reguialian ahogeteer by eiteer (1)<br />

converting entirely to oteer fuels <strong>and</strong><br />

discontinuing uae of Usted hazardous<br />

wastee as fuel or (2) having their waste<br />

streams de-listed on a site-specific<br />

basis. EPA notes here teat Solite has<br />

indicated te iU public commente on tee<br />

September 25.1989, <strong>and</strong> previous<br />

proposed rules teat it would not .<br />

contteue to accept <strong>and</strong> burn hazardous<br />

waste fuels d tee BeviU exemption were<br />

to be removed from its wastes. While<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong> recognizes that this courae<br />

of action is a distted possibiUty <strong>and</strong><br />

perhaps the least cost compUance<br />

alternative, tee <strong>Agency</strong> was not able te<br />

tee present screening analysis to<br />

evaluate tee avaiiabte fuel converaion<br />

option due to a lock of factual<br />

infonnation about such.faclora as<br />

retrofitting coste. thermal value of<br />

currently used hazotdons waste fuels,<br />

<strong>and</strong> tbe revenues accruing to the two<br />

films lor accepting the hazardaus<br />

wastes buut individiial geneaatora. For<br />

tee sameeoasons. Le., tnsuffident date,<br />

it has also not been possible So predid<br />

tee outoome ef any attempt by the firms<br />

to have tee APC oaubber wastes te<br />

question offidaUy delisted (withdrawn<br />

from sabtitte C regulation) hy tee<br />

<strong>Agency</strong>.<br />

Simdotly, wdtdefiPA acknowledges<br />

that tatermediate ahematives may be<br />

avadabie. such as bnmteg only<br />

characteristic rateer tean listed<br />

bozartlQus wastes te at least some kilns<br />

currenUy avadabie information is<br />

inaafficient to assess tee feasibility or<br />

cost Implications af this type of<br />

operational change.<br />

ConaequKtiUy. ^A's compUance cost<br />

analysis has been conduotad iietng tee<br />

best ouneatly available information to<br />

develop what are essentially worst-case<br />

compUance cost estimates tar the<br />

lightweight aggregate commodity sector<br />

To tee extent that tba affected faciUties<br />

can (1) avoid eubtiUe C regtdation by<br />

fuel changes <strong>and</strong>/or equipment<br />

modifications or sucaesoful delisting<br />

pgtitinna, or (2) ftTrlty'waste-RducUon<br />

techniques ta geiieiata lesser quantities<br />

of AFC scrubber soUds lubject to tee<br />

derivsd-from rule, the coate <strong>and</strong> taipact!<br />

.tapoctadJiarsjaBysapreaent a<br />

sitbetaBtial evsrestiaBte.<br />

£. Aggregota^ad Seotar CampHance<br />

Coatt<br />

Tbs loipaot sofeening analysiB<br />

projecte "teat atevsn fBcdOtes ta four<br />

ffiSerant mlnaralptaaasslag ooamodity


2350 Federal Registar / Vol. 55, No. 1» / Tuesday, January 23. 19» / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulations<br />

