United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-93-018
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB94-184850
Agency (5101) February 1994
EPA Report to Congress
on Metal Recovery,
Environmental
Regulation &
Hazardous Waste
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
Disclaimer
The mention of specific metal recovery operations or other firms, commercial
products, or other specific reference to a particular business, or article of commerce does not
constitute an endorsement by EPA. EPA does not endorse either commercial operations or
products. Regulatory theories by waste generators, metal reclaimers or trade associations
about how Subtitle C regulation may apply to their particular operation or member operations
are presented to show how the particular waste generator, metal reclaimer or trade
association perceives RCRA Subtitle C regulation. No statement or reference to a statement
made by a non-EPA entity (i.e., person, firm or organization) in this document should be
construed to constitute EPA agreement with the accuracy of the matter asserted. No
statement in this document constitutes a statement of EPA regulatory interpretation regarding
the current or prospective applicability of any RCRA Subtitle C regulation to a particular
person, firm or organization.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract v
Executive Summary ES-1
1. Introduction and Overview to Metal Recovery of Hazardous Waste 1
and Resource Conservation And Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Regulation
1.1 Description of Hazardous Waste/Terminology 2
1.2 Overview of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste 3
1.3 Definition of Metal Recovery 4
1.4 Relationship Between Metal Recovery and Pollution Prevention 5
1.4.1 RCRA Philosophy on Resource Conservation 5
1.4.2 Pollution Prevention Act Policy, Source Reduction And Its 6
Relationship To Metal Recovery of Hazardous Waste
1.5 Overview of Metal Recovery Technologies 8
1.5.1 Pyrometallurgy 8
1.5.2 Hydrometallurgy 9
1.6 Overview of RCRA Subtitle C Provisions Affecting Metal 10
Recovery From Hazardous Waste
2. Report Methodology & Limitations 14
2.1 Data Sources and Limitations 14
2.2 Other Factors Affecting Metal Recovery 16
2.3 Summary of Impact of Data Limitations 17
3. Characterization of RCRA Subtitle C Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes 18
3.1 Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes: Generation and Recovery 18
3.1.1 Quantities of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste Generated 18
3.1.2 Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes Managed For Metal 19
Recovery
3.1.3 Summary of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste Generation and 20
Recovery
3.2 Metal Recovery Alternatives: Use/Reuse of Metal-Bearing 21
Hazardous Waste As An Ingredient In A Production Process
Or A Substitute For A Commercial Product
-------
3.3 Damage Incidents, Hazard Descriptions, Management Methods and 24
Releases to the Environment By Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste
3.3.1 Damage Incidents At Hazardous Waste Cites Involving 25
Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes
3.3.2 Descriptions of Metal Constituents of Hazardous Waste 27
3.3.3 Management Methods and Estimates of Releases Resulting 28
From Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes
3.3.4 Conclusions Regarding Damage Incidents, Hazard 30
Descriptions, Management Methods and Releases To The
Environment
4. RCRA Subtitle C Regulations Affecting Metal Recovery Of Hazardous 32
Waste
4.1 Land Disposal Restrictions 32
4.2 Derived From Rule 34
4.3 Interim Status and Permitting 35
4.4 Financial Assurance 36
4.5 Corrective Action 37
4.6 Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule 37
4.7 Hazardous Waste Transportation & Manifesting 39
4.8 Summary 39
5. Assessment of Impacts of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation on Metal 41
Recovery From Hazardous Waste in the United States
5.1 RCRA Regulatory Incentives and Disincentives To Metal 42
Recovery In The United States
5.1.1 Trade Association Information 43
5.1.1.1 Steel Manufacturers Association/Specialty Steel 43
Industry of the United States (SMA/SSIUS)
5.1.1.2 American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 46
5.1.1.3 National Association of Metal Finishers 48
5.1.1.4 Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR)/ 49
RSR Corporation
5.1.1.5 Metal Recovery Coalition 51
5.1.1.6 Summary and Analysis of Trade Association 54
Information
5.1.2 Economic Analysis of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation on 55
Selected Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes
5.1.3 Conclusions on Regulatory Incentives and Disincentives To 58
Metal Recovery
n
-------
5.2 Indirect Regulatory and Non-regulatory Factors Affecting Metal 58
Recovery In The United States
5.2.1 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Costs 59
5.2.2 Metal Prices In The United States and Their Relationship
To Metal Recovery of Hazardous Waste 61
5.3 Assessment of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation on Metal Recovery of 66
Hazardous WasterSpent Lead-Acid Batteries and Industrial Sludges,
By-products and Spent Materials
5.3.1 Spent Lead-Acid Batteries 67
5.3.2 Industrial Sludges, By-Products and Spent Materials 70
5.4 Conclusion 75
6. Case Studies of Metal Recovery Operations Subject To RCRA Jurisdiction 76
6.1 U.S. Filter Recovery Services 77
6.2 Inmetco , 83
6.3 Molten Metal Technologies Inc. 92
6.4 Horsehead Resource Development 105
6.5 East Perm Manufacturing Inc. 120
7. Assessment of U.S. Balance of Trade and Strategic Metals Issues and 131
Their Relationship To Metal Recovery of Hazardous Wastes
7.1 U.S. Mineral and Metal Commodity Balance of Trade 131
7.2 Strategic Metals 136
7.2.1 U.S. Apparent Consumption of Strategic Metals 137
7.2.2 U.S. Net Import Reliance of Strategic Metals 143
7.2.3 National Defense Stockpile 146
7.2.4 Conclusion: Strategies To Increase Opportunities For 147
Strategic Metal Recovery of Hazardous Wastes
8. Encouraging Environmentally Sound Metal Recovery 149
8.1 Current EPA Initiatives Encouraging Environmentally Sound 149
Metal Recovery of Hazardous Waste
8.1.1 Definition of Solid Waste Task Force 149
8.1.2 Part 273 Special Collection System Regulations 150
8.1.3 Universal Treatment Standards For Metal 151
Harzardous Constituents
111
-------
8.2 Non-regulatory and Incentive-based Approaches To Encouraging 152
Metal Recovery From Hazardous Waste
8.2.1 Non-regulatory Approaches To Encouraging Metal 152
Recovery From Hazardous Wastes/Waste Exchanges
8.2.2 Incentive-Based Approaches To Encouraging Metal 154
of Hazardous Wastes
8.2.2.1 Pollution Charges 156
8.2.2.2 Tradeable Waste Generation Permits and Recycling 158
Credits
8.2.2.3 Deposit/Refund Programs 162
8.2.2.4 Removal of Federal Subsidies 164
8.2.2.5 Evaluation Criteria: Questions For The Policy 166
Maker
8.2.2.6 Conclusion 166
9. Findings 167
Notes 169
Appendix A Al
Appendix B Bl
IV
-------
Abstract
This report has been completed in response to Congressional requests for EPA to
conduct a study on the effects of existing regulations on metal recovery of the Nation's
wastes, how metal recovery can be encouraged and how these materials should be regulated
to protect human health and the environment and to implement the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act's (RCRA) goals of resource conservation and protection of human health
and the environment. EPA has completed its analysis of the effect of RCRA Subtitle C
regulation on metal recovery of hazardous waste hi the United States. Information evaluated
in completion of this report indicates that RCRA Subtitle C regulation has signficantly
contributed to increases of metal recovery of hazardous waste over 1980 levels primarily due
to increased treatment and disposal costs which creates markets for metal recovery services.
At the same time, RCRA Subtitle C regulation may inhibit metal recovery of hazardous
wastes from reaching its potential due to regulatory disincentives to recovery. The main
RCRA Subtitle C provisions indicated by industry as being problematic in this regard include
the derived-from rule, permit requirements and facility-wide corrective action. Other
disincentives cited include hazardous waste transportation cost, perceived Superfund liability
resulting from hazardous waste management, and financial assurance. One case study of a
metal recovery firm indicates that RCRA may also impede innovative technologies. The
case study indicates that provisions in RCRA to encourage innovation such as research,
development and demonstration permits and treatability exemptions are not adequate to
encourage innovation.
The issue is one of balancing the need to control the hazards by hazardous wastes
being recycled against the additional recycling that might occur with less onerous
regulations. This is a difficult issue, one of great interest to many parties. EPA established
a Task Force to address this issue, and sponsored a series of public roundtable discussions in
the summer and fall of 1993 to better understand these issues through public involvement.
EPA expects to make decisions on what regulations, if any, should be changed as a result of
the Task Force process and has also initiated other steps to encourage environmentally sound
recycling such as the proposed Special Collection System regulations.
v
-------
-------
Executive Summary
In 1992, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a
study of how current hazardous waste regulations affect metal recovery of the Nation's
waste, how metal recovery can be encouraged, and how such metal-bearing hazardous wastes
should be regulated to protect human health and the environment as well as effectuate the
resource conservation and recovery goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). To complete this report, EPA reviewed relevant literature and consulted with the
Departments of Interior and Commerce as well as members of the metal recovery industries.
EPA has conducted a series of case studies of metal recovery operations in order to obtain
case-specific information about how RCRA Subtitle C regulation affects their operation.
Under current RCRA Subtitle C regulation, metal recovery is one type of recycling
(the use or reuse of a waste directly is the other) and can be defined as the recovery of metal
as separate end products from a metal-bearing secondary material. Metal-bearing hazardous
wastes comprise a wide variety of secondary materials including sludges, by-products, and
spent materials. These wastes are often defined as hazardous because they leach heavy
metals in excess of regulatory levels. These metals can include lead, chromium, cadmium,
mercury, and arsenic. Because metals are elements, they cannot be destroyed and exist in
perpetuity. They can be stabilized to prevent their release to the environment or recovered
and reused again. When mismanaged, metal-bearing hazardous wastes have contaminated the
surrounding environment. Some metal recovery operations are listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) for Superfund cleanup.
EPA determined that the best means to assess the impacts of Subtitle C on metal
recovery would be to focus on materials that are currently regulated as hazardous waste.
Therefore, this study focusses on secondary materials such as emission control dust from
electric arc furnaces, spent lead-acid batteries, spent pickle liquor from steel fiiushing
operations and wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations. These are
examples of metal-bearing hazardous wastes which are currently subject to most or all RCRA
Subtitle C regulatory requirements. (Note: spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed are
subject to reduced regulatory requirements prior to be being reclaimed).
According to EPA data, there are at least 8 million tons of metal-bearing hazardous
waste generated annually. Some of these wastes are managed for recovery. Many of these
wastes are not amenable to recovery either because they are too low in content of recoverable
metals or because they contain too many impurities that would interfere with the recovery
process. Currently, EPA estimates that 1.9 million tons of hazardous waste are managed for
metal recovery. These wastes include spent lead-acid batteries, emission control dust from
electric arc furnaces, wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations, spent pickle
liquor from steel finishing operations and other wastes.
-------
ES-2
A number of RCRA Subtitle C regulations may affect metal recovery operations.
Under RCRA Subtitle C, a generator of a metal-bearing hazardous waste has 90 days after
generation to store wastes on-site in tanks, containers, or containment buildings. After that
time the generator must either dispose of the waste on-site (either as non-hazardous waste or
in compliance with applicable hazardous waste standards) or ship the waste off-site for
storage, treatment, recovery or disposal. If shipped off-site, the generator must ship the
waste under manifest by a hazardous waste hauler. All metal-bearing hazardous waste is
subject to the applicable land disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standard. These standards
specify either a technology (such as thermal recovery) or more commonly a performance
level (either a total or extract level concentration) that must be met prior to land disposal.
When hazardous waste is shipped off-site for metal recovery, the metal recovery
operation is required to have a permit if the waste is stored prior to recovery. RCRA
storage permit requirements trigger other regulatory requirements such as facility-wide
corrective action (requiring remediation of affected solid waste management units on-site) and
financial assurance (requiring a financial mechanism to assure proper closure of facility
operations). If the metal recovery operation does not store the waste prior to reclamation, it
generally does not require a permit since the recycling process is generally not regulated
under RCRA. One exception to this general rule is if the operation meets the definition of
an industrial furnace and is not burning solely for metal recovery (e.g., the process also
destroys hazardous organic constituents or is recovering fuel value). In this case, the metal
recovery operation is subject to Boiler and Industrial Furnace Permit requirements. Finally,
any residuals from a metal recovery operations must be managed as a hazardous waste if
either it exhibits a hazardous characteristic (i.e., corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, or
toxicity) or it was derived-from a listed hazardous waste.
Industry has complained that RCRA Subtitle C regulation is too stringent and has
served as a disincentive to metal recovery in the United States. Major RCRA Subtitle C
disincentive identified include the derived-from rule, storage permit requirements and
facility-wide corrective action. Trade associations representing generators of steel or
electroplating wastes and trade associations representing metal reclaimers of spent lead-acid
batteries and industrial sludges and by-products have indicated to EPA their view that high
compliance costs and increasing liability risk from RCRA Subtitle C regulation has decreased
metal recovery capacity in the United States and decreased capital investment for new
projects in their respective industries.
In general, these representatives favored some form of conditional exclusion from
RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction or conditional exemption from RCRA Subtitle C regulation.
They favored conditions resulting in self-implementing management standards for the wastes
such as a time limit on accumulating wastes prior to recovery or banning storage wastes on
the ground prior to recovery. They also support regulatory modifications to the permitting
process and expanded federal guidelines on recycling and storage although these are
generally regarded as less satisfactory than conditional exclusions and exemptions.
-------
ES-3
EPA's review of economic analysis completed for the Agency in 1991 indicates that
under current RCRA Subtitle C regulation metal recovery is a more cost-effective
management alternative than traditional treatment and disposal. Additional data shows that
RCRA Subtitle C regulation (particularly the Land Disposal Restrictions program) encourages
metal recovery of hazardous waste by increasing treatment and disposal costs which are
substitute forms of management to recovery. Increases in world metal demand have also
been an important factor in encouraging metal recovery.
For spent lead-acid batteries, current data indicate that recovery rates have remained
high in spite of a recent decrease in the world price of lead. It appears that RCRA is not a
disincentive and may actually encourage recovery of spent lead-acid batteries. For industrial
sludges, by-products and spent materials, metal recovery levels have increased substantially
from 1980 levels. EPA currently estimates that over 1 million tons of these materials were
recovered in 1992. In 1980, the GAO reported that fewer than 15,000 tons of metal (from
an estimated 100,000 tons of waste) were being recovered from industrial sludges, by-
products and spent materials.
While on balance RCRA Subtitle C regulation has contributed to increased metal
recovery in the United States since 1980, some regulatory provisions may have constrained
additional metal recovery capacity in the United States. It is possible that RCRA has made
metal recovery in the United States less profitable than it would otherwise be. The derived-
from rule that requires residuals from listed wastes to be managed as hazardous wastes,
facility-wide corrective action and RCRA permit requirements are among the most expensive
and time consuming provisions in RCRA to comply with. However, these are also among
the most important provisions to prevent or remediate releases to the environment of metal-
bearing hazardous wastes. Any proposals to modify these provisions must carefully evaluate
the net benefits, if any, of the modification resulting from any additional metal recovery
against any increased risk to public health and the environment due to any increase hi the
likelihood or severity of a release.
Conclusions from EPA's examination of case studies of metal recovery operations
corroborate EPA's findings that RCRA has mixed effects hi terms of providing incentives or
disincentives to metal recovery. To assess the broadest possible impact of RCRA on
different types of metal recovery operations, EPA completed case studies on a diverse
selection of metal recovery operations with different processes and stages of commercial
development. Each case study indicated a series of RCRA Subtitle C incentives and
disincentives to metal recovery with varying impacts on the operation as a whole.
As other data have indicated, case study subjects benefited from markets created for
their services largely due to RCRA treatment and disposal standards. However, case study
subjects were also burdened with cost and liability concerns from the derived-from rule for
process residuals. One case study subject, Molten Metal Technology, indicates that RCRA
provisions to encourage innovative technologies may not be working adequately to meet that
goal.
-------
ES-4
In addition to environmental benefits obtained from it, metal-recovery of hazardous
waste may help to ameliorate the U.S. balance of trade deficit of mineral and metal
commodities. Nickel, copper, zinc, lead and iron may be found in sufficient quantities in
metal-bearing hazardous wastes to contribute to increased supplies of these materials for
domestic consumption or export.
Metal recovery of hazardous wastes can also play an important role in conservation of
strategic metals such as chromium, cobalt, manganese and platinum. Strategic metals are
metal commodities that perform critical functions in the U.S. economy and which the U.S. is
largely dependent on imports from vulnerable supplies from politically instable sources.
More specifically, EPA data indicates that there are large quantities of chromium-bearing
wastes generated in the United States. Chromium is an important strategic material used as
an alloy for corrosion resistance in steel production.
Metal recovery from hazardous waste may be encouraged directly through changes to
existing command and control regulation such as self-nnplementing standards or through non-
regulatory and incentive-based approaches such as waste exchanges, pollution fees and
transferable waste permits. EPA is currently conducting on-going activities to optimize
environmental protection and safe recycling of hazardous wastes. These activities include the
Definition of Solid Waste Task Force, the proposed Part 273 Special Collection System
regulations, and the proposed universal treatment standards for metal hazardous constituents
under the Land Disposal Restriction program. EPA has also provided financial support for
non-regulatory approaches such as waste exchanges. The Agency has also examined a
number of possible incentive-based approaches to encourage metal recovery in completion of
this report. These incentives include pollution fees, tradeable permits, deposit-refund
systems and removal of federal subsidies for production of virgin metals. Each approach has
its own advantages and limitations depending upon the objectives sought and implementation
required.