secton wid be affeded directly by<br />

today's ftaal rule. Thirty-five faddties ta<br />

these four secton are expected to be<br />

unaffected by today's rale because teey<br />

eiteer (1) do not generate tee processing<br />

waste te question. (2) routteely recycle<br />

tee material as a process teput or (3)<br />

produce a waste that apparentiy does<br />

not faU st<strong>and</strong>ard EPA hazardous waste<br />

test criteria. Anoteer three faciUties. one<br />

in tee titanium dioxide sector, <strong>and</strong> two<br />

in tee lead sector, are believed to be<br />

unaffected by virtue of already<br />

incorporating subtide C (or equivalent<br />

NPDES wastewater treatment) practices<br />

in teefr current waste management<br />

systems. In aggregate, tee total impact of<br />

today's rule is estimated to be about<br />

S18.5 milUon per year. EPA cost<br />

estimates for tedividual commodity<br />

secton <strong>and</strong> faciUties are presented te<br />

Table 4.<br />

For tee reasons discussed above, tee<br />

major part of tee total estimated<br />

compliance coste (88 percent) fads upon<br />

tee five Ughtweight aggregate faciUties<br />

currenUy burning Usted hazardous<br />

wastes as fuel Cost impacte range from<br />

S2.S mdUon annuady for tee Noriite <strong>and</strong><br />

Florida SoUte fadUties to almost B4.8<br />

miUion aimuaUy for SoUte's Arvonia,<br />

Virginia, faciUty. The reasons for tee<br />

large magnitede of teese compUanca<br />

cost estimates are tba host of<br />

conservative analytical assumptions<br />

articulated above, togeteer wite tee<br />

relatively large quantities of scrubber<br />

wastes reported by tee SoUte company.<br />

One oteer sector, titanium dioxide, te<br />

e


;J]-'.|.<br />

Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regidations 235<br />

>. . '<br />

TABLE A.—SUMMABX OF PROOUCTION, VALUE OF SHIPMENTS, ANO COMPLIANCE COSTS—Continued<br />

CoRicnodKy sector •<br />

Combineo total—aS tour sectors<br />

AJIFaciimea. . .. _ . ;„.<br />

AHecreo Facilities Oily*<br />

Number Ol<br />

plafits<br />

produong<br />

49<br />

11<br />

Produdton »(MT/<br />

YR)<br />

5.751.103<br />

1.415.726<br />

Umtvalua*<br />

(S/MT)<br />

461<br />

444<br />

Vakw of<br />

2.652.885.481<br />

627,906,964<br />

Compiance coals<br />

($/YH)<br />

18,478.000<br />

18,478.000<br />

Coats per<br />

fnemc tOrt<br />

ol product*<br />

($/MT)<br />

3.2<br />

13.1<br />

Costa/vah-<br />

0(<br />

(percefiil<br />

' Facilities evaluated are tfiose believad to generate wastes tfiat may exhibit hazardous characteristics or be hazardous by virtue ol the derived-from m<br />

' 100 cercern caoady uoKzanon is assumed, except as notea<br />

' T^uis '(x unit value, costs par matnc ton of pnxluct. <strong>and</strong> costs/value of shipments sre calculated <strong>and</strong> not the sum of the individual lacility vaiu<<br />

* Caoacfty ana production values aoportwned equally among the three Asarco facilities.<br />

* Prooucnon iigufe source; Minerals Yeaitxsott. 1987. p. 256.<br />

* Proauciion figure as reported oy tne taciMy in response to the 1989 National Survey of SoHd Wastes from Mineral <strong>Process</strong>inQ.<br />

^ Prooucnon figure calculated trom tirTTHMOe waste-to^roduct ratio ana reponed waste generation rale provided in 11 /88 public comments.<br />

* Suitate process only.<br />

* Aiteciad lacuioes are tlie facilities evaluated having non-zero compliarice costs.<br />

C. Economic Impacts<br />

EPA's screening-level analysis of<br />

economic impact compared tee<br />

magnitude of annual compliance coste<br />

for eaclraffected facility to tee<br />

estimated value of shipments. This ratio<br />

provides a Rrst approximation of tee<br />

extent to which the profitability of firms,<br />

or. alternatively, commodity prices, or<br />

oteer measures of national impact may<br />

be adversely affected by tee imposition<br />

of regulatory compliance costs.<br />

Sectora or faddties wite ratios above<br />

one percent were considered vidnerable<br />

to moderate to significant financial<br />

impacte <strong>and</strong> were evaluated te more<br />

deteil te terms of market <strong>and</strong> tedustry<br />

factors that might adect tee ultimate<br />

tecidence <strong>and</strong> impact of tee coste.<br />

As seen te Table 4. despite tee fact<br />

teat only a smad percentage of faddties<br />

te tee lightweigfat aggregate secter<br />

would be affected (five of thirty), tee<br />

magnitede of tee estimated tecremental<br />

waste management cost te suffident to<br />

indicate potentiady significant sectorwide<br />

impacts, particuUriy at tee<br />

regional level Upper bound compliance<br />

cost ratios at tee level of tee individual<br />

affected facilities are extreme, ranging<br />

from 51 percent te 81 percent of value of<br />

shipmente.<br />

For tee oteer sectors, only one faddty<br />

(m tee titanium dloxiids (sulfate) sectw)<br />

is predicted to fwysitenfft impacte<br />

somewhat one peicmit level at about U<br />

percent Thte levstoffanpactte regarded<br />

ss moderate. Tbs two elemental<br />

phosphorus (7MC <strong>and</strong> Ocddental), <strong>and</strong><br />

primary lesd (Asarco snd Doe Run)<br />

pnxluceri exanuned te this study ore<br />

expected to experience relatively mteor<br />

long-term economic impacts. Obviously,<br />

firms snd fadlities adesdy te<br />

compliance <strong>and</strong> wite compliance coste<br />

of zero (i.e.. Kemira end Asareo) will not<br />

experience any negative economic<br />

impacts associated %vite this rule.<br />

1. Faddty <strong>and</strong> Sector Impacts<br />

To furteer explore tee economic<br />

impact of today's final rule, EPA has<br />

exanuned some of tee factors teat<br />

influence tee abidty of adected firms to<br />

pass through prospective compliance<br />

coste to product consumers te tee form<br />

of higher prices. These factors teclude<br />

absolute price levels, major end uses of<br />

tee mteeral commodity, competition<br />

from importe <strong>and</strong> substitutes, secondary<br />

production, <strong>and</strong> flexibdity te oteer<br />

production cost factors.<br />

a. Lightweight Aggregate. Lightweight<br />

aggregate has three major uses, which<br />

generady reflect ite superior<br />

performance capabidties as a<br />

construction material. The three mate<br />

appbcations are te concrete block (61<br />

percent of total consumption), highway<br />

resurfacing (19 percent), <strong>and</strong> structural<br />

concrete (18 percent).*• A fourth, teough<br />

smad use (about 2 percent), tevolves<br />

new applications te recreational <strong>and</strong><br />

bnticidtural materials."<br />

Most lightweight aggregate produced<br />

te tes U.S. is used te manufacturing<br />

concrete block. Lightweight aggregate te<br />

valued as a higb-strengte aggregate for<br />

concrete forms, because it adows a<br />

significant weight savings over heavier<br />

aggregates. The weight savings permit<br />

structures to be designed at on overod<br />

lower cost'* Concrete block fabricated<br />

from lightweight aggregate also has<br />

better insulating properties tean block<br />

using denser substitutes.<br />

Lightweight aggregate's second major<br />

use te te road surfacing, where it is used<br />

as an ingredient te asphalt surfaces. It<br />

oSen superior skid-resistance compared<br />

to oteer bulk fiders.'* Lightweight<br />

•• Bureau ot Mines. MweraU Yearbook tier.<br />

"Oar*.'PB«S 254.<br />

«'/6;d<br />

" The BuUdw$ Sttjmaiar'i Rafaranca Book, f JL<br />

Walker PabSsliars. Lisle, 0. 1980. Pass S.ISS<br />

" Ampian. Saiiis C "Qays." In Minarul Paeta<br />

<strong>and</strong>Problamg. <strong>US</strong>. Burssu o( Mines. 1987. Psys 166.<br />

aggregate's third major application is a<br />

a component of structural concrete, sue<br />

as te bridge surfaces <strong>and</strong> floors in highrise<br />

buddings, where its low weight anc<br />

high strength are useful.**<br />

Lightweight aggregate is valued in its<br />

mote applications because of its weight<br />

siavings <strong>and</strong> performance features (skid<br />

resistance, tesulating abilities, <strong>and</strong><br />

strengte). teough substitetes can<br />

compete te cases where usera do not<br />

have stringent requiremente for teese<br />

quadties <strong>and</strong> are will'nsi to use one of<br />

the available substitetes. Competition<br />

withte lightweight aggregate's primary<br />

applications comes from oteer budding<br />

materials, wite tee mate substitete beir<br />

heavy-weight stone (aggregate). Oteer<br />

substitetes tedude light natural<br />

aggregates (pumice or cteders) <strong>and</strong><br />

foam."<br />

Markete for lightweight aggregate art<br />

basicady regional or local rateer tean<br />

national The widespread availabdity c<br />

domestic clays suitable for Ughtweight<br />

aggregate production, tee high cost of<br />

tronsportetion for aggregates, <strong>and</strong> tee<br />

relatively low market value (price) of<br />

this commodity limit tee size of market<br />

areas. As a result, firms te tee mdusti7<br />

which are widely scatiered across tee<br />

U.S,. are limited te teeir ability to<br />

exp<strong>and</strong> tbeir sales teto competitors'<br />

territories witeout actually constructing<br />

new plante.<br />

tetemational b'ade te tee lightweight<br />

aggregate sector is extremely limited, fi<br />

shown te Table 9. the United States is <<br />

significant net exporter of clays as a<br />

general category. Trade data for finishc<br />

lightweight aggregate are not available<br />

teough a trade source tedicates teat<br />

importe have not affected Ughtweight<br />

aggregate's market to a large degree,<br />

oteer tean some recent imports of<br />

pumice fram tee Mediterranean area. '<br />

•* IM. pats 186.<br />

'• IjRlea. Bxpawtad Oay <strong>and</strong> Shale Institute.<br />

Mrsooal wwtianntcatVia December 29. ises.<br />

C


JS2 faduai RaeiiSer / Vol 9k No. 15 / Tuesdsy, January 23, 1898 / Rnks snrf R^nhrtiens<br />