Based on information collected and analyzed in completion of this report, EPA finds
the following with respect to rnetal recovery of hazardous waste and its relationship to RCRA
Subtitle C regulation:
1. RCRA Subtitle C regulation includes both incentives and disincentives to metal
recovery of hazardous waste. Overall, RCRA Subtitle C regulation has been a
substantial contributing factor to the increase in metal recovery of hazardous
waste over 1980 levels.
2. RCRA Subtitle C regulation is also apparently constraining metal recovery from
reaching Its potential in the United States. Compliance costs and liability
concerns with RCRA Subtitle C regulation may limit waste generators selection
of metal recovery as an option. These costs and concerns also limit the ability of
metal recovery operations to expand their capacity and invest in new projects.
-------
ES-5
3. RCRA Subtitle C regulation may inhibit innovative metal recovery technologies.
RCRA regulatory provisions designed to encourage innovation such as the
treatability exemption and the research, development and demonstration permits
may not always be adequate to encourage innovation.
4. Notwithstanding the disincentives posed by RCRA Subtitle C regulation, damage
incidents (including Superfund sites) involving metal recovery operations indicate
that mismanagement of these materials can pose a significant risk to human
health and the environment. For this reason, proposals to modify RCRA Subtitle
C statutory or regulatory authority must assess the benefit of reduced compliance
cost and liability from Subtitle C regulation against any incremental increase in
risk due to reduced regulatory requirements. EPA has created the Definition of
Solid Waste Task Force to assess these types of proposals.
5. Recovery of metals from metal-bearing hazardous waste has the potential to
ameliorate the current U.S. balance of trade deficit. It may also become an
important source of supply of strategic metals, particularly chromium.
6. Available data shows that metal recovery of hazardous waste should continue to
increase in the 1990's as landfill capacity decreases and alternative forms of
management are increasingly needed to support the U.S. hazardous waste
management system.
7. EPA is currently in the process of conducting a series of activities which may
encourage environmentally sound metal recovery of hazardous waste. These
activities include the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force, proposed Special
Collection System regulations, and proposed Universal Treatment Standards for
hazardous wastes. EPA expects that each of these activities may encourage
environmentally sound recycling.
-------
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview to Metal Recovery of Hazardous
Waste and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Hazardous Waste Regulation
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed this report
pursuant to EPA's appropriation bill PL-102-389, signed by President Bush on October 9,
1992. This law requires EPA to conduct a report to: 1) assess the effect of existing
regulations on efforts to recover metals from the Nation's wastes, 2) determine how such
metal recovery can be encouraged, 3) determine how these materials should be regulated to
protect human health and the environment and to effectuate the resource conservation and
recovery goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901
to 6992k). PL-102-389 also directs EPA to consult with the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Interior, the metals recovery industry and other interested parties. Upon
completion of the report, EPA is required to submit its findings and recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Prior to passage of the appropriation bill in February 1992, EPA had committed to
studying the relationship between metal recovery of hazardous waste and RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulation. EPA initially committed to studying this issue as part of the
RCRA Reform Initiative to evaluate RCRA Subtitle C regulatory impacts on the
competitiveness of U.S. industries. The assumption underlying the study of this issue has
been that RCRA Subtitle C regulation may be needlessly limiting metal recovery capacity in
the United States from reaching its potential. Metal recovery as described in this report is
believed to have important benefits for society including conserving hazardous waste landfill
capacity, providing alternative sources of supply for strategic metals, mitigating our balance
of trade deficit for metal commodities and creating new opportunities for investment for U.S.
business. Metal recovery may also be more environmentally protective than traditional
treatment and disposal although this depends on how metal-bearing hazardous wastes are
managed.
The report is organized as follows. This chapter provides an introduction and
overview of issues addressed in this report, including a definition of metal recovery, the
relationship between metal recovery and pollution prevention, discussion of technologies for
recovering metals from hazardous waste, an overview of metal-bearing hazardous wastes and
an overview of RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements that impact metal recovery from
hazardous waste. Chapter 2 discusses this report's methodology and limitations. Chapter 3
provides a characterization of metal-bearing hazardous waste including quantities generated
and recovered, environmental risks posed by metal-hazardous waste and related issues.
Chapter 4 provides a review of RCRA Subtitle C regulations affecting metal recovery of
hazardous waste.
-------
Chapter 5 provides an assessment of the effects of existing RCRA Subtitle C
regulations on metal recovery of hazardous waste. Chapter 6 includes five case studies of
metal recovery operations in the United States and how RCRA Subtitle C has affected tibeir
operations. Chapter 7 reviews the relationship between metal recovery of hazardous waste
and balance of trade and strategic metals issues. Chapter 8 reviews ongoing EPA activities
and other strategies to encourage environmentally sound metal recovery from hazardous
waste including non-regulatory and incentive-based alternatives. Chapter 9 contains EPA's
findings to Congress,
1.1 Description of Hazardous Waste/Terminology
Under RCRA, hazardous waste is defined as "a solid waste or combination of solid
wastes which.. .may ... cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible , or incapacitating reversible illness or... pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed" (42 U.S.C. §6903(5). As
specified under RCRA Subtitle C, hazardous wastes are regulated by EPA (40 CFR Parts
260 to 272).
Under current EPA regulation, a solid waste may be hazardous in one of two ways.
It may be listed by EPA through describing the materials from, non-specific sources (F code
wastes), specific sources (K code wastes) or commercial chemical products (P or U wastes).
An example of a listed waste is K061, emission control dust from electric arc furnaces in
steel production. A solid waste may also be a hazardous waste if it exhibits a characteristic
for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxiciry (D wastes). An example of a characteristic
waste is D007, chromium-bearing wastes. Currently, there are eight metals that EPA has
determined toxieity characteristic levels for: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium and silver (although a metal-bearing hazardous waste may exhibit a
hazardous characteristic for reasons other than the metals contained). There are number of
listed hazardous wastes that contain metal constituents. These are described hi greater detail
in Chapter 3.
Metal-bearing hazardous wastes refers to any RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
that contains metal. It may or may not be amenable to recovery. Metal-bearing hazardous
wastes are a subset of the larger group of metal-bearing secondary materials that also
includes non-hazardous metal-bearing secondary materials. For purposes of this report,
metal-bearing secondary materials refer to any material that contains metal and is not a raw
material. Certain metal-bearing secondary materials are not considered to be hazardous
wastes when managed for metal recovery such as characteristic sludges and by-products.
Other materials such as scrap metal are exempt from Subtitle C hazardous waste regulation
when reclaimed. These secondary materials are fully regulated as hazardous wastes when
disposed of, used on or applied to the land, burned for energy recovery, used to produce a
fuel or speculatively accumulated.
-------
Because metal-bearing secondary materials such as characteristic sludges,
characteristic by-products and scrap metal are closely related to metal recovery of hazardous
wastes, these materials will be referred to in this report as related secondary materials.
1.2 Overview of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes
This section provides background on metal-bearing hazardous wastes hi the United
States and aspects of their management for recovery or treatment and disposal. More
detailed information on selected metal-bearing hazardous wastes is provided in Chapter 3.
Metal-bearing hazardous wastes encompass a wide variety of materials. These can include
process wastes like emission control dusts and wastewater treatment sludges or spent
materials used in commerce such as solvents used for degreasing machinery or spent
batteries. The hazardous metal constituents of these wastes include mercury, arsenic,
chromium, cadmium, lead, nickel, barium, selenium, antimony, thallium, beryllium, and
vanadium. These materials may or may not contain hazardous organic constituents. In
contrast to hazardous organic constituents in hazardous wastes, hazardous metal constituents
in metal-bearing hazardous wastes cannot be destroyed. They can only be reused or
stabilized and disposed of to prevent exposure.
Not all metal-bearing hazardous wastes are amenable to recovery. Some metal-
bearing hazardous wastes cannot be recovered or reused either because their metal content is
too low or because of significant quantities of impurities or contaminants that cannot be
removed due either to economic or technical limitations. Metal reclaimers usually set
specifications for materials that they will process. Most often these specifications relate to
levels of contaminants in feed material that can interfere with the process (e.g. limits on
chlorides to prevent hydrochloric acid from forming in a furnace).
Often, the metal constituents being recovered from a metal-bearing hazardous waste is
not the same metal constituents that make the waste hazardous. For example, for K061,
emission control dust from electric arc furnaces, the primary metal constituents that are
recovered are usually iron and nickel alloys or zinc. Two of the primary hazardous
constituents of K061, lead and cadmium, are not the metal constituents initially recovered
although the hazardous constituents may be shipped off site for further recovery. When the
metal constituents that are recovered from a metal-bearing hazardous waste are primarily
non-hazardous, the fate and transport of the hazardous constituents in the process becomes
a concern. Rather than accompany ing the recovered material, the hazardous constituents
may partition to recycling process residuals such as slag or emission control sludge. If
mismanaged, these constituents may pose a risk to human health or the environment through
release to groundwater, surface water, crop uptake, air dispersion or direct human contact.
-------
1.3 Definition of Metal Recovery
Under EPA regulations recycling is defined as either the use, reuse or reclamation
of a material (40 CFR §261.1(c)(7)). Metal-bearing hazardous wastes can be recycled either
through reclamation or through the use or reuse of the material. EPA defines reclamation
as either recovery of useful product or regeneration of a product for its original use (40
CFR §261.1(c)(4)). Examples of recovery and regeneration are recovering zinc from
emission control dust from a brass foundry (provided it is not land applied) or regenerating a
spent solvent for its original use.
Under EPA's hazardous waste regulations, metal recovery is defined as the recovery
of distinct components of a secondary material as separate end products (40 CFR §
261.1(c)(5)(i)). Metal recovery is a type of reclamation and is distinguished from the use
or reuse of the material. An example of metal recovery of hazardous wastes is the smelting
of lead plates from spent lead-acid batteries to recover lead values.
A secondary material may be used or reused either as an ingredient in an industrial
process to make a product or as an effective substitute for a commercial product. An
example of the use or reuse of metal-bearing hazardous waste as an ingredient in an
industrial process is using electric arc furnace dust as an ingredient in the production of
cement or fertilizer. An example of the use or reuse of a metal-bearing hazardous waste as a
effective substitute for a commercial product is spent pickle liquor from steel finishing
operations as a phosphorous precipitant and sludge conditioner in wastewater treatment.
Reclamation (including metal recovery) and the use or reuse of metal-bearing
secondary materials to make a product are generally regulated differently by RCRA Subtitle
C. Depending upon the type of material, materials being reclaimed can be solid wastes (that
are also hazardous wastes) within RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction. This is considered true for
spent materials, listed sludges and by-products and scrap metal. Sludges and by-products
that are characteristically hazardous (i.e., reactive, toxic, corrosive or ignitable) but not
listed and commercial chemical products are not solid or hazardous wastes when reclaimed
(40 CFR §261.2(c)(3)). (Please note that even though scrap metal being reclaimed is within
RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction, these materials are not currently subject to any Subtitle C
regulatory requirements, 40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(iv)). In contrast, when secondary materials
that would otherwise be hazardous wastes are used to make new- products without distinct
components of the materials being recovered as end products, EPA generally considers this
to be a type of direct use that is usually not considered to be a type of waste management (50
FR 633, January 4, 1985).
-------
Accordingly, secondary materials are not considered to be solid waste when they are:
1) used as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product provided the materials are
not being reclaimed, 2) used or reused as effective substitutes for commercial products or 3)
returned to the original production process from which they were generated without first
being reclaimed (40 CFR §261.2(e)). This does not apply to secondary materials that are
either placed or applied on the land (although secondary materials applied in this manner are
subject to reduced RCRA regulatory requirements), burned for energy recovery or used to
produce a fuel.
This report concerns the metal recovery of hazardous waste and the effects RCRA
Subtitle C regulation on such recovery. In Chapter 3, this report will discuss the use of
metal-bearing hazardous waste as an ingredient to make a product as an alternative to metal
recovery to assist understanding in possible policy outcomes that could result from Subtitle C
regulatory modifications.
1.4 Relationship Between Metal Recovery and Pollution Prevention of Metal-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes
This section outlines the relationship between pollution prevention and metal recovery
of metal-bearing hazardous wastes. Traditionally, metal recovery of hazardous wastes has
been viewed in contrast to other pollution management alternatives such as traditional
treatment and disposal or other forms of recycling such as use as an ingredient. Because of
limited capital for pollution prevention and management, proposals for regulatory or statutory
modifications to encourage metal recovery that consider disposal as the only alternative to
recovery may inadvertently undermine efforts to encourage pollution prevention. Because
metal recovery is one form of recycling in a hierarchy between pollution prevention and
traditional waste treatment and disposal, this section reviews the statutory basis for pollution
prevention and reiterates the importance of viewing metal recovery broadly in order to
consider its relationship to both pollution prevention and treatment/disposal.
1.4.1 RCRA Philosophy on Resource Conservation
The Congress stated its national goals for the RCRA statute in § 1003(a) (42 U.S.C.
6902(a)) as promotion of health and environmental protection, and conservation of "valuable
material and energy resources." With respect to metal recovery of hazardous wastes, these
goals support a general presumption toward keeping metals in the stream of commerce
through minimizing their land disposal or other release to the environment.
Relative to hazardous wastes, the 1984 amendments to RCRA explicitly stated the
concept of eliminating or reducing wastes in the first place. In the 1984 amendments, the
Congress declared that the reduction or elimination of hazardous waste generation at the
source should take priority over the management of hazardous wastes after they are
generated. In particular, Section 1003(b), 42 U.S.C. 6902(b), of RCRA provides:
-------
The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is
nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future
threat to human health and the environment.
In this declaration, the Congress established a clear national priority for eliminating or
reducing the generation of hazardous wastes. At the same time, however, the national policy
recognized that some wastes will "nevertheless" be generated, and such wastes should be
managed in a way that "minimizes" present and future threat to human health and the
environment.
To the extent that metal-bearing hazardous wastes can be reduced or eliminated from
generation in the first place, the policy confirms the Act's objective of conserving resources,
including metals, that would otherwise enter the nation's waste streams. Those metal-bearing
hazardous wastes that cannot be prevented from being generated should be managed so that
health and the environment are protected.
Examples of organizations which generate metal-bearing hazardous wastes, and which
have taken specific measures to reduce or eliminate those wastes, are listed in Appendix A to
this report. The examples listed in Appendix A show situations in which natural resource
use decisions resulted in cost savings.
1,4.2 Pollution Prevention Act Policy, Source Reduction And Its Relationship To Metal
Recovery of Hazardous Waste
In 1990, the Congress further clarified the role of pollution prevention in the nation's
environmental protection scheme, by passing the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (Public Law
101-508, 42 U.S.C. 13101, et seq.X In Section 6602(b) of this law, 42 U.S.C. §13101(b),
the Congress stated that:
[T]he national policy of the United States [is] that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the
source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe
manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment should
be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
Thus, the Congress set up a hierarchy of management options for pollutants in descending
order of preference: prevention or source reduction, environmentally safe recycling,
environmentally safe treatment, and environmentally safe disposal. This hierarchy is
consistent with the national policy stated in RCRA; it essentially expresses a preference for
reducing generation of wastes and related secondary materials, and then for recycling them in
a manner that will be protective of human health and the environment, over using them and
then treating them and discarding them.
-------
7
The PPA1 defines the term "source reduction" as:
"any practice which (i) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering
any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to
recycling, treatment or disposal; and (ii) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated
with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes equipment or
technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvement in housekeeping, maintenance, training or inventory control.
...The term "source reduction" does not include any practice which alters the physical, chemical or
biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant through a
process or activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for the production of a product or providing
of a service."
There is still considerable discussion about whether and what type of on-site recycling
activities may qualify as either "pollution prevention" or "source reduction". However, there
is general agreement that source reduction includes material substitution, process
modification, modified operating practices.
Material substitution involves replacing high toxicity feedstocks with those that are
less toxic or non-toxic (or those that generate less waste). Process modifications involve
changes to the equipment that lead to the reduced generation of wastes. Modified operating
practices are changes that are dependent upon human participation to effect a reduction in
waste generation.2 The metal finishing/electroplatrng industry has several examples of each
type of source reduction. Materials substitution alternatives do exist for metal production
operations, although these alternatives primarily focus on reducing non-metal-bearing wastes
such as wastewater or eliminating the use of toxics. Examples in the plating industry include
the use of deionized water to reduce the generation of waste solutions, and the use of non-
cyanide plating solutions and trivalent chromium plating and chromating solutions to reduce
the generation of cyanide and hexavalent chromium.
Process modifications in the plating industry include the use of drain boards to catch
drips and re-direct them back to the correct process bath, modified rinse techniques
(agitation, flow restrictors, conductivity cells, spray and air rinses, and multiple rinse-tanks)
and dragout recovery tanks to recapture process solution. These techniques tend to focus on
forms of recovery that reduce the generation of wastewater and loss of process solution.