Energy coste ore an iupet taut<br />

i-j.impnnont of prf^/4n^Hr»w COSte for the<br />

Ughtweight sgBKgate tedustry. Kilns ore<br />

reported to reqmn 2.0 to 4.1 midion<br />

HIUs of fuel per MT of H^tweight<br />

aggregate produced.'* Residual oil (tee<br />

fuel used te most kilns) coste<br />

approximately S2.39 per million BTUs m<br />

1988. ** Assuming this fuel cost tee cost<br />

of fuel per MT lightweight aggregate te<br />

at least S4.80, <strong>and</strong> could possibly be as<br />

high as S14.eo (teough tee higher fuel<br />

consumption rate might apply at plante<br />

configured to use less expensive furis).<br />

It is teerefore apparent teat energy<br />

costs account for a substantial portion<br />

of tee margte between tee raw material<br />

cost of day ($10 per MT] <strong>and</strong> tee price<br />

of finished lightweight aggregate (as low<br />

as $24 per MT). Consequendy. faddties<br />

tent can achieve fuel cost savings by<br />

using hazardous wastes as &iel<br />

supi^emente are dkely to have a<br />

substantial current cost advantage over<br />

faddties relying solely upon oteer fuels,<br />

such as oil or cool, espedady smce teey<br />

can generally charge a disposal fee to<br />

waste generatora. Compdance coste<br />

associated wite today's rule would<br />

reduce this cost advantage, though 'd a<br />

facility elected to contteue using listed<br />

hazardous wastes ite total production<br />

coste would rise above tedustry norms<br />

only to the extent teat tbe incremental<br />

comp^nce coste exceeded tee fuel cost<br />

savings teat it currently enjoys.<br />

Alternatively, d the faddty elected to<br />

stop using tee Usted hazardous wastes,<br />

it would (after any neoeseary<br />

retrofitting] have fuel coste comparable<br />

to tee majority of oteer facdities te tbe<br />

industry.<br />

te summary aad for several reasons,<br />

EPA beUeves teat tee Bghtweight<br />

aggregate producers affected by today's<br />

rule wdl not suffer tbe calamitous<br />

economic impacte tbat odgbt be<br />

>* COIMB. SJO. endTX U<br />

Lighter NadBCI<br />

>• UO. DasarCMOl ef<br />

ArirmnMnaaaiL AdoathJf £aatif<br />

nee Table B-ia<br />

aecaor<br />

Elemeeeri<br />

Phoaptiana.<br />

1 *ed<br />

*WSWaL<br />

nmmmOOtm.<br />

Plos srvl hars (iuean)'<br />

riavs faS tMi^ai *<br />

lano.<br />

sBggested liy fce <strong>Agency</strong>'s tecieiueutsl<br />

cost estimates, even if tme assumes that<br />

these upper limit cost impacte wid<br />

actaady be incmred. First Eocdities teat<br />

currently bum hazardous waste as fuel<br />

enjoy a potentiady significant cost<br />

advantage wite respect to their<br />

competitDCS. This advantage may<br />

mitigntp. pfrhnps to a considerable<br />

extent the coet impacts of today's rule,<br />

te addition, because of the ^ledal<br />

physical charactedctics offined by<br />

lightweight aggregate te comparison<br />

with ooaventiooal aggregatea, aSected<br />

producera may have some abidty to<br />

pass through compdance coste to local<br />

tedustrial <strong>and</strong> pubUc sector markets te<br />

tee form of higher prices. Ibou^ to an<br />

utncertate extent Fteady. high<br />

transportation coste <strong>and</strong> a widely<br />

dispersed domestic tedustry suggest tbat<br />

moderate price tecreases could be<br />

susteined. at least for bghtwei^t<br />

aggregate applications teat require the<br />

low density <strong>and</strong> bi^ strengte offered by<br />

tUsraeterisl.<br />

b. Titanium Dioxide. Titanium dioxide<br />

is used te pigmente for pstete <strong>and</strong><br />

surface coatings, paper manufacturing,<br />

aiiu plastics. Had of titanium dioxide<br />

production is consumed te pigmente,<br />

••lieie ite cuiupeUbve ptTsitian te strong.<br />

Oen<strong>and</strong> for h^-qnafity paper also<br />

favora titanium dioxide.<br />

Tbe domestic industry euppljog moat<br />

ot tbe titanium dioxide used te the <strong>US</strong>.<br />

with importe exceeding exporte by oidy<br />

a moderate degree. As a result, titooiuBB<br />

dioxide te te a relatively strong domestic<br />

market position. Producers using tbe<br />

sulfate process, however, ore te a<br />

mteorlty <strong>and</strong> accoont for only rmo eigbih<br />

of domestic production. It is not likely<br />

tbat the ooe affeLted pnxlocer could<br />

estebbsb a pieuiium for hs product snd<br />

WOBM (baiefure be Bmited te tbe extent<br />

to wfaidk it oould recover cost increases.<br />

2. ItbcAs an CoBsumer Wees<br />

For sesKSBsd rmsQU, EPA bederes dmt<br />

TABLE S.—tMPoms Ano ExiPO«rrs OF MINERALS,<br />

Oofntvbc produdtan<br />

QuanSV(MT)<br />

341,950<br />

SMMM<br />

• 4,140.642<br />

8S3L87S<br />

Value (tOOO)<br />

577 jes<br />

2n.i«s<br />

•113.974<br />

1.SS0.483<br />

QuantSySyn)<br />

1niport><br />

4.463<br />

1SS.47S<br />

34,101<br />

162.738<br />

teis nde wffl not create any appreciable<br />

changes te consumer prices. The firat<br />

end principal reason is tee generally low<br />

overad percentage of compliance costs<br />

to product value. wUcb does not exceed<br />

one percent for any adected commodity<br />

except lightweight aggregate. Combteed<br />

wite this is tee fact teat not ad<br />

producers te these sectora are adected<br />

equady (many domestic oompetitore are<br />

not affected at ad) <strong>and</strong> that other<br />

domestic or forei^ competitors could<br />

fid prodnction sbortfads. eiteer wite<br />

identical or substituteble products.<br />

Fmady. since aU the affected<br />

commodities are primary mtermediate<br />

raw material tepute to the production of<br />

oteer finished products, teeir relative<br />

con&lbutioii to fktal oonsHiner goods<br />

prices is, ta any case, typicafly quite<br />

sraelL<br />

X Forest Trade Impacte<br />

Trade is sabstantial te many of tbe<br />

mteeral commodities covered by today's<br />

rule, but is probably only likely to be a<br />

factor wite teepaot to titaoiura dioxide.<br />

Basic import <strong>and</strong> export data for tbe<br />

sectors that generate potentially<br />

hazardous wastes ore presented in<br />

Table 5. Import <strong>and</strong> e:q>art figures for<br />

lightweight aggregate (exp<strong>and</strong>ed shale)<br />

ere not avadohie, alteougb international<br />

trade is not thought to be a significant<br />

factor for tbia sector. Because imports of<br />

titanium dioxide ore significant the<br />

abdity of tee affected domestic producer<br />

to raise prices to recova compUance<br />

costs, is. as discussed above, fmther<br />

limited, <strong>and</strong> teere may be a modest<br />

stimulus towards import expansion.<br />

tai etew «f the «bov«, ft te unldcefy that<br />

tee ovetvl trade balancs m (be<br />

: miaerats ktdustry wid be<br />

' sfioded by today's rule,<br />

tbmgb te one sector regolsitary cost<br />

lsitpa».


•H<br />

Fadanl Register / VoL 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules <strong>and</strong> Regulationa 235c<br />