Such modifications reduce the generation of metal-bearing waste by reducing the volume of
the metal-bearing wastestream that is disposed and recovering the metals within those
streams.
The third method for reducing metal-bearing waste generation is altering operating
practices. For the plating industry alternatives include improving controls on process
solutions, prolonging withdrawal and drain times, reducing rinse (i.e., contact) time,
orienting the process to retain process solution, and improved housekeeping and employee
training and education.
-------
8
Since this report focuses on encouraging metal recovery (a type of recycling) relative
to treatment and disposal, it is important to recognize the potential disincentive to source
reduction through encouraging metal recovery of hazardous waste. In evaluating the cost-
effectiveness of source reduction options, businesses generating hazardous waste may
compare the cost of alternatives to source reduction; recycling, treatment and disposal. If the
cost of either recycling or treatment/disposal is significantly less than source reduction, this
may serve as a disincentive to source reduction. So, while encouraging environmentally
sound metal recovery may be generally preferable to treatment and disposal of metal-bearing
hazardous waste, it may also be a potential disincentive to source reduction.
Given the national policies on pollution prevention that have been stated in
environmental legislation, the question that arises is how to alter the structure of U.S. laws
and regulations in a manner that provides incentives for reducing metal-bearing hazardous
wastes at the source, and also provides incentives for recovering metal-bearing hazardous
wastes. The difficult policy issue involved in addressing the issue is how to modify RCRA
statutory authority or Subtitle C regulation in a manner that protects human health and the
environment through taking advantage of both source reduction and metal recovery
opportunities. It is an issue that although EPA has identified, the Agency has not yet
finalized an approach to assure that incentives for source reduction are maintained if
compliance costs for metal recovery are substantially reduced. EPA will continue to study
mis issue in order to develop approaches to implement the hierarchy established by Congress
in the PPA.
1.5 Overview of Metal Recovery Technologies
While a thorough discussion of metal recovery technologies for hazardous wastes is
beyond the scope of this report, this section provides a brief description of various metal
recovery technologies that are available for hazardous waste.3 To simplify this discussion,
most metal recovery technologies for hazardous wastes can be classified into one of two
general types of extractive metallurgy: 1) pyrometallurgy or 2) hydrometallurgy. Please
note as mentioned above in Section 1.2 that applying these technologies to any metal-bearing
secondary material may be limited by technical and/or economic factors such as the level of
recoverable metals in the material or the amount of contaminants that may preclude recovery.
2.5.1 Pyrometallurgy
Pyrometallurgy is defined by the American Society of Metals (ASM) as the "high
temperature winning or refining of metals".4 Pyrometallurgical technologies "uses heat to
separate desired metals from undesired constituents based on differences between constituent
oxidation potential, melting point, vapor pressure, density, and/or miscibility when melted".5
Examples of pyrometallurgical processes include drying, calcining, roasting, sintering,
retorting, smelting.
-------
Drying is used to remove bulk water from wet concentrates, ores and fluxes. These
processes usually operate near the boiling point of water. Calcination involves heating a
metal-bearing material around 1000 "C to 1500 °C to cause metal carbonates to form metal
oxides.
Roasting is a process where a metal-bearing material is heated to just below the
melting point in the presence of a gas to cause a chemical change to remove impurities such
as sulfur from the material. Roasting differs from calcination in that the latter heats material
without adding air or oxygen to the charge.
Sintering is one form of roasting where temperatures are raised high enough to cause
a partial fusion of the feed materials to form a "sinter" or "sintercake".6 Sintering is used to
process feed materials for further pyrometallurgical recovery to eliminate particulates that
might partition to the off gases of the process.
Retorting refers to the distillation of metals in a vessel to reduce them above their
boiling point from a metal oxide or other compound to a base metal form (e.g., elemental
mercury). Previously common for zinc refining, retorting is now used commonly for
mercury.
Smelting is a generic term for applying heat and a reductant to a metal to reduce it to
elemental form. For example, adding coke (carbon formed without oxygen) and iron ore (in
the form of an iron oxide) to form elemental iron.
1.5.2 Hydrometatturgy
Hydrometalhirgy is defined by ASM as the "industrial winning or refining of metals
using water or an aqueous solution".7 Hydrometallurgical technologies "separate desired
metals from undesired constituents based on differences between constituent solubilities
and/or electrochemical properties in aqueous solutions (or organic solutions in the case of
solvent extraction)".8 Examples of hyrdometallurgical processes include leaching, chemical
precipitation, electrolytic recovery, membrane separation, ion exchange, and solvent
extraction.
Leaching refers to dissolving a solid material into solution using a solvent, usually a
strong acid or base material such as sulfuric acid or ammonia.
Chemical precipitation involves the addition of substances to metals suspended in
solution to cause the metals to separate from solution through sedimentation. Substances
used to precipitate metals out of solution include caustic soda, lime, ferrous and sodium
sulfide, soda ash, sodium borohydride, and sodium phosphate. One common application is
for chemical precipitation is removing metals from electroplating wastewaters.
-------
10
Electrolytic recoyery or electrowinning/electrodialysis involves running an electric
current through an aqueous solution to charge suspended metals which then deposit onto a
plate immersed in the solution with an opposite charge.
Membrane separation technologies such as microfiltration, ultrafiltration and reverse
osmosis are means of physically separating metals from solution through various types of
filters. This form of technology is commonly used with chemical treatment for rinse waters,
Ion exchange involves suspending a medium, either a synthetic resin or mineral, into
solution where suspended metal ions in solution are exchanged onto the medium with
hydrogen or hydroxyl ions which transfer into the solution. Metal ions that are exchanged
onto the exchange medium can be regenerated through leaching or other processes.
Solvent extraction uses either an organic or aqueous solvent to selectively extract
metals from solid, liquid or sludge material.
Both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical process have been used for years to
extract, beneficiate and process primary metals from raw ores. More recently, these
technologies have been applied with varying degrees of success to metal-bearing hazardous
wastes. Rather than being used separately, these processes are used in combination with one
another to produce finished metals available for commerce.
1.6 Overview of RCRA Subtitle C Provisions Affecting Metal Recovery From
Hazardous Waste
This section provides an overview of RCRA Subtitle C regulations that currently
affect metal recovery. Chapter 4 will discuss the most significant RCRA regulatory
provisions such as, land disposal restrictions (related to residual management costs at metal
recovery operations), the derived-from rule, permitting, and corrective action in more detail.
A number of regulatory incentives currently exist in Subtitle C to encourage
environmentally sound metal recovery of hazardous waste. As discussed in Chapter 5, the
greatest regulatory incentive in RCRA Subtitle C are the combination of increasing hazardous
waste disposal costs and rising treatment costs. The latter are largely attributable to the
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards. These standards specify either
performance or technology standards that must be met for restricted wastes prior to land
disposal.
An example of a performance standard is requiring that a lead-bearing hazardous
waste cannot leach more than 5 parts per million prior to land disposal. Often, to meet a
performance standard, some form of treatment such as stabilization is required. A
technology standard requires that a particular form of technology such as incineration or high
temperature metal recovery be used prior to any land disposal.
-------
11
LDR treatment standards encourage metal recovery of hazardous waste in two ways.
These treatment standards have added significantly to treatment and disposal costs of metal-
bearing hazardous wastes which has forced generators of these materials to consider metal
recovery as a cost-effective management alternative. Also, a limited number of treatment
standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions specify recovery for metal-bearing wastes
including lead-bearing and cadmium-bearing batteries, high mercury-bearing wastes and
emission control dust from secondary lead smelting. Thus, in both ways, LDR treatment
standards have contributed to the creation of markets for metal recovery services.
A second regulatory incentive is the exemption for scrap metal that is reclaimed
from Subtitle C regulation. This exemption was promulgated with the amended definition of
solid waste in 1985 to ensure that scrap metal being reclaimed was not inhibited by RCRA
regulation.
Another regulatory incentive is the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid!
waste for sludges and by-products that are characteristically hazardous (e.g., leaching
hazardous metal constituents above regulated levels) that are reclaimed. This exclusion
provides that characteristic sludges and by-products that would be hazardous wastes if
disposed of, burned for fuel or placed on the land are excluded from RCRA Subtitle C
jurisdiction when reclaimed. Although this exclusion was developed for jurisdictional
purposes, it appears to have had a substantial impact on metal recovery of these materials.
A fourth regulatory incentive is that persons who generate, transport or store but do
not reclaim spent lead-acid batteries that will be reclaimed are exempt from certain
Subtitle C regulations including manifesting and storage permit requirements (40 CFR
§266.80). This provision has been promulgated to encourage efficient collection of these
batteries prior to reclamation. EPA has also recently proposed a rale that accomplish the
same result for cadmium-bearing batteries.
A fifth regulatory incentive to encourage metal recovery hi RCRA Subtitle C is the
precious metal exemption. Under Subtitle C, persons who generate, transport or store
precious metal-bearing wastes for precious metal recovery are subject only to notification
and limited reporting requirements (40 CFR §266.70). This exemption has been promulgated
because EPA recognizes that these materials are valuable and are likely to be managed in a
manner that minimizes their potential for loss.
A related regulatory variance exists for partially-reclaimed secondary materials,
which is available for metal-bearing as well as other secondary materials. Materials that
have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further, hicluding secondary metal concentrates,
that would otherwise be solid and hazardous wastes, may be excluded from the definition of
solid waste through a variance procedure at the discretion of the Regional Administrator (40
CFR § 260.30).
-------
12
While normally a hazardous waste being reclaimed remains a hazardous waste until
the reclamation process is complete, some partially-reclaimed materials may be more
commodity-like (e.g., managed in a manner to minimize loss) than waste-like and qualify for
the variance.
A seventh regulatory incentive under RCRA Subtitle C is that the recycling process
itself is generally not subject to regulation although, as mentioned below, storage prior to
metal recovery is a regulated and permitted activity (40 CFR §261.6(c)(l)). One exception
to this general rule is that pyrometallurgical metal recovery operations may be subject to
Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) requirements. However, metal recovery operations
are conditionally exempt from recently promulgated BIF requirements when burning solely
for metal recovery (e.g., not energy recovery or destruction).
Slag generated from high temperature metal recovery of electric arc furnace dust
(K061), wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (F006) and spent
pickle liquor from steel finishing operations (K062) that is disposed of in RCRA Subtitle D
(i.e., non-hazardous) landfill may be genetically excluded provided it meets specified health-
based levels.
The regulated community has also identified a number of RCRA Subtitle C
requirements that are impediments to metal recovery. These provisions are described in
greater detail hi Chapter 4. Briefly, the most important of these regulatory impediments
includes the derived-from rale which affects the status of process residuals, storage permit
requirements, facility-wide corrective action and financial assurance.
The derived-from rule states that residuals from processing listed metal-bearing
hazardous waste, such as slag from metal recovery operations, remain hazardous waste and
must be managed in compliance with Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR Part 261.3(c).
A second regulatory disincentive may be storage permit requirements for metal-
recovery operations that store metal-bearing hazardous wastes prior to reclamation (40 CFR
Part 261,6(c)(l), Industry has commented that the permitting process is expensive and time-
consumuig.
Additional impending Subtitle C regulatory requirements that metal recovery
operations that are regulated as TSDFs have identified include facility-wide corrective
action and financial assurance requirements. Facility-wide corrective action would require
a metal recovery operation that stores prior to reclamation, in a manner for which it would
require a RCRA permit, to address all solid waste management units within facility
boundaries such as waste piles or surface impoundments without regard to the current
owner/operator's responsibility for creating these units.
-------
13
These units would be subject to corrective action if hazardous waste or constituents of
hazardous waste are released to the environment. Such facilities are also subject to financial
assurance requirements to ensure environmentally sound closure and post-closure care along
with financial assurance for any corrective action obligations.
Both facility-wide corrective action and financial assurance requirements are
statutorily mandated for owner/operators of permitted facilities (RCRA §§ 3004(a),(t),(u)5(v),
3005(a);42 U.S.C. §§ 6924(a),(t),(u),(v) 6925(a)). For metal recovery of hazardous wastes,
facilities usually become subject to facility-wide corrective action and financial assurance
requirements when the facility is required to obtain either a storage permit or a Boiler and
Industrial Furnace permit when the facility is not burning solely for metal recovery.
-------
14
Chapter 2 Report Methodology And Limitations
The purpose of Chapter 2 is to lay out the scope and approach of this report and
explain how EPA plans to respond to the issues Congress directed the Agency to study in
PL-102-389. Chapter 2 will also discuss some of the limitations of this report as well as
major sources of uncertainty surrounding the analysis.
Congress directed EPA to study three issues in PL-102-389 in October 1992: 1) the
effect of existing regulations on efforts to recover metals from the Nation's wastes, 2) how
such metal recovery can best be encouraged, and 3) how the materials should be regulated in
order to protect human health and the environment and effectuate the resource conservation
and recovery goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The main question
Congress seemed to be asking was whether changes in Subtitle C regulation could be
expected to increase metal recovery. As discussed below, the Agency has attempted to
answer this question, but due to many data limitations, the Agency can only answer in a
general sense.
The scope of wastes that EPA has chosen to study are metal-bearing hazardous wastes
that are subject to most or all Subtitle C regulatory requirements. These include listed metal-
bearing hazardous wastes and spent materials that are hazardous wastes when reclaimed, such
as spent-lead acid batteries. Due to time and resource constraints, EPA believes that Subtitle
C wastes that are subject to most or all Subtitle C regulation would emphasize regulatory
effects more clearly than other metal-bearing secondary materials that are subject to
comparatively fewer regulations because managing these wastes entails greater regulatory
compliance cost.
2.1 Data Sources and Limitations
EPA has tried to use a diversity of approaches to address the questions raised by
Congress. To study these questions, EPA has conducted data collection and research through
literature search, consultation with experts both within EPA and other Federal agencies, and
outreach with representatives of the metal recovery industry, generators of metal-bearing
hazardous wastes and state regulatory agencies.
EPA has used in-house resources to complete on-line data base searches and literature
searches from its library system to retrieve relevant studies, articles and reports on the metal
recovery of hazardous waste. EPA has consulted with the Department of Interior and the
Department of Commerce. EPA has conducted informal briefings for both Departments and
has consulted with them through peer review of portions of this report.
-------
15
EPA has also consulted the regulated community and selected state governments in
completion of this report. EPA has reviewed information submitted by trade associations
representing generators and reclaimers of metal-bearing hazardous waste and information
provided by case-study respondents. Time limitations and limited data availability affected
the quality of some of the submissions. In addition, EPA has completed five case studies of
metal recovery operations to provide case specific information on the effect of RCRA
Subtitle C regulation on metal recovery of hazardous waste. Drafts of case studies in
Chapter 6 were peer reviewed by both the respondent as well as the state regulatory agency
responsible for oversight of the facility. EPA has not conducted audits or other verification
of claims made by case study respondents and trade association respondents. Trade
association responses are discussed generally throughout the report and specifically in
Chapter 5. Case studies are presented in Chapter 6.
These approaches have enabled EPA to analyze the issue of how RCRA Subtitle C
regulations affect metal recovery of hazardous waste. The Agency has tried to look not only
at regulatory impacts on metal recovery of hazardous waste, but also, where possible, market
factors related to metal demand that may affect the end uses and demand for recovered
metals. As mentioned below, both economic and technical feasibility are important
independent factors affecting metal recovery of hazardous waste.
The Agency has looked at data on the generation and management of metal-bearing
hazardous wastes between 1980 and 1989. One limitation of analysis is that the most current
data are over three years old, preceding the March 1990 Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule.
This rale revised the testing procedure for determining whether or not a waste exhibits a
toxic characteristic (i.e., leach amounts of toxic constituents above regulated levels in
simulated landfill conditions; the new procedure is called the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure or TCLP). The data examined under this report were subject to the old
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity test. Because materials that would be non-hazardous
under the EP test may be hazardous under the TCLP (the TCLP is generally regarded as the
more conservative test of the two), the current universe of metal-bearing hazardous waste
subject to Subtitle C regulation may be much larger than the data analyzed in this report.
Data limitations have affected the level of analysis throughout this report.
Determining how RCRA Subtitle C regulation affects metal recovery of hazardous wastes is
difficult due to data limitations and uncertainty resulting from independent factors influencing
metal recovery such as world metal demand. In the process of completing this report, EPA
has identified several data limitations to a more accurate evaluation of metal recovery of
hazardous waste and related secondary materials.9 These limitations include:
• limits on data to determine what proportion of particular hazardous waste stream is
technically amenable to recovery,
-------
16
• limits on data to evaluate and quantify the metal recovery of related secondary
materials such as scrap metal and characteristic sludges and by-products that would be
regulated as hazardous wastes if discarded in a manner other than reclamation,
• limits on data to accurately determine recovery rates for all metal-bearing hazardous
wastes and related secondary materials including materials recovered and reinserted
into the original production process.
EPA has used, where feasible, other data bases such as the Toxics Release Inventory to draw
inferences where more direct data is not available.
2.2 Other Factors Affecting Metal Recovery
In the course of doing this report, EPA learned that identifying the impacts of Subtitle
C regulations on metal recovery is quite a complex task. One should note that a major
limitation in answering the question of how RCRA Subtitle C regulation affects metal
recovery from hazardous waste is the uncertainty in distinguishing between RCRA Subtitle C
regulation and other statutory/regulatory requirements and non-regulatory factors (non-RCRA
factors) affecting metal recovery from hazardous wastes. Other statutes and regulations
affecting metal recovery frequently mentioned during EPA's report include Superfund (the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or CERCLA),
Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. State and local government regulation may also
affect metal recovery operations.
The main non-regulatory factors affecting the metal recovery of hazardous waste are
the technical and economic feasibility of applying metal recovery technologies to hazardous
wastes. The technical feasibility of recovering metals addresses the question of whether or
not a given, hazardous waste is amenable for recovery. Some metal-bearing hazardous wastes
may not be recovered either because they do not contain recoverable levels of metals or
because they are so contaminated with undesirable constituents that they cannot be processed
sufficiently to make them saleable in the market.
In traditional microeconomic analysis, one would expect that the economic feasibility
of a metal recovery operation will depend upon the owner/operator making sufficient revenue
to cover the total cost of operation plus a fair return on the investment. Metal recovery
operations processing hazardous wastes can derive revenue in one of two ways: 1) user fees,
and 2) sale of recovered metals. The operation can charge a user fee to generators of
hazardous waste to process it and/or it can gain revenue through the sales of its recovered
product. In most cases, sufficient revenues must be obtained from this fee to make the
operation profitable. Few metal recovery operations processing hazardous waste are
profitable solely on the sale of recovered metals. (Precious metal reclaimers may be the
exception to this case). The user fee that a metal recovery operation can charge a generator
of hazardous waste depends largely on the fees charged for alternative management methods
of the waste: traditional treatment and disposal, or use as an ingredient.
-------
17
To minimize costs, a generator of hazardous waste will generally evaluate the
alternatives available and select the most cost-effect alternative. Of course, there are factors
other than cost which may influence this decision such as perceived long term liability of
disposal, and land disposal restrictions requirements specifying recovery of hazardous waste
as the treatment standard prior to land disposal. One point worth noting is that one of the
main ways in which RCRA Subtitle C has encouraged metal recovery of hazardous waste is
by raising treatment and disposal costs increasing the viability of metal recovery as an
alternative. This is elaborated on in Chapter 5.
The revenue that a metal recovery operation can obtain through the sale of its
recovered products depends upon world market conditions for metal commodities. Other
things being equal, a higher price for metals will encourage metal recovery; a lower price
will discourage it. Market price for metal is a function of both supply and demand for
metals. Market demand for metal commodities is a function of global economic activity and
the availability of non-metal substitutes for metal end uses (e.g., substituting plastic for metal
in automobiles). Market supply of primary metals is a function of short term and long term
factors. Short term factors include labor disputes, political conflicts, liquidation of
commodity stockpiles and natural disasters. Long term factors may include proven
commodity reserves and development of new technologies for extracting metal from ores.
Both regulatory and non-regulatory factors limit EPA's ability to accurately answer
the questions of how RCRA Subtitle C affects metal recovery and how metal recovery can be
encouraged. These non-RCRA factors will independently encourage or discourage metal
recovery irrespective of whatever regulatory modifications for RCRA Subtitle C the Agency
may propose.
2.3 Summary of Impact of Data Limitations
For all of these reasons, EPA cannot accurately predict that a certain amount of
additional metal recovery will result from a specific change in RCRA Subtitle C regulations.
Where possible, EPA will identify in this report how non-RCRA factors have or may affect
metal recovery. Therefore, regulatory modifications to RCRA Subtitle C may be necessary,
but not sufficient, conditions to encourage increased environmentally sound metal recovery.
Where possible, however, EPA has identified areas where metal recovery may be increased,
at least in a qualitative sense.
-------
18
Chapter 3 Characterization of RCRA Subtitle C Metal-Bearing Hazardous
Waste
Chapter 3 describes the characteristics and provides background information of metal-
bearing hazardous wastes evaluated hi this report. This description includes information
about the types and quantities of the wastes generated, recovery rates of these materials
where this information is available, damage incidents at hazardous waste sites from metal
recovery operations, metal hazard descriptions, releases to the land of metals, elaboration on
the use of metal-bearing hazardous waste as an ingredient in a production process as an
alternative to metal recovery (e.g., metal-bearing hazardous waste used to produce cement
vs. recovery to produce metal).
3.1 Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes: Generation and Recovery
This section summarizes available data on metal-bearing hazardous wastes and related
secondary materials, including the quantity generated as well as the type and quantity of
these materials managed for recovery, and metals recovered. To obtain the information
available on metal-bearing hazardous waste, EPA has consulted three sources: 1) 1989
Biennial Reporting Systems (BRS) data on metal recovery10, 2) industry/trade association
estimates submitted in completion of this report n, and 3) engineering firms and consulting
firms knowledgeable regarding metal recovery of hazardous waste.12
3.1.1 Quantities of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes Generated
This subsection provides estimates of metal-bearing hazardous wastes generated in the
United States. The scope of wastes described hi this subsection is limited to the types of
metal-bearing hazardous wastes that may be amenable to metal recovery. For example,
K048-K052 are metal-bearing petroleum wastes that are generally not considered amenable to
metal recovery. They are not included in this subsection. Also, certain hazardous wastes
and related metal-bearing secondary materials are not included in this data because they are
exempt from the reporting requirements, e.g., such as scrap metal (exempt from BRS
reporting and exempt from RCRA regulation when destined for reclamation), characteristic
sludges and by-products destined for reclamation (not a solid waste, exempt from BRS
reporting).
Table 3-1 summarizes 1989 Biennial Reporting Systems data analyzed in completion
of this report on quantities of metal-bearing hazardous waste generated hi the United States.
These wastes were selected as metal-bearing hazardous waste streams that may have portions
that are amenable to recovery. As is true with any estimate, the quantities listed in Table 3.1
are approximations of the actual quantity of waste generated, but it gives the reader general
information on quantities generated. The estimated 8.224 million tons of these metal-bearing
hazardous waste represent 4.2 percent of the total 197.5 million tons of hazardous waste
generated.
-------
19
Table 3.1 Estimated Quantities of Selected Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste In The U.S.
Waste Code/Description
1. D004/Characteristic Arsenic Waste
2. DOOS/Characteristic Barium Waste
3, D006/Characteristic Cadmium Waste
4. D007/Characteristic Chromium Waste
5. DOOS/Characteristic Lead Waste
6. D009/Characteristic Mercury Waste
7. DOlO/Charaeteristic Selenium Waste
8. F006/Wastewater Treatment Sludge From
Electroplating Operations
9. F007/Spent Cyanide Plating Bath Solutions From
Electroplating Operations
10. FOQ8/Bottom Plating Bath Residues From
Electroplating Operations
11. F019/Wastewater Treatment Sludge From
Conversion Coating of Aluminum
12. K061/Emission Control Dust From Electric Arc Furnaces In Steel
Production
13. K062/Spent Pickle Liquor Generated From Steel Finishing
Operations
14. K069/Emission Control Dust From Secondary Lead
Production
15. K07 I/Brine Purification Muds From Chlorine
Production
16. K088/Spent Potliners From Primary Aluminum
Production
17. K106/Wastewater Treatment Sludge From Chlorine
Production
Total
Quantity In Short Tons
482,737
16,184
274,252
3,016,404
1,121,555
17,895
392,255
1,252,072
92,757
11,895
51,879
550,000
904,945
3126
23,881
11422
826
8,224,085
3.1.2 Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes Managed For Metal Recovery
Based on literature reviewed, 1989 BRS data and information provided by trade
association, EPA estimates that approximately 1.9 million tons of metal-bearing hazardous
waste are annually managed for metal recovery. This estimate represents a partial estimate
for six metal-bearing hazardous waste categories of the total amount of hazardous waste
being managed for metal recovery. This is true because of the BRS limitations identified
above and because the trade association information was submitted within a relatively short
time frame with available data. It is likely that this estimate underestimates the true quantity
of these wastes being managed for metal recovery.
-------
20
This estimate also excludes metal-bearing hazardous wastes that are: 1) exempt from
regulation (including BRS reporting) such as scrap metals or 2) related secondary materials
such as characteristic sludges and by-products that would be hazardous wastes if disposed of
but are excluded from the definition of solid waste because they are reclaimed and are
therefore not reported. Also, some metal recovery operations will not comply with BRS
reporting requirements, thus excluding their metal recovery from EPA data. Table 3.2
summarizes the amount and type hazardous wastes and related secondary materials being
reclaimed as well as the recovery rate (where available) and metals recovered.
Table 3.2 Estimated Quantities of Hazardous Wastes And Related Secondary Materials
Managed For Metal Recovery
Type of Waste
K061/EIectric Arc Furnace
Dust
F006/Wastewater Treatment
Sludge From Electroplating
Operations
K062, Spent Pickle Liquor
From Steel Finishing
Operations
Miscellaneous Characteristic
Metal-Bearing Hazardous
Wastes
Nickel-cadmium batteries
Spent-lead acid batteries
Total
Quantity Managed
For Metal
Recovery (000
Tons)
500
163 (EPA estimate)
193 (AISI, SMA
estimate)
164.6 (BRS
estimate of mixed
D wastes)
1.686
873 (BCI estimates)
1895.28
Recovery Rate (Percent of
Total Managed For Metal
Recovery)
90
15 to 20 percent (NAMF
estimate)
52 of reported subtotal of K062;
total recovery rate probably
lower
unknown
23.5," (EPA 1993)
96.5 percent (1991 National
Recycling Rate Study, BCI 1993)
23 percent
Metals
Recovered
Zn, Pb, Cr,
Cd, Ni, Fe
Zn, Cd, Fe,
Cr, Ni, Cu,
Ag, Au
Fe, Cr, Ni
Cr, Pb, other
Ni, Cd
Pb
3.1.3 Summary of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste Generation and Recovery
Based on data reviewed hi completion of this report, large quantities of metal-bearing
hazardous wastes are not being managed for metal recovery, but rather for treatment and
disposal. WMle the exact proportion is not known, many of these wastes are not technically
amenable for recovery either because they are too contaminated with impurities or because
they are too low in metal content.
-------
21
These wastes will continue to be treated and disposed of irrespective of what
regulatory modifications are made to RCRA Subtitle C until new technologies are developed
to make these wastes amenable to recovery. Other metal-bearing hazardous wastes that are
amenable to recovery are being treated and disposed of currently and may be a potential
source for increased recovery in the future resulting from regulatory modifications to RCRA
Subtitle C.
While data limitations preclude estimating quantities of metal-bearing hazardous
wastes that are amenable to recovery but managed for disposal, information submitted by
trade associations to EPA (and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5) indicates that lead
based paint remediation waste, K062 spent pickle liquor from steel finishing wastes, F006
wastewater treatment sludge, brass foundry waste, ferrous foundry waste, surface finishing
waste, galvanizing waste and others may be in plentiful supply (i.e., well over 1 million tons
total generated annually). As mentioned later in this report, opportunities to facilitate this
recovery may depend as much on markets for recovered metals as it does on regulatory
modifications to RCRA Subtitle C. Of the waste streams EPA identified in Table 3.2, F006,
wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations, may have the greatest potential
for additional recovery. With an estimated recovery rate of only 15 to 20 percent, the 1.2
million tons F006 generated annually represents the second largest metal-bearing hazardous
waste stream identified in this report (behind characteristic chromium wastes).
3.2 Metal Recovery Use or Recycling Alternatives: Use/Reuse of Metal-Bearing
Hazardous Waste
As mentioned in Chapter 1, EPA considers recycling under Subtitle C
to include the use, reuse, or reclamation of secondary materials which may or may not be
considered hazardous wastes under RCRA depending on how the materials are managed.
The importance of understanding the distinction between the use or reuse of a secondary
material and the reclamation of secondary materials is that any changes to RCRA Subtitle C
regulation that affect metal recovery (a type of reclamation) may influence quantities of
secondary materials managed for use or reuse as well.
The use or reuse of metal-bearing secondary materials as ingredients in an industrial
process or a substitute for a commercial product (hereafter referred to as use/reuse)
represents an alternative form of management to either metal recovery or traditional
hazardous waste treatment and disposal. As mentioned hi Chapter 1, EPA traditionally views
use/reuse as being more similar to a normal production process in contrast to reclamation
which is considered to be more similar to waste management activities. EPA made this
distinction hi the 1985 modifications to the definition of solid waste largely on a
jurisdictional basis rather than a risk basis. This difference has lead to different status under
RCRA Subtitle C regulation.
-------
22
Metal recovery is a type of reclamation and is subject to some RCRA Subtitle C
regulation (e.g., storage prior to reclamation) for many types of secondary materials.
Notable exceptions include characteristic sludges and by-products being reclaimed (which are
not solid wastes and therefore not hazardous wastes) and scrap metal being reclaimed (which
are solid and hazardous wastes but are currently exempt from Subtitle C regulation).
In contrast to metal recovery, the use or reuse of a secondary material as either an
ingredient in an industrial process or as an effective substitute for a commercial product are
generally not within the definition of solid waste (40 CFR §261.2(e)(l)). As mentioned in
Chapter 1, this general rule does hot apply to the use or reuse of secondary materials used
directly in a manner constituting disposal or used to produce products that are applied to the
land, burned directly for energy recovery or used to produce a fuel, that are speculatively
accumulated or are inherently waste-like (40 CFR §261,2(e)(2)).
Products derived from hazardous wastes that are recycled by being used on the land
are conditionally exempt from full RCRA Subtitle C regulation. These waste-derived
products must be available for the general public's use, have undergone a chemical reaction
to become inseparable by physical means, and (with the exception of K061 derived fertilizer)
must meet treatment standards specified in Part 268 of the Code of Federal Regulations (or
RCRA Section 3004(d) where no treatment standard is specified).
The result of the difference in regulatory status between use/reuse and reclamation is
that the current RCRA Subtitle C regulatory structure may do more to encourage use/reuse
than reclamation. Since the use/reuse of metal-bearing hazardous wastes are generally
excluded from the definition of solid wastes, this form of management is not subject to any
RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements.
By contrast, the process of reclaiming metal-bearing hazardous waste is generally
exempt from regulation (BIF permit requirements are one exception). However, residues
from the reclamation process are still subject to the derived-from rale and storage prior to
reclamation is subject to Subtitle C regulation including permit requirements. Due to time
and data limitations, EPA has not reached a conclusion as to whether this difference under
the current Subtitle C regulatory structure is warranted.
Reliable estimates of the types or quantities of metal-bearing hazardous wastes that
are recycled through use or reuse and related secondary materials recycled through use or
reuse that would be hazardous wastes if otherwise managed are not available. Most of both
types of materials are not subject to Agency reporting requirements such as the Biennial
Reporting System, Through experience, the Agency has learned that much of the use/reuse
of metal-bearing hazardous wastes has involved using these materials as ingredients in
fertilizer, construction materials such as cement or aggregate.
-------
23
The following example illustrates how a generator of a listed metal-bearing hazardous
waste may choose to recycle the waste. K061 is an emission control dust from electric arc
furnaces and the paniculate matter is captured in an air pollution control device called a
"baghouse". This pollution control dust is composed of various metals: zinc, lead,
cadmium, iron and sometimes nickel and chromium. EPA has listed the waste as hazardous
and set a treatment level for K061 extracts (i.e., leachate) based upon high temperature metal
recovery (40 CFR §268.41). The generator (the operator of the steel mill) can select any
management method for K061 so long as it meets this treatment standard for leachate prior to
land disposal. As an alternative to stabilization and land disposal, a generator might select
one of a variety of recycling alternatives (assuming it is legitimate) for the K061. Recycling
alternatives for K061 could include:
• use as fertilizer
• use as an ingredient in glass frit for abrasive blast, roofing shingles, glass ceramic or
ceramic glaze
• use as an ingredient in the production of cement
• use an ingredient in the production of aggregate
• management for zinc recovery, lead recovery, cadmium recovery, or ferronickel or
ferrochromium recovery.
Although EPA has a general preference for environmentally sound recycling over
treatment and disposal, the Agency has not studied the issue to determine whether
reclamation of metal value is preferable to use or reuse of a material in its entirety as a
substitute for a nonwaste material from a policy standpoint. Much depends upon the specific
waste and recycling alternative and attendant risks and benefits. The K061 generator will
select his management alternative for disposal or recycling in part on prospective liability and
compliance costs (as a function of total cost). If the generator selects recycling as its choice,
each recycling alternative would have a distinct impact on society in terms of the risk to
human health and the environment as well as the value of the material recovered or used.
These impacts may present tradeoffs that need to be considered to determine how these
materials should be regulated to optimize RCRA's dual goals of environmental protection and
resource conservation.
These tradeoffs may involve amenability of the material to future recovery (i.e.,
keeping the metal in commerce perpetually), the quality of material recovery (i.e., recycling
a material for its highest use as opposed to downgrading a material to a lower value use),
risk to human health and the environment (note: it is possible that some forms of treatment
and disposal may be more protective than some forms of recovery).