Vm. Regulatocy Flexdidlty Analyste<br />

The Regulatory Flexibidty Act (RFA)<br />

of 1980 {Pub. L fl&..3S4), which amends<br />

tee Administrative Procedures Act<br />

requires Federal regulatory agencies to<br />

consider "smad entities" throughout tee<br />

regulatory process. Tbe RFA requires, te<br />

section 603, an initial screening analysis<br />

to be performed to determtee wheteer a<br />

substantial number of smaU entities wiU<br />

be significantiy affected by a regulation.<br />

If so, regulatory alternatives teat<br />

elimmate or mitigate tee impacts must<br />

be considered.<br />

te tee preamble to the September 25<br />

proposed rule, tee <strong>Agency</strong> presented<br />

documentation of <strong>and</strong> tee rules firom a<br />

screening analysis to determtee tee<br />

potential for significant smad busteess<br />

impacts imposed by tee proposed<br />

reteterpretation of tee Mining Waste<br />

Exclusion (see 54 FR 39316-7). At teat<br />

time it was determteed teat no smad<br />

busteess enterprises would be advereely<br />

affected by tee nde, as proposed.<br />

The changes teat have occurred te<br />

today's final rule, as disttect from tee<br />

September 25.1989. proposal, have<br />

served to reduce tee number of<br />

potentiady affeded secton whde<br />

tecreasing slighUy tee number of<br />

potentiady affected faddties. Based<br />

upon tee revised cost <strong>and</strong> economic<br />

impact analysis presented above, <strong>and</strong><br />

further data coUection <strong>and</strong> analysis by<br />

tee <strong>Agency</strong>. EPA has conduded teat<br />

only one smad busteess enterprise.<br />

NorUte Corporation, wite approximately<br />

75 employees.'* might be advereely<br />

affected by today's final rule. Therefore.<br />

EPA condudes that just as te tee<br />

September 25 proposal teere wid not be<br />

a significant advene impact on a<br />

substantial number of smad mteeral<br />

processing companies, because among<br />

tee affected sectora teere is oidy one<br />

smad busteess teat is expected to<br />

experience impacu from today's final<br />

rule.<br />

IX. List of Subjecte in 40 CFR 288,2S1<br />

<strong>and</strong> 282<br />

Designated faddty. Hazardous waste.<br />

Waste treatment <strong>and</strong> (flsposai<br />

Recycling. Reporttaa sad recordkeepdig<br />

requirements, Maidnsts.<br />

Dated lonuory U. usa<br />

WUBaoi K. RaiDy,<br />

Adminittrator.<br />

For tee reesons set out te tee<br />

preamble, parte Zaa 281 <strong>and</strong> 282 of tide<br />

'• Sovrca: Duns Martst Uantlfiers. OUia«<br />

IntonsaUoo Sarrtcee. Inc ISSS<br />

40 of tee Code of Federal Regulations is<br />

amended as foUows:<br />

PART 26&-HAZARDO<strong>US</strong> WASTE<br />

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL<br />

1. The auteority dtation for Part 260<br />

contteues to read as foUows:<br />

Authority: 42 U.S.C 6905, 6S12(a). 6921.<br />

6S27, 6030, 6934. 6935, 0937, 6936, 6939, <strong>and</strong><br />

6974.<br />

2. Section 260.10 is amended by<br />

revising tee definition "designated<br />

faddty" to read as foUows:<br />

] 260.10 Deffnitions.<br />

"Designated facility" mesna a<br />

hazardous waste treatment storage, or<br />

disposal facdity which (1) has received<br />

a permit (or teterim states) te<br />

accordance wite tee requirements of<br />

parte 270 <strong>and</strong> 124 of this chapter, (2) has<br />

received a permit (or teterim states)<br />

from a State auteorized te accordance<br />

wite part 271 of this chapter, or (3) is<br />

regulated under S 261.6(c)(2) or subpart<br />

F of part 266 of teis chapter, <strong>and</strong> (4) teat<br />

has been designated on tee m<strong>and</strong>est by<br />

tee generator purauant to S 260.20. ff a<br />

waste is destteed to a faddty te an<br />