-------
24
In the example of K061 mentioned above, the zinc constituents of the waste may
serve adequately, if recovered, as a zinc oxide or zinc metal for medicinal or manufacturing
uses. The end use of the zinc may leave it in a form where it is amenable for further
recovery such as galvanizing (i.e., the zinc in the scrap metal may be recovered) or put to an
end use such as fertilizer where the zinc values are ultimately lost to the environment.
Alternatively, if the K061 is used directly to make cement, the iron constituents of the waste
may contribute to the production of the cement, while the zinc constituents may be
downgraded to a lower value use relative to recovered zinc metals or compounds.
The risks to human health and the environment from the zinc recovery operation and
the cement kirn may vary as well as the value of material recovery for the zinc constituents.
In this example, the mobility of hazardous metal constituents in the waste-derived cement
product would be compared with exposure from both slag from the zinc recovery operation
as well as the end use of the recovered zinc itself.
In sum, one management option may offer superior material recovery but may or may
not necessarily be more environmentally protective. Due to data limitations, an evaluation of
these tradeoffs for metal-bearing hazardous waste streams is beyond the scope of this report.
3.3 An Overview of Damage Incidents, Hazard Descriptions, Management Methods
and Releases to the Environment By Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste
In order to understand how RCRA Subtitle C regulation of metal-bearing hazardous
wastes may protect human health and the environment, it is necessary to understand how
these materials may become a problem if mismanaged. Evaluating damage incidents at
hazardous waste sites involving metal recovery, descriptions of the intrinsic hazards of metal
constituents of hazardous waste, and estimates of releases to the environment of metals from
hazardous waste support concerns about the mismanagement of metal-bearing hazardous
waste. This section provides a perspective of how metal-bearing hazardous wastes have
affected human health and the environment when mismanaged, what hazards are intrinsic in
the metals themselves, how these materials are supposed to be managed currently, and what
releases to the environment are currently on-going.
EPA has analyzed three sources of damage incidents involving metal-bearing
hazardous waste: the Records of Decision (RODS) Data Base, involving NPL sites; the
Damage Incident Data Base (DIDB), and the RCRA Implementation Study Update: The
Definition of Solid Waste (Environmental Damages Caused by Hazardous Waste Recycling
Practices). EPA also reviewed epidemiological literature regarding public health and
hazardous waste to evaluate the relative impact of metals from hazardous waste on public
health.14
-------
25
To assess the intrinsic hazard of various metals, EPA reviewed relevant literature.
Finally, EPA examined 1991 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data of releases to land and off-
site transfers to estimate total loadings of hazardous metals constituents from hazardous
wastes. It is possible that a portion of these loadings are not attributable to hazardous waste,
so this indicator can only serve as an estimate or proxy of releases to the environment from
metal-bearing hazardous wastes.
3.3.1 Damage Incidents At Hazardous Wastes Sites Involving Metal-Bearing Hazardous
Waste
In 1991, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reported
that heavy metals that were relatively prevalent at Superfund sites and which are toxic
included lead, chromium, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel.15 The report did not contain
further information on the risks posed by these metals. The National Research Council also
indicated that a significant number of activities at Superfund sites involved recycling
operations (for metal and non-metal materials) and activities related to the generation of
metal-bearing hazardous waste.
1991 EPA data reported in the National Research Council study indicated that over 9
percent of 1189 final Superfund sites involved recycling operations (including recycling of
non-metals).16 1988 EPA data indicated that activities at 1177 proposed and final Superfund
sites related to the generation of metal-bearing hazardous waste included 63 electroplating
activities, 36 ore processing/refining smelting activities, and 23 battery recyclers ,17
Finally, the National Research Council report adapted 1989 ASTDR data involving
documented migration of hazardous substances into specific media from 951 selected
Superfund sites. The data involving metal migration is summarized below in Table 3.3.
EPA has recently compiled a list of damage incidents resulting from recycling
operations.18 A subset of these damage incidents have resulted from or are associated with
metal recovery operations. To update this effort, EPA examined the RODS and DIDB data
bases to retrieve more specific information about damage incidents associated with Superfund
sites and other hazardous waste sites. These analyses revealed 38 sites including 21
Superfund sites where contamination of heavy metals was associated with metal recovery
operations.
In some of the cases, activities other than metal reclamation occurring on site may
have contributed to or been the cause of the metal contamination. Also, other releases from
metal recovery activities such as fugitive air emissions may be responsible for contamination.
-------
26
Table 3.3 Migration of Hazardous Metals Into Media At Superfund sites1
Metal
Lead
Chromium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Mercury
Nickel
Beryllium
i of Sites
with
migration
327
224
(1)36-
112
58.
55
9
Ground
water
234
159
92
72
29
30
2
Surface
water
138
84
46
49
24
24
3
Soil
122
88
54
45
20
15
1
Air
37
28
16
18
6
3
0
Food
50
39
19
21
10
8
0
Sediment
114
84
50
44
19
21
3
* Although the text indicates 36 sites rather than 136, this appears to be a typographical error since the number of
migration sites for each media exceed the number of total sites with migration. Since arsenic is located between
chromium with 224 total sites and cadmium with 112, the correct number of total arsenic sites appears to be 136.
The database searches were not exhaustive and only a limited keyword search was
used. These results may underestimate the total number of hazardous waste sites associated
with metal recovery operations. The searches revealed limited information about the type of
metal recovery operations involved at the site and the environmental risks or level of
contamination at the site, or the type of activity at the site (e.g., processing, storage, spills,
etc.).
Approximately 19 of the 38 sites involved lead recovery from spent lead-acid
batteries. Generally, the site contamination resulted from improper disposal of battery
casings (the outer shell of the battery after the lead plates have been removed) and battery
acid. The abstracts of the site incidents indicated that soil and groundwater contamination
resulted from the mismanagement. Other anecdotal information indicated air quality
problems, increased facility employee blood lead levels and harming vegetation (e.g., killing
Cyprus trees) next to the facility.
Of the remaining 19 non-battery hazardous waste sites involving metal recovery, the
activities there are as follows:
1 copper smelting facility
2 secondary copper recovery facilities
1 stainless steel slag recovery operation
2 precious metal recovery operations
1 Please note that the total number is less than the sum of all media because each site may include more than one type of medium
of migration.
-------
27
1 brass reprocessing operation :
1 aluminum processing facility
1 drum recycling facility
1 metal and plastic parts manufacturing facility
1 titanium dioxide manufacturing plant
3 scrap metal operations including an auto salvage yard
1 steel emission control dust recovery operation
2 miscellaneous metal recovery operations
2 hazardous waste treatment facilities (the nature of metal recovery occurring at these
sites, if any, is not clear from the abstract)
Based on the data, the environmental contamination and risks associated with these hazardous
wastes appear to be comparable to the battery hazardous waste sites. Soil and groundwater
contamination are the most prevalent types of contamination. In selected cases, public health
may be threatened by site proximity to public drinking water wells.
This review of hazardous waste sites involving metal recovery indicates that when
metal-bearing hazardous wastes being recovered are mismanaged that the resulting releases to
the environment may threaten public health. It is also evident that the risk of
mismanagement occurs across a variety of different types of metal recovery operations.
However, it is not possible from this data to estimate the current population at risk from
metals at hazardous wastes sites.
3.3.2 Descriptions of Metal Constituents of Hazardous Waste
Risk of metal-bearing hazardous waste is a function of the intrinsic hazard of the
metal constituents of the waste and the potential for exposure of the material. This section
summarizes relevant hazard information on selected metals.19 Section 3.3.3 will describe
current management methods and summarize the most current release information for these
metals. Table 3.4 summarizes basic information regarding the uses and hazards associated
with metal constituents found in hazardous waste. More detailed information on these metals
is provided in Appendix B.
-------
28
Table 3.4 Common Uses and Hazard Description of Metal Constituents Found In
Hazardous Wastes
Metal
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Chromium
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Barium
Beryllium
Common Uses
batteries, solder, ammunition
batteries, pigments, plastics
wood preservatives, pesticides,
electronics
steel alloy, metal plating
batteries, electrical uses, chlorine
manuf., light bulbs
steel alloy, batteries,
electroplating
colored glass, photocells, semi-
conductors,
metal alloy
electric tubs, radium carrier
copper alloy, ceramics
Hazard Description
acute and chronic toxin, symptoms: nerve & kidney
dysfunction; brain damage
acute & chronic toxin, symptoms: nausea & abdominal
pain; linked to kidney disease, heart disease, emphysema;
possible carcinogen
acute & chronic toxic, symptoms: shock, coma, death;
Class A carcinogen
hexavalent form is toxic; Class A carcinogen; ecotoxin
neurotoxin, symptoms: memory loss, motor disturbances,
kidney damage, death; ecotoxin
toxicity in nickel carbonyl or high doses; possible
carcinogen
acute & chronic toxin, recorded cases are rare; ecotoxin
low risk of toxicity in humans; ecotoxin
acute toxin
acute & chronic toxin, probable human carcinogen
3.3.3 Management Methods and Estimates of Releases Resulting From Metal-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes
EPA has reviewed literature to attempt to estimate potential releases of metal
constituents from hazardous wastes. Data has been limited in this regard. The Agency has
used 1991 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data listed in Table 3.5 below for this purpose.
After viewing how releases to the environment of metal-bearing hazardous waste have
affected the environment when mismanaged, it is important to note how metal-bearing
hazardous wastes are supposed to be handled in light of current RCRA Subtitle C
management standards as well as potential routes of exposure that may potentially pose a risk
to human health or the environment.
Frequently, metal-bearing hazardous wastes that are solid (i.e., not wastewaters) are
in the form of sludges from pollution control devices or by-products from production
processes. These materials may be stored by the generator for up to 90 days in a tank,
container or containment building provided they comply with management standards for these
units.
-------
29
Generators will frequently treat characteristic wastes on-site in tanks and then dispose
of the residuals in Subtitle D facilities (e.g., landfills) either on-site or off-site.
Alternatively, generators may elect to ship hazardous waste off-site in containers for
treatment/disposal or recovery/reuse. Containers used to ship metal-bearing hazardous
wastes off-site often include 55 gallon drums.
At off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs), metal-bearing hazardous
wastes are off-loaded from hazardous waste transporters into storage areas where the
materials are either stored until a sufficient quantity of the material is accumulated for
processing or the materials are pre-processed for insertion into the treatment or reclamation
process. Storage at these facilities in units other than tanks or containers is generally
prohibited (40 CFR §268.50). This means that managing these wastes in outdoor waste piles
would not permissible under current Subtitle C regulation.
The problem that RCRA Subtitle C regulation has tried to address in the handling of
metal-bearing hazardous wastes is the release of metal constituents of the waste to the
environment. There are several routes of exposure that are of potential concern including
air releases from metal dusts, migration into groundwater, and surface water runoff. Other
routes of exposure include crop uptake and soil ingestion (children). Humans are exposed to
metal constituents from these routes through ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact.
In trying to evaluate the potential environmental impact of metal-bearing hazardous
wastes, EPA looked at recent data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)20 to analyze
estimates of total releases of metals and their compounds to land and off-site transfers.
Releases to land and off-site transfers represent a surrogate for loadings to the environment
from metal-bearing hazardous waste. However, TRI releases are not equivalent to exposure
of hazardous wastes and so this data cannot be equated with risks to human health and the
environment associated with these metals. As stated in the 1991 TRI Release Inventory, risk
is a function of many factors including the toxicity of the chemical, persistence of the
chemical in the environment, bioconcentration in the food chain and the environmental
medium to which the chemical has been released.21 Releases in TRI may include disposal
of metal-bearing hazardous wastes hi landfills or treatment in surface impoundments.
Because design standards of these units and prior treatment of the wastes, the metal
constituents themselves may be immobilized thus minimizing their risk to the environment.
TRI data is limited to manufacturing firms and so releases of metals from the service
sector may not be included in TRI. Notwithstanding this limitation, the 1991 TRI data
summarized in Table 3.5 show mat the following metals and metal compounds released to
land or transferred off-site for treatment or disposal (in thousands of pounds).
-------
30
Table 3.5 Releases To Land and Off-site Treatment and Disposal of Selected Metals
Metal & Compounds
Zinc and zinc compounds
Chromium and chromium
compounds
Lead and lead compounds
Barium & barium compounds
Nickel and nickel compounds
Arsenic and arsenic
compounds
Cadmium and cadmium
compounds
Mercury and mercury
compounds
Beryllium and beryllium
compounds
Selenium and selenium
compounds
Release To Land/Offsite Transfers For Treatment
and Disposal/Total (in thousands of pounds)
123,279/55,294/178,573
25,916/19,942/45,858
17,022/20,053/37,075
4,266/19,716/23,982
1,672/8,966/10,638
4,473/2,189/6,662
251/1407/1,658
5/193/198
59/120/179
80/59/139
3.3.4 Conclusions Regarding Damage Incidents, Hazard Descriptions, Management
Methods and Releases to the Environment of Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes
Notwithstanding the prevalence of damage incidents associated with spent lead-acid
battery recovery, it appears that the potential for mismanagement of hazardous wastes
handled for metal recovery extends across a variety of many different metal recovery
operations. From the damage incident abstracts, it appeared mat most of the mismanagement
occurred from abandoning wastes on site in piles or in surface waters where the material
dispersed quickly. The most prevalent form of contamination mentioned was groundwater
contamination.
The hazards posed to human health or the environment by different metal constituents
of hazardous waste are also varied including acute and chronic toxicity, neurotoxicity,
carcrnogenicity, and ecotoxicity. Under RCRA Subtitle C management, metal-bearing
hazardous wastes are supposed to be managed properly from generation until discard or
recovery to prevent the release of these constituents.
-------
31
In terms of estimated releases to the environment, one observation that becomes
apparent when viewing the Tables in Chapter 3 is that from a quantitative standpoint,
chromium and lead are the two most prevalent toxicity characteristic metals hi terms of
generation of characteristic metal wastes, prevalence in Superfund sites, or TRI release
estimates. The other observation that follows is that lead appears to be recovered at greater
rates than chromium due to the high recovery rates of K061 and spent-lead acid batteries.
Chromium recovery is comparatively low owing in part to low F006 and D007 recovery.
The importance of chromium as a strategic metal and opportunities for its recovery are
mentioned in Chapter 7 of this report.
-------
32
Chapter 4. RCRA Regulations Affecting Metal Recovery Operations
This chapter summarizes how several key RCRA regulatory provisions apply to metal
reclamation. In general Subtitle C regulations were developed to protect human health and
the environment, with some consideration given to the regulatory impact on recycling. The
regulations discussed here are the ones thought to have the greatest impact on metal recovery
of hazardous wastes. EPA determined this from information submitted by trade associations,
economic data and related sources. Chapter 5 will assess the impact of these provisions on
metal reclamation of hazardous waste.
At the outset it is important to note that, as discussed above, EPA chose to focus on
hazardous wastes that are fully regulated under Subtitle C for this report. Therefore, the
regulations governing metals reclamation discussed below do not apply to the reclamation of
precious metals or scrap metal. Precious metals reclamation is subject to a reduced set of
requirements under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart F.22 Scrap metal destined for recycling is
exempt from Subtitle C regulation under 40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(iv). Both of these industries
have voiced concerns with the impacts of RCRA and CERCLA on their operations, but given
limited tune, EPA decided to focus on industries more fully regulated under RCRA. Also, it
is important to recognize that metals reclamation is conducted hi both on-site (i.e., at the
same facility that generates the metal-bearing waste) and off-site processes. In general, on-
site recycling is regulated somewhat less stringently than is described below. Also, metal
recovery may be conducted in many steps which may all be on the same site but also may
entail shipment of some sidestreams to off-site reclaimers. This affects storage permit
requirements and the need for transportation.
4.1 Land Disposal Restrictions
The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program, added to RCRA by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires that hazardous wastes that are to be
land disposed23 must meet treatment standards prior to disposal. The LDR program
mandates that prior to land disposing of a hazardous waste the waste must either; contain
concentrations of specified hazardous constituents in either the waste extract (i.e., leachate)
or the wastes (i.e., total constituent concentration) that are below specific levels established
by EPA; or, have been treated using a specific treatment technology designated by the
Agency.24
Both the concentration-based standards and the treatment technologies designated
under the LDR program are those determined by EPA to constitute levels or methods of
treatment that substantially reduce the toxicity of the waste and reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents from the waste, thereby minimizing any threat posed by
such waste to human health and the environment. These standards are considered to
represent performance achieved using the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT).
-------
33
The LDR standards have been implemented under a phased schedule. Most, but not
all, of the standards are presently in place. Table 4-1 lists several of these metal-bearing
wastes and the Federal Register notice containing the corresponding LDR treatment
standards.
Table 4.1 Examples of Metal-bearing Wastes and Corresponding BOAT Publication
Dates
Metal-Bearing Wastes
F006, K004, K008, K061, K062, K069, K100, K048,
K049, K050, K051; K052
F006, F007, F008, F009, F010, F011, F012, F019, K005,
K007
F006, K060, K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007,
K008, Characteristic Wastes
Federal Register Publication
53 FR 31 137; 8/17/88
54 FR 26593; 6/23/89
55 FR 22519; 6/1/90
Since many metal-bearing wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes25, the LDR
regulations apply to certain aspects of the generation, transport, and reclamation of these
wastes. For example, generators of hazardous metal-bearing waste must determine if their
waste is subject to the LDR and whether the waste meets LDR treatment standards. If the
waste is restricted and does not meet LDR standards, the generator must provide a notice to
the treatment or storage facility (i.e., reclamation facility) indicating the applicable treatment
standards and applicable waste prohibition levels. Restricted wastes that meet LDR standards
must be accompanied by a notice and certification of compliance with applicable standards.
Generators must also maintain all data pertaining to the regulatory status of the waste as well
as all notices, certifications, and other required documentation.
LDR requirements applicable to recycling (i.e., reclamation) facilities prohibit the
storage of hazardous wastes restricted from land disposal unless the wastes are stored in
tanks, containers, containment buildings or drip pads and such storage is solely for the
purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities of hazardous wastes as are necessary to
facilitate recovery, treatment, or disposal. If such storage is for purposes of legitimate
accumulation, storage may occur for up to a year unless the Agency can demonstrate that
storage for extended periods of time is not necessary. Where the owner/operator can prove
that such extended storage is necessary to facilitate the recovery, treatment, or disposal of
these wastes, storage may be conducted for longer than one year. As applied to reclamation,
this restriction prohibits the storage of metal-bearing waste directly on the land hi waste piles
and/or surface impoundments and limits the flexibility of facilities storing metal-bearing
wastes.
-------
34
The LDR also prohibit the dilution of restricted hazardous wastes and residuals where
dilution facilitates compliance with or avoidance of LDR treatment standards. Several forms
of metals reclamation involve the addition of materials (i.e., reagents) to the metal-bearing
waste as part of the recovery process. This could be construed as impermissible dilution if
the practice serves only as a substitute for adequate treatment or allows the waste to avoid
the applicable treatment standard. Where this is the case, the reclamation process would
either have to be altered or abandoned.
4.2 Derived-Item Rule
The derived-from rale26 provides that a solid waste (e.g., sludge, spill residue, ash,
emission control dust, or leachate) generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a
hazardous waste remains a hazardous waste unless it is delisted, or, where the waste is
hazardous solely because it exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the residual waste no longer
exhibits a hazardous characteristic. The rale also provides that materials that are reclaimed
from solid waste and then used beneficially are not solid or hazardous wastes unless burned
for energy or used hi manner constituting disposal, i.e., products of reclamation are not
regulated unless the product is burned or placed on the land.
In addition, an amendment to the derived-from rale27 conditionally exempts non-
wastewater residues, such as slag, resulting from high temperature metals recovery (HTMR)
processing of the listed hazardous wastes K061, K062 and F006 conducted in specified
reclamation units,28 provided the residue meets specified exclusion levels, does not exhibit
any hazardous characteristics, and is disposed in Subtitle D units (e.g., non-hazardous
landfill).
The effect of the derived-from rale is that where metals are being reclaimed from
listed metal-bearing hazardous wastes, the recovered metals are not hazardous wastes when
used beneficially (and not burned or applied to the ground). In addition, slag generated from
high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) processing of K061, K062 or F006 is also not
regulated as a hazardous waste provided it meets the conditions noted above. However, slag
that does not meet the generic delisting HTMR exemption retains its identity as a listed
hazardous waste subject to full RCRA regulation (including LDR requirements). Where
metals are recovered from characteristic hazardous wastes, the slag is fully regulated under
Subtitle C if it exhibits a hazardous characteristic (otherwise it is not regulated).
Additionally, slag resulting from reclamation of a metal-bearing hazardous waste remains
subject to LDR requirements even if the slag does not exhibit a hazardous characteristic at
the point of disposal.29 Thus, the products derived from metals reclamation are not
generally regulated whereas the residuals, with specified exceptions, often are.
-------
35
4.3 Interim Status & Permitting
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, owners/operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste (TSDFs) are subject to standards and permitting requirements under
Sections 3004 and 3005 of RCRA (promulgated as regulatory requirements under 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 270). Qualified facilities may operate under interim status standards without a
permit (40 CFR Part 265) pending an Agency decision on the permit application. All interim
status facilities must submit a Part A application which includes general facility information
such as name, address, types of hazardous wastes managed and processes conducted. A Part
A application is required for TSDFs operating under interim status.
In addition to a Part A application, permit applicants are also required to submit a
Part B permit application which contains more extensive information regarding the facility.
Although there is no standard Part B application form, the application itself must address
relevant TSDF standards including standards for the specific type of facility/unit such as a
landfill or incinerator.
Part B applications usually address comprehensive information requirements such as
waste analysis plans, closure and post-closure plans, financial assurances, contingency plans.
Additional information provided hi a Part B application includes groundwater monitoring
data, specific information for the type of unit on-site (e.g., waste pile), and information on
solid waste management units (SWMUs) on-site. The issuance of a RCRA Part B permit
triggers facility-wide corrective action requirements, which are discussed in detail in section
4.5 below, and financial assurance standards.
Under RCRA Subtitle C recycling processes are generally not subject to permitting
requirements (40 CFR §261.6(c)(l)). In contrast, storage of hazardous wastes prior to
reclamation is subject to permit requirements (40 CFR §261.6(c)(l). Since metals
reclamation is considered a form of recycling,30 reclamation processes are among those that
until recently have not had to obtain a RCRA permit.
The recently promulgated Burner and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule, discussed hi
section 4.4 below, does generally require permits for smelting operations that are not burning
solely for metal recovery (i.e. are burning for energy recovery or burning for destruction as
well). However, the BIF rule provides a conditional exemption from this permitting
requirement such that the reclamation process hi a metals recovery operation may not have to
operate subject to a RCRA permit (see discussion of BIF rule, below).
-------
36
Generators storing hazardous metal-bearing waste on-site must have interim status or
obtain a Subtitle C permit if they store the waste for longer than 90 days or if they store in a
unit that is not a tank, container, or containment building, such as a surface impoundment or
waste pile (40 CFR §262.34) (Please note that storage in waste piles or surface
impoundments is prohibited unless the wastes meet LDR treatment standards). New off-site
facilities must obtain their storage permit prior to commencing construction, and existing
facilities must comply with interim status requirements prior to obtaining their final (i.e.,
Part B) permit.
4.4 Financial Assurance
Under the current RCRA Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR §264/265, Subparts F and
H), hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are subject to
financial assurance requirements with respect to closure, post-closure, and corrective action
activities. These requirements ensure that facilities have the ability to finance proper
closure, post-closure care, and corrective action.
Both interim status and permitted storage facilities must meet financial assurance
requirements for closure and post-closure care (note post-closure is required only if the
facility has disposal units).31 Essentially, facilities are required to develop and annually
update detailed written cost estimates for closure and post-closure care and to establish
financial assurance in the form of a trust fund, letter of credit, insurance, financial test and
corporate guarantee, or surety bond guaranteeing performance or being paid into a trust fund.
In addition, facilities must carry liability coverage, with coverage minimums of one million
dollars per occurrence and two million dollars aggregate, annually, exclusive of legal defense
costs.
The closure cost estimate must be based on third-party costs and must approximate
final closure costs at the point during the facility's active life when closure would be most
expensive. The post-closure cost estimate must be in current dollars and must be based on
the current annual costs required for post-closure care maintenance, which are then
multiplied by the post-closure care period. Both the closure and post-closure cost estimates
must be revised annually to account for inflation.
Corrective action financial assurance is also required for any TSDF operating under
interim status that contains a solid waste management unit and is applying for a RCRA
hazardous waste permit. Where corrective action cannot be completed prior to applying for
the permit, the permit must include assurances of financial responsibility for completing any
corrective action needed due to prior or continuing releases. These assurances of financial
responsibility must address on-site releases as well as releases that have migrated beyond the
facility boundary.
-------
37
4.5 Corrective Action
Any RCRA facility seeking an operating (e.g., storage) or post-closure permit must
comply with corrective action requirements imposed under §3004(u) and (v) of RCRA.
Under these requirements, facilities must address, on a facility-wide basis, all past releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from solid waste management units (SWMUs).
SWMUs are defined to include any discernable waste management unit at a RCRA facility
from which hazardous waste or hazardous constituents might migrate, irrespective of whether
the unit was intended for the management of solid or hazardous waste.
EPA retains authority under several other sections of RCRA to require either
corrective action or remedies for hazardous waste releases. First, when there has been a
release of hazardous waste into the environment from an interim status facility, EPA is
authorized under §3008(h) of RCRA to issue an order requiring corrective action necessary
to protect human health and the environment. Second, when there is evidence of imminent
and substantial endangerment to health or the environment resulting from improper
management of hazardous waste, the Agency is authorized under §7003 of RCRA to file suit
in the appropriate U.S. district court to prevent or remedy the problem. Finally, under its
omnibus authority, §3005(c)(3), EPA is authorized to include terms and conditions as
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Solid waste management units managing hazardous waste, as well as those managing
non-hazardous waste, must be cleaned up as part of obtaining a RCRA permit. This means
that a reclamation.facility seeking a storage permit must conduct facility-wide corrective
action for all solid waste management units before the permit may be issued or the permit
must contain a schedule of compliance to conduct corrective action at the facility after permit
issuance. Additionally, corrective action may encompass cleanup beyond the facility
boundary hi circumstances where the contamination has resulted from the migration of on-
site releases beyond the facility boundary.
4.6 Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule
Under EPA's Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule,32 smelting, melting and
refining furnaces are regulated as industrial furnaces. However, these furnaces are
conditionally exempt from regulation under the BIF rule provided that they process hazardous
waste solely for metal recovery, and if the facilities meet the folio whig requirements. First,
to be exempt from requirements imposed under 40 CFR §266.102 (Permit Standards for
Burners) and §266.111 (Standards for Direct Transfer), smelting furnaces must:
• provide a one-tune notice to the Director indicating: the claim of exemption,
that the waste is being burned for metals recovery and is not being burned for
destruction or as a fuel (as defined in §266.100(c)(2)), that the waste contains
recoverable levels of metals, and that the owner will comply with applicable
sampling, analysis, and recordkeeping requirements;
-------
38
* sample and analyze the waste and feedstocks as necessary to comply with
266.100(c) using accepted EPA analytical methods (SW-846); and
• maintain records documenting compliance for three years, including records of
toxic organic constituents, Btu value, and levels of recoverable metals.
Second, hazardous waste meeting either of the following criteria are not considered to
be burned solely for metals recovery and thus are fully regulated under the BIF rale:
• waste with a total concentration of Appendix VIII organic compounds
exceeding 500 ppm by weight (as generated — such wastes are considered to
be burned for destruction);
• waste with a heating value of 5000 Btu/lbs. or more (as fired — such wastes
are considered to be burned as fuel).
In addition, despite the conditional exemption discussed above, smelting furnaces
processing hazardous waste for metals recovery remain subject to the requirements
established under 40 CFR §§266.101 (Management Prior to Burning), and 266.112
(Regulation of Residues). Under §266.101, generators and transporters are subject to 40
CFR §§262 and 263, respectively, and storage facilities are subject to the applicable
provisions of Subparts A-L (General TSD standards and technical storage standards) of 40
CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270.33 Section 266.112 provides that residues from furnaces
processing hazardous waste are not exempt from the definition of a hazardous waste under
§§261.4(b)(4), (7) and (8), (exemptions for special wastes) unless the device meets specific
criteria34 and the hazardous waste does not significantly affect the residue.
Thus, the BIF rule restricts the waste that can be reclaimed and imposes
administrative provisions upon the reclamation process itself.
4.7 Hazardous Waste Manifesting And Transportation
Generators of metal-bearing hazardous wastes are generally subject to manifesting
requirements (40 CFR Parts 262 Subpart B). Generators of spent lead-acid batteries destined
for reclamation or scrap metal destined for recycling are not subject to these requirements.
Generators who are subject to manifest requirements may not have their wastes shipped by
transporters who have not received an EPA hazardous waste identification number (40 CFR
§262.12).
Transporters of hazardous waste are subject to transportation standards in 40 CFR
Part 263. These requirements include obtaining an EPA identification number (40 CFR
263.11), compliance with manifesting requirements (ensuring delivery to designated facility)
(40 CFR §§263.20 and 21) and appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
-------
39
Both the generator and the transporter are subject to Department of Transportation
requirements promulgated under the authority of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(HTMA). For generators these requirements include identifying and classifying waste
according to DOT's Hazardous Materials table (49 CFR §172.101), compliance with
packaging, marking and labeling requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173), determination if
additional shipping requirements are appropriate (49 CFR 49 CFR Parts 174 to 177 and
providing appropriate placards to the transporter (49 CFR §172.506). Transporters are
required to follow applicable DOT regulations listed in 49 CFR Parts 171-179.
Finally, hazardous waste shipped under the manifest are subject to EPA's waste
export regulations found at 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart E. The export regulations require that
EPA and the State Department provide written notice to a country prior to the export of me
waste. The export may proceed only after the receiving country consents to the shipment.
4.8 Summary
Table 4-2, below, summarizes the key regulatory requirements applicable to metals
reclamation operations. As is apparent, metals reclamation is subject to a variety of
requirements under RCRA. These requirements affect most aspects of the process. Key
requirements include those addressing permits, the management of residual wastes such as
slag, and the BIF rule. There is general agreement that the requirements discussed here are
the ones with the greatest impacts on metal recovery.
As discussed above, Subtitle C permits may be required for storage of hazardous
waste prior to reclamation or for the reclamation process itself under industrial furnace
standards. These permit requirements are significant because facilities must expend
significant time and resources to achieve compliance. In addition, permitted units become
subject to corrective action and financial assurance requirements, each of which imposes
additional significant costs upon the permitted operation. However, some smelters have
configured their operations such that hazardous waste is fed directly into the process such
that no storage permit is required.
Similarly, the management of residual slag is important largely because of the costs
and potential liability associated with proper treatment and disposal. Such treatment and
disposal includes compliance with applicable LDR requirements. However, some primary
smelters that process hazardous waste generate slags are that are exempt from regulation as
"Bevill Wastes"35 so long as the character of the slag has not changed as a result of the
hazardous waste used as a feedstock. Finally, the BIF provisions are key requirements
because they may affect metal recovery operations that do not qualify for the exemption for
burning solely for metal recovery.
-------
40
Table 4-2. Key RCRA Provisions Applicable to Metals Reclamation
' • • -'•
., . • •
Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste Generator
Storage
Reclamation
• LDR notice and certification
• 90-Day storage allowed without permit
• Permit required after 90 days (corrective action/financial assurance)
• LDR allows for legitimate accumulation and restricts storage to
tanks, containers, drip pads, accumulation units.
• Storage standards (40 CFR Parts 264, 265)
• BIF waste restrictions and notice, sampling, and recordkeeping
requirements
• '.-',. •
.;: r ^.f^f ;:£^
Transportation
Storage
Reclamation
Reclaimed Product
Reclamation Residual
• Manifest required
• DOT HTMA requirements
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Export requirements
• Permit required
• Corrective action/Financial assurance
• LDR requires legitimate accumulation and restricts storage to tanks,
containers, containment buildings and drip pads
• Storage standards (40 CFR Parts 264, 265)
• BIF waste restrictions and notice, sampling, and recordkeeping
requirements (BIF permit if not conditionally exempt)
» Exempt from regulation where not burned or applied to ground
• K061 Conditional exemption
• Derived-from hazardous waste
• LDR treatment standards & certification
-------
41
Chapter 5 Assessment of Impacts of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation on Metal
Recovery From Hazardous Waste In The United States
This chapter summarizes relevant information on RCRA Subtitle C incentives and
disincentives to metal recovery. Chapter 6 will then present firm-specific case studies of
how RCRA has affected metal recovery operations favorably or unfavorably. To better
understand how RCRA Subtitle C regulation affects metal recovery hi the United States, EPA
has consulted a variety of sources of information and data. Chief among these are Bureau of
Mines Commodity Summaries, economic analyses of RCRA regulations on hazardous waste
recycling, trade association information, and trend data on hazardous waste recycling rates
and landfill tipping fees.
Through discussions with the regulated community as well as economic analysis, EPA
has identified a series of direct RCRA regulatory provisions that appear to have affected
metal recovery of hazardous waste hi the United States. The main provisions are those that
were outlined in Chapter 4 including the derived-from rule, facility-wide corrective action,
permit requirements, and financial assurance. This chapter will try to evaluate the way hi
which these factors impact metal recovery. However, the reader should note that these
provisions perform an important role hi assuring the environmentally sound management of
hazardous wastes in the United States. Thus, the actual or potential disincentives these
provisions may have on metal recovery must be evaluated against the environmental and
other benefits the provisions provide. For example, RCRA pennitting is routinely criticized
for delays and expenses in recovering metals from hazardous wastes. Examination of the
permit process may identify improvements. However, public participation and agency
oversight are two major benefits to the public provided by the permitting process. And while
other means of assuring public participation and agency oversight exist, these alternatives
must be evaluated against permitting to optimize RCRA's dual goals of environmental
protection and resource conservation.
It is also important to recognize that different types of metal-bearing hazardous wastes
each have their own physical and chemical characteristics that may pose different risks and
offer different opportunities for recovery. Because of this flexible policies are necessary to
take advantage of these opportunities for recovery without resulting in an increased risk of
release of hazardous metal constituents to the environment.