auteorized State which has not yet<br />

obtateed auteorization to regulate teat<br />

particular waste as hazardous, teen tee<br />

designated facidty must be a facdity<br />

adowed by tee receiving State to accept<br />

such waste.<br />

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND<br />

<strong>US</strong>TINQ OF HAZARDO<strong>US</strong> WASTES<br />

3. The auteority citation for Part 261<br />

contteues to read as foUows:<br />

Authority: 42 U.S.C 6095. 6912(a). 6921, <strong>and</strong><br />

6022.<br />

4. Section 261.4 is amended by<br />

revteing paragraph (b)(7), to read as<br />

foUows:<br />

I2S1.4 Esduslona.<br />

(b) * • •<br />

(7) SoUd waste from tee extraction,<br />

benefidation. <strong>and</strong> processing of ores<br />

<strong>and</strong> mteerals (teduding coal), teduding<br />

phosphate rock <strong>and</strong> overburden from tee<br />

mining of uranium ore. For purposes of<br />

i 281.4(b)(7), beneficiation of ores <strong>and</strong><br />

mteerals is restricted to tee foUowing<br />

activities: Crushing; grinding; washing;<br />

dissolution: crystaUization: fdtration;<br />

sorting: sizing: drying, stetering:<br />

peUetizins briquetting: calcining to<br />

remove water <strong>and</strong>/or cortion dioxide;<br />

roasting, autoclaving. <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

chlorination te preparation for leaching<br />

(except where the roasting (<strong>and</strong>/or<br />

autodaving <strong>and</strong>/or chlorination)/<br />

leaching sequence produces a final or<br />

mtermediate product teat does not<br />

undergo furteer benefidation or<br />

processmg); gravity concentration:<br />

magnetic separation; electrostatic<br />

separation; flotation: ion exchange;<br />

solvent extraction; electrowtnning;<br />

precipitaUoa" amalgamation: <strong>and</strong> heap,<br />

dump, vat tank, <strong>and</strong> in situ leaching. Fc<br />

the purposes of S 261.4fb)(7), solid wastt<br />

from tee processmg of ores <strong>and</strong> mteeral<br />

will mclude only tee foUowing wastes,<br />

untd EPA completes a report to<br />

Congress <strong>and</strong> a regulatory<br />

determteation on teeir idtimate<br />

regulatory status:<br />

(i) Slag from primary copper<br />

processing;<br />

(u) Slag from primary lead processing,<br />

(ui) Red <strong>and</strong> brown muds from<br />

bauxite refining;<br />

(iv) Phosphogypsum from phosphoric<br />

add production;<br />

(v) Slag from elemental phosphorus<br />

production;<br />

(vi) Gasifier ash from coal<br />

gasification;<br />

(vii) <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from coal<br />

gasification;<br />

(viii) Calcium sidfate wastewater<br />

treatment plant sludge from primary<br />

copper processing;<br />

(Lx) Slag tailings from primary copper<br />

processing;<br />

(x) Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric<br />

acid production;<br />

(xi) <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from<br />

hydrofluoric add production:<br />

(xii) Air poUution contitil dust/sludge<br />

from iron blast furnaces;<br />

(xiii) Iron blast furnace slag;<br />

(xiv) Treated residue from roasting/<br />

leaching of chrome ore;<br />

(xv) <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from primar<br />

magnesium processing by tee anhydrou<br />

process;<br />

(xvi) <strong>Process</strong> wastewater from<br />

phosphoric acid production;<br />

(xvii) Basic oxygen furnace <strong>and</strong> open<br />

hearte furnace air poUution control<br />

dust/sludge from carbon steel<br />

production;<br />

(xviii) Basic oxygen furnace <strong>and</strong> open<br />

hearth furnace slag from carbon steel<br />

production;<br />

(xix) Chloride process waste solids<br />

from titanium tetrachloride production:<br />

(xx) Slag from primary zinc<br />

processing.


Fadaral g^gistar / Vol. 5S. No. IS / Tuecday. Jannary 23. 1990 / Rules Md Rqg^aliuDS<br />

PART 282--STANOAROS APPLICABLE<br />

TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDO<strong>US</strong><br />

WASTE<br />

5. The audutrity citetkwlor Part 2S2<br />

contteues to reed as fallaws:<br />

Authority: 42 VS.C OOIM, 681Z 6922. 6023.<br />

6924, 6025. aod 6037.<br />

8. Section 282^ is amended by<br />

adding paragraph (ej to read aa fodows:<br />

S262.23 tteaoltttaoMOileat.<br />

(e) For shipments of hazardous waste<br />

to a designated facility m an auteorized<br />

State which has not yet obtamed<br />

authorixatian to regulate teat particular<br />

waste OS bsxankitis, the geaerator must<br />

assure teat tee designated faciUty<br />

agrees te aigm <strong>and</strong> retara the manifest to<br />

tee generator, <strong>and</strong> teet any out-of-state<br />

transporter eigRS <strong>and</strong> fbnvards the<br />

m<strong>and</strong>est to tbe designated faciUty.<br />

[FR Tioc. 90-1402 Filed 1-2Z-96: 8:45 am]<br />

BKUimcaDC esse-se


l^€U_tJerM5 l^m Cakill<br />

^2 ^ ^5 )iidc€m


§)^iL_(3i^\L4ie iiP05LJ^O53 M^piiA^ U£


..l(a<br />

tejL^_£i)ck.^<br />

1 • ^ rwmos<br />

k. 6/\JUlnoi-aul<br />

_____^ ^17.<br />

P^ei^<br />

'^H:<br />

PElC<br />

©<br />

ilA UJ^JSL_ -t^cf^ ^ ^<br />

uiK^d ^/^_/>^^i^ Jl^'l/kacc^M<br />

vijUd ijimfL4^^^ JMJ-(^^)<br />

hw u*^ fUuMi^<br />

6h^ltMj oM'Jflicduo^-<br />

^ _^_ l^jAJ^d^^ket^^.<br />

TJuLJ^MfJLX^/t&L\_TLL ^fUA..E/Aj^d^^^<br />

B_ _ J^c 1^^ C6M.jmtCL<br />

^U^/^i_ ( ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^<br />

diu 4e MJLUMJI/IUU eny


T^f H*d?tJ^ J^<br />

i^k^^<br />

%^zXi^3^.^^^-^ ^J^^<br />

i._j>i^^^ '<br />

^4,Q^l^m<br />

^(k


— -<br />

m4i(^io-^i5^<br />

- - • •• • . • . - • - . • - • .<br />

—<br />

•<br />

-V^J<br />

"- -<br />

/^^iCe/j<br />

— • ' •<br />

— ^_<br />

.