To understand the regulatory impacts of RCRA on metal recovery operations, it is
also necessary to assess indirect regulatory and non-regulatory factors that may either
facilitate or limit metal recovery of hazardous wastes. These factors include the technical
and economic feasibility of recovering wastes, the costs of alternative management for metal-
bearing hazardous wastes such as stabilization and landfilling, and the world demand for
metals and metal products. These factors may independently affect decisions by metal
recovery operations to pursue new markets for metal-bearing hazardous wastes or make new
investments hi additional metal recovery capacity.
-------
42
As mentioned in Chapter 1, only a portion of metal-bearing hazardous wastes are
amenable to metal recovery. Certain metal-bearing hazardous wastes may not be amenable
to recovery because of a variety of technical or economic reasons: 1) the wastes do not
contain recoverable levels of metals, 2) the wastes are too contaminated to be processed for
end uses, 3) the wastes contain contaminants that might damage metal recovery operations,
4) there is no known technology for recovering metals from the wastes. Industry estimates
are available on a portion of quantities of metal-bearing hazardous waste that are amenable to
metal recovery. This information is summarized below in Section 5.1.1.5 (Metal Recovery
Coalition). However, the lack of a comprehensive estimate on the total amount of metal-
bearing hazardous waste that is amenable to metal recovery limits EPA's ability to evaluate
how RCRA is affecting metal recovery and how environmentally sound metal recovery can
be encouraged.
»
In addition to the amenability of waste metals to recovery, the cost of hazardous
waste treatment and disposal as an alternative form of management to metal recovery is an
important factor in how much metal recovery of hazardous waste occurs hi the United States.
Hazardous waste treatment and disposal costs are regulatory factors (e.g., treatment and
disposal cost avoided) which may indirectly affect metal recovery by raising the cost of
substitute management. The costs of hazardous waste treatment and disposal are important
determinants of how much a metal recovery operation may charge its customers in user fees
and still remain competitive. As treatment and disposal costs increase due either to
decreasing capacity or increased demand for these services, metal recovery will become more
cost effective as a management alternative. Trends in treatment and disposal costs are
summarized below in Section 5.2.1.
If treatment and landfill prices are important factors of setting metal recovery user
fees, world demand for metal commodities and products are important indicators of revenue
metal recovery operations may derive from the sale of recovered metal products. Markets
for primary metals influence prices paid for secondary and scrap metal. A review of trends
for major metal commodities is summarized later hi this chapter.
5.1 RCRA Regulatory Incentives and Disincentives To Metal Recovery Of Hazardous
Wastes In The United States
This section summarizes information on the type and extent of RCRA regulatory
incentives and disincentives to metal recovery of hazardous waste hi the United States. To
coEect and evaluate this information, EPA utilized two sources of hiformation: trade
association information and economic analysis for recycling completed for EPA during
RCRA Reauthorization hearings in 1991.
-------
43
EPA requested information from 5 trade associations representing generators and
reclaimers of metal-bearing hazardous waste. EPA solicited information on the type and
quantities of wastes generated or recovered by trade association members, how these
materials were managed, how RCRA regulations affected metal recovery of these materials,
and what various approaches might do to encourage or discourage metal recovery. The
information provided is summarized below.
EPA also reviewed an economic analysis completed for the Agency in 1991 on how
treatment and disposal costs in RCRA compared with recycling costs for selected metal-
bearing hazardous wastes.36 This analysis compared three scenarios: current treatment and
disposal costs, current recycling costs, and recycling costs under RCRA with regulatory
modifications that mitigate compliance costs associated with recycling. The conclusions of
this analysis are summarized below in section 5.1.2.
5.1.1 Trade Association Perspectives
As mentioned in Chapter 2, EPA has focused on metal-bearing hazardous wastes that
are currently subject to full Subtitle C regulation. These include steel and electroplating
listed metal-bearing hazardous wastes and spent materials that are solid wastes when
reclaimed such as spent lead acid batteries.37
EPA solicited information from five trade associations representing metal recovery
operations and generators of metal-bearing hazardous waste. These include the Steel
Manufacturers Association/Specialty Steel Industry of the United States (SMA/SSIUS), the
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the National Association of Metal Finishers
(NAMF), the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR), and the Metal Recovery Coalition
(MRC). These trade association responses have provided the Agency with a broad set of
perspectives about how RCRA has affected metal recovery of hazardous waste in the U.S..
A summary of these responses follows.
5.1.1.1. Steel Manufacturers Association/Specialty Steel Industry of the United States
(SMA/SSIUS)
SMA is a trade association representing the carbon steel industry in the United States.
SSIUS represents specialty steel (e.g., stainless steel) manufacturers in the United States.
Together their membership includes 64 firms in the U.S.. There are an additional 7 SMA
members located in Canada and three in Mexico. Most members of these two trade
associations operate electric arc furnaces that use scrap metal as a major portion of their
feedstock.
-------
44
The main hazardous waste streams generated by SMA/SSIUS members are K061,
electric arc furnace dust, and K062, spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations.
SMA/SSIUS state in their response that metallic wastes containing chromium, nickel, lead,
cadmium and zinc generated by their industry are amenable for recovery if the economics
were favorable. Most K062 generated is not amenable for metal recovery because it does
not contain recoverable levels of nickel and chromium.
SMA/SSIUS indicate that the greatest RCRA regulatory disincentives to metal
recovery of hazardous wastes generated in their industry include the "derived-from" rule,
hazardous waste transportation cost (and the lack of adequate metal recovery facilities in the
United States), potential Superfund liability, and the cost of metal recovery compared with
other management options.
SMA/SSIUS state that the derived-from rule has discouraged investment in on- site or
regional recycling operations because of the additional cost of residual management.
SMA/SSIUS also report that hazardous waste transportation cost is also a regulatory
disincentive to metal recovery of steel wastes. SMA/SSIUS report that member companies
spend an average of $650,000 annually in transportation costs to ship K061 off site for
reclamation. The average steel company spends a total of $1.4 million annually to recycle its
K061. SMA/SSIUS believes these costs are the result of the lack of adequate metal recovery
capacity in the United States.
SMA/SSIUS state that potential Superfund liability from metal recovery operations is
a serious disincentive to metal recovery from hazardous wastes. Their response states that
metal recovery is problematic because metal recovery involves a number of byproducts and
intermediate materials which must be managed off-site from the recovery facility. In a
traditional treatment and land disposal management scenario, the entire mass of the waste is
treated and managed in one location. This difference between metal recovery and land
disposal, SMA/SSIUS argue, may raise the risk that generators will become potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) at Superfund sites. They add that metal recovery sites may be at
greater risk for being designated as Superfund sites due to prior contamination from pre-
existing facilities.
In terms of state regulation, SMA/SSIUS claims that Pennsylvania state regulations on
recycling hazardous waste are a disincentive to metal recovery. The State's "PK-4"
regulations, adopted in 1992, may require permits for metal recovery operations (such
operations are subject to storage permit requirements currently under Federal law, generally
the reclamation process itself is exempt from regulation). They add that the State's
interpretation of the scope of hazardous waste regulation over intermediate materials is, in
their view, overly conservative and that inhibits recycling.
-------
45
According to SMA/SSIUS, the opportunity cost to society for environmental
regulation of hazardous waste in the steel industry is less capital available for R&D, higher
steel prices, a less competitive industry in the world market and a trend toward increased
landfilling and disposal for hazardous wastes. SMA/SSIUS recommend setting alternative
regulatory standards for hazardous wastes managed for metal recovery that would include:
1. Elimination of the "derived-from" rule.
2. Retention of the following exemptions from RCRA requirements: for characteristic
sludges and by-products being reclaimed; secondary materials used or reused as
ingredients in production processes, effective substitutes for commercial products or
returned to the original process without being reclaimed.
3. Substitution of self-implementing management standards for "hazardous
reclaimable/recyclable material" (a term to replace "hazardous waste" if the materials
are recycled") for permit requirements. These standards would include contingency
planning, personnel training, release response, off site shipment standards, storage
prior to recovery, notification, recordkeeping, general facility standards, unit-specific
corrective action and financial assurance, and conditional exemption from the
"derived-from" rule for process residuals.
4. Streamlined reporting, recordkeeping and transportation requirements, federal
guidance on the distinction between wastes and products, and treatment and storage.
5. The establishment of incentives (such as tax exemptions, or low interest loans) for
research and development to facilitate development of new metal recovery operations
in the United States.
In response to Agency solicitation of various approaches to encourage environmentally
sound metal recovery, SMA/SSIUS favor conditional exclusions or variances from the
definition of solid waste at the point of insertion of the hazardous waste into a recovery
process. SMA/SSIUS favor this approach over a conditional exclusion at the point of
generation of the waste because they felt that implementation of an exclusion from the point
of generation would be problematic. The latter approach would, SMA/SSIUS feel, compel
EPA to narrowly interpret the exclusion and possibly subject generators to liability if
secondary materials are not managed to meet the terms of the exclusion after they leave the
generator's custody.
SMA/SSIUS generally favored streamlined reporting, recordkeeping and
transportation requirements, Federal guidance on the distinction between wastes and
products, and treatment and storage. SMA/SSIUS also favored the establishment of a
national research and development program to facilitate development of new metal recovery
operations in the United States.
-------
46
5. 1,1.2. American Iron and Steel Institute
AISI represents 33 domestic steel companies located in 25 states. Its members
include 25 integrated steel companies, 2 iron ore producers and a number of electric arc
furnace producers. The main metal-bearing hazardous wastes generated by AISI membership
are K062, spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations, K061, electric arc furnace dust;
and F006, wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations. AISI stated in their
response that the hazardous wastes generated with the greatest potential for recovery include
K062 for iron recovery, D008 (characteristic lead waste) for lead recovery, and F006 for
chromium recovery.
The greatest RCRA regulatory impediments to metal recovery identified by AISI
members are RCRA permits, the "derived-from" rale, and corrective action/financial
assurance. Other RCRA impediments stated include hazardous waste shipping costs and the
90-day storage limit for generators. One AISI company indicates that the derived-from rule
has necessitated the disposal of scale (iron oxides formed on the surface of steel) generated
by pickling as a hazardous waste (K062). The respondent states that this material could be
used as a raw material in an electric arc furnace but that the derived-from rule and EPA
rulings that screening, draining or separating scale constitutes treatment leads to the disposal
of the material.
AISI believes that RCRA permitting requirements discourage metal recovery because
of the time and resources required to complete the process as well as the permit linkage
between permitting and facility-wide corrective action and financial assurance.
Some AISI companies note that metal recovery is problematic because of the lack of
availability of metal recovery operations in the United States. The lack of metal recovery
operations that are geographically proximate to the steel operations necessitates long off-site
shipments which are expensive, given hazardous waste hauler fees. For some firms, mis can
make disposal in local hazardous waste facilities cost-effective.
In discussions with EPA, one AISI member company, National Steel
Corporation/Great Lakes Division indicated that RCRA Subtitle C regulations were a major
contributing factor to the closure of its Detroit facility.38 In 1987 and 1988, the National
Steel facility in Detroit generated about 12,000 tons of K061 emission control dust per year.
The material was disposed of without treatment in a Subtitle C landfill about 45 miles from
Detroit. When treatment standards for K061 went into effect in 1988, treatment and disposal
costs for K061 increased the facility's operating cost substantially. The firm examined
alternatives to land disposal including metal recovery in Pennsylvania. However, National
Steel considered hazardous waste shipping costs associated with this option prohibitive.39 In
part due to increased disposal cost and in part due to rising scrap metal costs (a feedstock of
electric arc furnaces), National Steel made a decision to close the facility. Approximately
500 jobs were lost due to the closure. The facility is currently idle and on the market.
-------
47
AISI states that a fraction of its member companies pay an average of $2.7 million in
RCRA Subtitle C compliance costs annually. They believe that this results hi missed
opportunities for investment hi capital projects and job creation that would permit the U.S.
steel industry to operate more competitively.
Like SMA/SSIUS, AISI has identified Pennsylvania PK-4 regulations as state
disincentives to metal recovery. AISI also identified Michigan's categorization of zinc as a
toxic characteristic waste as a disincentive to metal recovery.
When EPA asked the Institute to respond to alternative proposals to full RCRA
Subtitle C regulation, AISI indicated a preference for a conditional exclusion from the
definition of solid waste at the point of generation. In contrast to SMA/SSIUS, AISI prefers
this exclusion at the point of generation rather than at the point of insertion to a metal
recovery process.
To ensure environmentally sound recycling, AISI proposes that the generator and
recovery operation submit a management plan to EPA with a process description and
safeguards to demonstrate environmental protectiveness. AISI supports minimal management
standards to apply to each plan that would include:
1. Retention of a limit on speculative accumulation.
2. No placement on the land for secondary materials.
3. Air installation and operating permits.
4. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits (for water releases).
5. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
In response to other alternative approaches mentioned by EPA, AISI favors
streamlining of recordkeeping, reporting and transportation requirements. AISI specifically
commented that all Department of Transportation licensed haulers (or state equivalent) should
be allowed to transport metal-bearing secondary materials to a metal recovery facility. The
Institute favors class or generic delistings for process residuals provided an appropriate
measure of hazard can be developed (AISI feels that the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure that EPA currently uses is too conservative).
Other AISI comments to encourage metal recovery of hazardous waste include: 1)
creating a separate Subtitle under RCRA for metal-bearing secondary materials being
reclaimed, 2) separating RCRA permitting requirements from financial assurance and facility-
wide corrective action requirements, and 3) simplifying regulatory requirements for
innovative technologies for metal recovery and reuse.
-------
48
5.1.1.3 National Association of Metal Finishers
The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) represents 699 members in 40
states. NAMF estimates that there are 3300 metal finishing operations nationwide. In
contrast to steel operations, metal finishing operations are smaller in size and more
numerous. The main metal-bearing hazardous waste generated by NAMF members is F006,
wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations. This is a listed hazardous waste
often containing recoverable levels of copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, lead and cadmium.
NAMF members also generate F007, spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating
operations, as well as characteristic lead and cadmium wastes.
NAMF reports that F006 is the waste stream generated by its membership with the
greatest potential for recovery. It estimates that currently about 15 to 20 percent of F006 is
recovered annually. As with other metal-bearing hazardous wastes, NAMF reports that
members make decisions about managing for disposal or recovery based upon two factors:
cost differences between disposal and recovery and the liability risk for disposal versus
recovery.
NAMF believes that metal recovery capacity in the United States is constrained by
high operating costs attributable to RCRA regulation. Because of high hazardous waste
shipping costs, geographic proximity to metal recovery or disposal facilities may be a major
factor in cost comparisons also. NAMF reports that member companies currently spend on
average approximately $36,000 annually in shipping and disposal costs.
Overall, NAMF believes that the greatest RCRA disincentives to metal recovery are
the derived-from rule, the 90-day storage limit for generators, and application of Land
Disposal Restriction treatment standards to plating wastes. NAMF believes mat the derived-
from rule constrains the creation of additional metal recovery capacity hi the United States
and adds to the expense of existing capacity.
The 90-day1 storage limit for generators states that generators have 90 days to store
hazardous wastes in tanks, containers or containment buildings without a permit (40 CFR
§262.34). This is to provide generators with sufficient tune to accumulate sufficient
quantities of materials to ship off-site. NAMF states that this time period is simply not
sufficient for its members to accumulate sufficient waste to make it cost-effective to ship for
reclamation. When disposal facilities are closer than metal recovery operations to member
companies, metal finishers may select disposal over recovery to take advantage of reduced
shipping costs. NAMF believes that longer accumulation tunes at generator sites would
facilitate selection of recovery as an option since the per ton cost of shipment would drop
with larger quantities.
-------
49
The third major RCRA regulatory disincentive to metal reco-very stated by NAMF is
the application of the Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards for F006. These
standards for F006 non-wastewaters specify a concentration level of waste extract for
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and silver. The treatment levels are based on stabilization.
NAMF believes that these treatment standards add substantial volume to the waste leading to
depletion of hazardous waste land disposal capacity. The Association also believes that this
has the effect of discouraging pollution prevention because of the expanded volume of the
waste as well as diverting scarce capital at the site to invest in source reduction alternatives.
In terms of different approaches to encouraging metal recovery in RCRA, NAMF
favors establishing a new Subtitle under RCRA for recovered secondary materials. It also
favors a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste at the point of generation.
The Association favors conditions limited to a one-tune notification and an extended storage
limit on-site.
5.1.1.4 Association of Battery Recyclers/RSR Corporation
To evaluate the effect of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on the spent lead-acid batteries
(SLABs), EPA requested information from the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR).
RSR Corporation, a secondary lead smelter that is not a member of ABR, also submitted a
response to the Agency. Their responses are summarized below. This information will be
compared with other data on SLAB recovery that EPA has analyzed later hi this chapter.
ABR is a trade association composed of member companies that reclaim lead and
plastic from SLABs and other lead-bearing materials. ABR represents 9 member companies
operating 14 facilities in 10 states. According to its response, ABR members recycle about
80 million batteries annually. ABR states that lead paint remediation wastes are the metal-
bearing secondary materials with the greatest potential for recovery that are not being
recovered now. ABR believes that in order to recover these materials that their supply
would have to be ensured through regulation leading to their mandated removal or
remediation.