PB^MT/^fi^t.<br />

d^M^-r.-^&M-. i^^MaJ^.^^^.^<br />

n>j!/> si&Hit<br />

him ^(M^.{Um^<br />

CiOkSi^CzU^'^ _ . _<br />

!S^tauipi&^ -Soum^A)- •^^^emMJj&i'^e^ Cac^&j U^e^et^SsSJch ^^^^^^10<br />

FiEaPJimoQ,<br />

0-<br />

^n^ &U.<br />

Cd, 0^,(1^;^, V^,% 9<br />

um,. fc ds4^^...y:^j{<br />

lUiMut


mV^S'VilOHjK?-AZ _. __<br />

^73 Fn^^M-M-^-PP^r.^We-l-Vin^ _...__.__<br />

l>)__Re>a'§Hvv.^j^t^_u^^ °bal


O<br />

!icfy»<br />

r, I .*-^ •"<br />

T<br />

30 :« 13D ESC<br />

Ot^WC XCAiJE IH rCE'<br />

NO-<br />

w*J -if-.r. FPQij jcQTjCH r» bUBSIDI*"'<br />

OP ;-,/riD AUO ASSOCIATES) DRAWlrJC<br />

NO t'^C.DWG: IHFOHUATIOH FRO" ENCYC.C<br />

SUFt"-ISOP SAFCT' OEPARTUDIT AMD SUOoi.£MEirXl<br />

wrT>- •s'0fl>*AT10N DEVELOPED BY NAISWl"t^-<br />

ENGinCERlNC. INC, Owe. NO" 3965-SOl DV»0<br />

EN12700<br />

APPR. ! DATE<br />

SSSTfT GAJ<br />

'•pr. fty:<br />

NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.<br />

ENGINEERING • ENVIRONKENTAL • SURVEYING<br />

GAJ<br />

*356<br />

CORP<strong>US</strong> CHRISTL TEXAS<br />

;/TEXAS. INC<br />

SITE MAP<br />

AS SHOWN<br />

2-22-95<br />

4356-E:X4


-£%<br />

B<br />

C<br />

D<br />

N. 800<br />

E<br />

N. 600<br />

N. 400<br />

G<br />

H<br />

O<br />

^ > - ^<br />

GROPMin SCALE IN riXT<br />

not<br />

THE: :*.="'j»MHTiON -0'= THIS DRAWirjC<br />

w*^ ''•I'z.n fPOu if.-OTECH If- 3<strong>US</strong>S1DIAP'<br />

OF ;'./r4D WJD A:;30C!ATE3) DRAWINO<br />

NO £,'.C.OWG; fNFORMATtOH rROW ENCYCLi<br />

SUP^f^aOP SAFCrv DEPARTMDiT ANO SUE^OLtuEtJ^El<br />

wfTV- •NroRi*AnOfJ DEVELOPED BY NAlSMITh<br />

ENGtrt££RiNG. INC. DwG. NO 3965-501.DwO<br />

EN12700<br />

Af PR. ' SATE<br />

mi NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.<br />

~m 1 ENGINEERING • ENYIKONMENTAL • SURVEYING<br />

CORP<strong>US</strong> CHHSn. nSXAS<br />

GAJ<br />

4356<br />

SITE MAP<br />

2-22-95<br />

INC


1400<br />

B<br />

1200<br />

c<br />

1000<br />

D<br />

800<br />

E<br />

600<br />

F<br />

G<br />

200<br />

H<br />

ZERO<br />

O<br />

\\\)%<br />

0 30 :W 13D 21<br />

ORAPHIC ICAt_E IN FtET<br />

\ fHE ?i-0PM«TlON -OO THIS DPJ'Wit'G<br />

WA5 '^fV. ^POi.* tfJOTECH r* SUBSlDlAf•-<br />

OF O'w'MD AND ASSOCIATES) DPJVWINO<br />

NO l.^C.DWC. IMFOBUATIOH FROM ENCVCLi<br />

SUPtP'I'iOP ^AfCT' OEPiRluENT AND SUPPi.i.MEirLL<br />

wm- •N'Oft'AnoN DEVELOPED BY NAISWITv-<br />

ENCn'EEPlHO. INC. DWG. NO 3965-S01 Dv»G<br />

EN12700<br />

REV. RgViaiONE APPR. : DATE<br />

tUMJ tr.<br />

GAJ<br />

NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.<br />

ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • SURVEYING<br />

GAJ<br />

4356<br />

CORP<strong>US</strong> CHRIBTL TEXAS<br />

SITE MAP<br />

AS SHOWN<br />

2-22-95<br />

INC<br />

4356-EX4


vmx. desfH aose<br />

PliaiTIWlWa<br />

AOMtNisnwTrc<br />

omcss 4 Lfl<br />

TSaocB MT<br />

(Nro»«»i-ON OEVtlOPCD BY NAISMfTW<br />

i^.:IMtE»»l^C < DWG. NC JSeS-SOi OWC<br />

XST. myioHi APPIt I PACT<br />

TSTT<br />

AN ' G A J<br />

TCTTTBr<br />

11<br />

NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.<br />

ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • SURVEYING<br />

coBFOi ciuuirn. nxit<br />

SITE MAP<br />

INC<br />

AS SHOWN 43ae-£X4<br />

mo<br />

!


uSouD one<br />

"-E 'ITO^M-'CH ''OP '^'5 ;RAWINC<br />

.v»5 TAKES ""TM iNOTtC- * SuBSlOCAWr<br />

:" :DV»C '•< owe. NC 39*5-501 0»»C


3D ID 130 200<br />

SWHE SCALE IN FEET<br />

'-1 'NFOPt/,i-CN FOP •T'-'S CRAWING<br />

.••AS T.ij


N. 4S0<br />

--r .jrpn^-CN FOP n--5 :iuw»JC<br />

>«s r«Es ~':M INOTCC- » SUBSKXABV<br />

:- ;DV»C •.< ASSocuTts' DHAimc<br />

•.-s ENC.rw: •ifonuATio. -Ttou ENcrax<br />

= J=t»V

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!