When asked about which RCRA Subtitle C regulatory provisions were the greatest
impediments to metal recovery, ABR states that the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
requirements, state determinations regarding the status of partially-reclaimed materials and
RCRA Part B permitting costs have been the most problematic. According to ABR, LDR
.requirements either have or will substantially raise member companies operating costs by
requiring retrofitting of current storage areas to meeting containment building standards40
for secondary containment and leak detection. ABR also believes that LDR will substantially
increase residual management costs to its members through increased treatment/stabilization
costs for characteristic slag. ABR believes that this will also adversely affect the Nation's
hazardous waste landfill capacity.
-------
50
ABR states that a lack of uniformity in state regulatory determinations on the status of
partially-reclaimed secondary lead-bearing materials is a major regulatory impediment in lead
recovery from hazardous wastes.41 According to ABR, differing state regulatory
interpretations on whether or not lead-bearing secondary materials are or are not solid wastes
(and hazardous wastes) discourage environmentally sound metal recovery by confusing and
frustrating generators of lead-bearing secondary materials frequently leading them to select
alternatives to metal recovery (e.g., export for recovery, disposal or treatment).
ABR believes that Part B permit compliance costs also represent a serious impediment
to battery recovery. The time and transaction costs associated with obtaining the permit limit
the amount of revenue available for secondary smelters to invest in new capacity or
technological innovation. ABR estimates that member companies have expended on average
$900,000 to $1 million per facility to prepare and obtain a RCRA Part B permit. Labor
costs to administer the permit are estimated at $400,000 to $700,000 per permit. Finally,
capital investments associated with retrofit and/or new construction of containment buildings
are estimated between $750,000 to over $1 million per facility. ABR estimates that total
RCRA compliance costs since 1989 at $6 million per facility for some ABR members. EPA
has not verified these estimates.
In addition to LDR, uncertain state regulatory determinations regarding partially-
reclaimed materials, and Part B permit requirements, ABR identified a number of other
Federal environmental statutes that may impose regulatory disincentives to metal recovery.
The most significant of these is Superfund. ABR notes the time and expense invested by
generators and owner/operators of secondary smelters to minimize the risk of Superfund
liability. ABR describes on-site audits of recovery facilities and protracted negotiations
between generators and recovery facilities, as well as lending institutions concerns about
lender liability. Other Federal environmental statutory programs that ABR mentioned as
potentially impeding increased recycling include:
• potential .more stringent pretreatment requirements for metals following Clean Water
Act Reauthorization,
• hazardous air pollutant (HAP) testing and associated uncertain compliance costs with
Clean Air Act implementation,
• potential changes to Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) standards (ABR is concerned
mat this might cause EPA to modify the Toxicity Characteristic level for lead which .
is based in part upon SWDA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which could affect
their residuals such as slag).
-------
51
In response to EPA questions about alternative approaches to regulating metal
recovery of hazardous waste, ABR generally favors class or generic exclusions for process
residuals (e.g., slag). The Association states that some of its members support the concept
of case-by-case RCRA facility standards applicable to individual facilities. Other ABR
members feel that such self-implementing standards are difficult to administer. ABR
believes that Federal guidelines on distinguishing recycling from treatment and/or storage are
of little value if states retain authority to promulgate more stringent requirements.
Although not a member of ABR, RSR Corporation is a major recovery firm of
SLABs and other lead-bearing materials. RSR requested an opportunity to provide input into
this report. RSR operates 3 facilities in 3 states. RSR processes 412,000 tons of SLABs,
approximately one out of every three in the United States. RSR also processes 20,000 tons
of other lead-bearing materials. The company recovers lead from its process.
RSR believes that uncertainty regarding the regulatory status of partially-reclaimed
materials and the derived-from rule are the major regulatory impediments in RCRA to metal
recovery. RSR states that designating sulfur and chloride impurities removed from K069,
emission control dust from secondary lead smelting, as K069 itself because of the derived-
rule will interfere with beneficial lead recovery. The company believes that the K069
designation of these impurities will create an incentive to leave these materials in the K069
that is reinserted into secondary lead smelters.
RSR asserts that this will frustrate pollution prevention because the company believes
that substantial quantities (1300 to 2500 tons per year) of sulfur dioxide emissions will not be
removed from the environment and the presence of these contaminants will contribute to the
premature wear of RSR equipment due to acid damage from the impurities. RSR believes
the RCRA Section 3001 exemptions for waste generated by primary smelthig facilities are
also serious impediments to metal recovery of hazardous waste.
RSR feels that most of the alternative approaches discussed by EPA would do little to
encourage additional metal recovery of secondary lead-bearing materials. RSR feels that the
definition of solid waste itself fundamentally overregulates secondary materials and that a
major structural change hi the definition is required. RSR has specifically recommended that
EPA modify one of its exclusions to the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR §261.2(e)(iii)12
to include secondary operations. RSR proposes also that pretreatment, e.g., removal of
impurities, should not constitute reclamation.
5.1.1.5 Metals Recovery Coalition
The Metals Recovery Coalition (MRC) is an affinity group of metal recovery firms hi
the United States. MRC includes 28 firms operating more than 150 facilities hi 48 states.
MRC was formed in April of 1992 to lobby Congress and EPA for statutory and regulatory
reform during RCRA reauthorization. MRC member companies process both hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes and secondary metal materials.
-------
52
f
Two of the larger companies in the group are involved primarily in recovering
emission control dust from electric arc furnaces (K061, a listed hazardous waste) for the steel
industry. Other hazardous wastes recovered include electroplating sludge, nickel-cadmium
batteries, and K062 spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations. MRC has identified a
series of metal-bearing secondary materials that are amenable to recovery and are not
currently being recovered. A partial list of estimated quantities generated includes:
electroplating sludge 900,000 tons/yr
surface finishing wastes 500,000 tons/yr
brass foundry materials 300,000 tons/yr
ferrous foundries 200,000 tons/yr
materials
galvanizing wastes 50,000 tons/yr
spent chromium
refractories 25,000+ tons/yr
nickel-cadmium batteries 10,000-20,000 tons/yr
chromium leather
tanning wastes 10,000 tons/yr
superalloy slags 5,000 tons/yr
metal catalysts 500-1000 tons/yr
ni-cd battery product
sludges 450 tons/yr
* chromium tailings 60,000 tons/yr
MRC believes mat to actually recover these materials several regulatory modifications
would be required. MRC believes that recovery of secondary materials is really a
manufacturing process rather than a waste management activity. As such, MRC believes that
legitimate metal recovery operations should be exempt from RCRA Subtitle C and regulated
in a similar manner to "other manufacturing operations".
MRC believes that the derived-from rule, discussions of "sham recycling" and the
stigma of hazardous waste designation inhibit recovery of these materials. MRC believes
that the derived-from rule discourages the utilization of non-hazardous materials (e.g., slag)
for beneficial uses such as construction materials. MRC believes that "sham recycling" (the
concept that a facility is conducting treatment and claiming to recycle) is an idea developed
by the treatment and disposal industry to retain market share over recyclers.
MRC regards the derived-from rule, Part B treatment permit requirements in some
states, and facility-wide corrective action as the three greatest RCRA disincentives to metal
recovery. Other disincentives cited include stigma, legitimacy determinations (sham
recycling), Part B storage permit requirements and Land Disposal Restriction requirements.
According to MRC, the derived-from rule has the potential to make the economics of
metal recovery from hazardous wastes prohibitive. If applied to all metal recovery residues,
at an average of $300 to $350 per ton, hazardous waste landfilling costs would translate into
millions of dollars of additional operating costs for firms.
-------
53
In addition to the added operating cost, MRC believes that the derived-from rule acts
as disincentive to metal recovery because it results in continuing risk of potential liability
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) also known as Superfund.43
MRC states that Part B treatment permit requirements are serious disincentives to
metal recovery. Although the federal RCRA program does not require a permit for the
recycling process, treatment permit requirements may be a potential concern in one of two
ways. First, the appropriate state regulatory agency may regulate the recycling process more
stringently than the Federal government. North Carolina currently requires permits for
recycling operations. Pennsylvania has also promulgated regulations that will require
treatment permits for metal recovery operations (the PK-4 regulations). The second way that
a metal recovery operation may become subject to a Part B treatment permit is if the state or
Federal regulatory agency determines that a process is not legitimate. That is, if a recovery
operation is believed to be really doing treatment and the recycling is incidental or sham, a
treatment permit may be required.
MRC estimates of Part B treatment permit costs are between $250,000 to $800,000
per facility. MRC believes that many of RCRA Subtitle C treatment and storage permit
requirements are duplicative of Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act regulations. MRC states
that both costs and time delays of obtaining a permit for a new facility are potential
problems. Or if new permit requirements are added for existing facilities, this is problematic
if space is not available on-site.
MRC states that facility-wide corrective action is the third greatest RCRA regulatory
disincentive to metal recovery. MRC believes that facility-wide corrective action may
discourage a decision to invest hi a new metal recovery facility or to site a facility in an
existing manufacturing site. MRC believes that a regulatory disincentive to site a facility in
an existing manufacturing site is environmentally unsound (presumably because the damage
caused by a release to the environment hi a pristine area is greater than in an industrial
park). MRC believes that this discourages investment in urban enterprise zones where job
creation and expansion of the tax base are needed.
MRC has summarized the opportunity cost to the United States from RCRA
regulatory compliance costs as lost metal recovery capacity, lost investment hi capital
projects and associated job creation hi the metal industry. Additional opportunity cost, MRC
believes, is the reluctance of metal-bearing hazardous waste generators to support expansion
of new metal recovery technologies due to regulatory consequences. MRC
believes that generators of electric arc furnace dust, K061, feel that because the technology
to recover the dust preceded its listing as a hazardous waste that the technology led to the
regulation. MRC believes that generators will be reluctant to support new recovery
technologies if they lead to new regulations.
-------
54
In response to various alternative approaches to managing metal-bearing hazardous
wastes, MRC reiterated its basic belief that metal recovery is a manufacturing process rather
than a form of waste management. As such, it favors an unconditional exclusion from the
definition of solid waste. However, if a conditional exclusion is the selected alternative,
MRC proposes minimal notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for generators
and metal recovery operations. Specific requirements MRC would support include:
• one time notification from generators/reclaimers stating that they are claiming the
exclusion,
• notification from generators/reclaimers for speculative accumulation for more than a
specified time between generation and shipment or receipt and processing,
• recordkeeping by generators stating quantities of secondary materials generated, time
between generation and shipment, destination of shipment of secondary materials;
recordkeeping by reclaimers stating quantities and sources of materials received, time
period between receipt and processing, quantities of metal or metal equivalent
recovered.
MRC believes that this set of conditions would allow EPA to detect sham recycling
operations without undue intrusion into secondary metal recovery. MRC would not apply the
derived-from rule to metal recovery process residues. With respect to other alternative
regulatory approaches, MRC comments that use of self-implementing standards such as
permit-by-rale provisions are less helpful man a conditional exclusion from regulation but
preferable to full permitting. MRC favors Federal guidelines or rales to delineate between
recycling and treatment or recycling and storage.
5.1.1.6 Summary and Analysis of Trade Association Information
In general, trade association's identified the following as the most significant RCRA
regulatory impediments to metal recovery: the derived-from rule, RCRA Part B permitting
(storage or treatment), facility-wide corrective action, hazardous waste shipping costs, LDR
treatment requirements and prohibitions on storage of restricted waste. Additionally,
generator respondents commented that the 90 day storage limit for storing hazardous wastes
in tanks or containers was not sufficient to encourage metal recovery.
With respect to alternative regulatory approaches for managing metal-bearing
secondary materials, respondents generally favor conditional exclusions from the definition of
solid waste applying either at the point of the waste's generation or at the point of its
insertion into a metal recovery process. Respondents support limited conditions on the
exclusion including some form of notification or reporting tied to a quantity and time limit to
prohibit long term storage of recoverable materials. Some respondents supported further
management standards.
-------
55
Self-implementing management standards still subject to RCRA regulation are
generally regarded as a less desirable alternative to conditional exclusions from regulation,
but still preferable to full Part B permitting. Reaction to Federal guidelines distinguishing
between recycling and treatment or recycling and storage is mixed. Some respondents feel
that such guidance is part of other approaches such as conditional exclusions. Others feel
that such guidance is a minor fix to what is a more fundamental problem with the definition
of solid waste.
All respondents were reluctant to identify RCRA provisions that they believed were
beneficial to environmentally sound metal recovery. However, when asked to compare
disposal costs with recovery costs, some respondents acknowledged that increasing disposal
and treatment costs due to RCRA have made metal recovery a more attractive alternative.
Metal recovery of secondary materials before and after RCRA regulations went into effect
will be summarized later in this chapter.
5.1.2 Economic Analysis of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation On Selected Metal-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes
In March 199144, EPA finalized a study commissioned by the Agency on the
economics of recycling and treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes to determine which
management alternative was most cost-effective under RCRA Subtitle C. As part of this
project, the Agency directed economic analysis on recycling with regulatory modifications to
determine whether or not these changes to RCRA Subtitle would provide any additional
incentive to recycle hazardous wastes.
The study included 4 metal-bearing hazardous wastes45- F006 wastewater treatment
sludge from electroplating operations, FOOT spent plating baths from electroplating
operations, K061 emission control dust from electric arc furnaces in secondary steel
production, K062 spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations- in the analysis. As
mentioned above, the study included analysis of three scenarios: base treatment and disposal,
recycling under current regulations, recycling with regulatory modifications. For recycling
with regulatory modifications, the study analyzed four possible regulatory modifications:
1) permit-by-rule; recyclers are subject to self-implementing management standards
without being subject to permits (either for storage or BIF requirements),
2) corrective action waiver; recycling operations will be exempt from corrective action
requirements unless they have other units requiring a RCRA permit on-site,
3) derived-from rule exemption; residues from recycling operations would not be deemed
hazardous unless the residues themselves are listed or exhibit a toxicity characteristic,
-------
56
4) storage pile exemption; storage piles prior to recycling are not subject to Land
Disposal Restriction standards as long as the EPA Administrator deems the storage
area sufficient to prevent releases to the environment.
The purpose of the analysis was to determine whether or not recycling is or could be
a cost-effective management alternative for selected hazardous wastes. This summary of the
study focuses on four major listed metal-bearing hazardous wastes to ascertain whether or not
the RCRA Subtitle C regulations currently provide incentives for metal recovery. This
summary also critiques study's conclusions regarding the additional incentives provided by
regulatory modifications for selected metal-bearing hazardous wastes.
The study identified several important limitations46 in its methodology including
limited review of recycling technologies selected for the analysis, impacts of non-economic
factors on metal recovery (including technical feasibility), and whether or not pollution
prevention may be a more cost-effective alternative. In addition, EPA's review during
completion of this report of the study indicates several mistaken assumptions of metal
recovery processes.47 Notwithstanding these qualifications, the study provides valuable
insight into the issue of how RCRA Subtitle C regulations affect metal recovery of hazardous
wastes.
In contrast to the trade association information described above which emphasized the
ways that RCRA regulation constrains metal recovery, the study showed that under RCRA
Subtitle C regulation that metal recovery is more cost-effective than treatment and disposal
for the listed metal-bearing hazardous wastes under review. The analysis also concluded that
the recycling with regulatory modifications being proposed would provide additional
incentives for metal recovery of hazardous wastes from the steel industry, K061 and K062,
but not the electroplating industry, F006 and F007. However, as mentioned below, EPA
believes recycling with regulatory modifications may benefit off-site recovery of
electroplating wastes.
The study modeled cost comparisons for three facility sizes (small, intermediate, and
large) for each of the waste streams selected. Each size facility was assumed to use a
specific form of treatment/disposal and metal recovery depending upon the economics of the
recovery process. With one exception48, for the 4 metal-bearing hazardous wastes included
in the analysis, metal recovery under current RCRA Subtitle C regulation is more cost-
effective than traditional treatment or disposal for all size facilities and processes. This
finding also included facilities which had sunk (i.e., invested) capital in base case treatment
systems.
-------
57
The study's examination of regulatory modifications indicates that the modifications
considered would benefit steel wastes more than electroplating wastes. The study assumed in
its analysis that electroplating operations will manage rinsewaters in tanks that are exempt
from permits and that therefore permit and corrective action (which is tied to permits)
regulatory modifications will not facilitate metal recovery of plating wastes. The study
concluded that these operations will also either not produce a residual or the residual will be
characteristically toxic so that in either case an exemption from the derived-from rule will
not make metal recovery more cost effective. Finally, since plating rinsewaters are not
stored in piles, the storage waste pile exemption would not facilitate metal recovery of these
wastes.
By contrast, the study concluded that metal recovery for K062, spent pickle liquor
from steel finishing operations, would be encouraged by either permit-by-rule or corrective
action exemptions. The study concluded that a derived-from rale exemption would not
facilitate K062 recovery because the recycling residuals would still exhibit the toxicity
characteristic. The study concludes that metal recovery of K061 would benefit from any of
the regulatory modifications. The study's analysis regarding the benefit of possible regulatory
modifications requires some clarification. The study's conclusions about the limited benefits
of regulatory modifications for electroplating wastes are based on an assumption that these
wastes would be managed using on-site recovery processes. If plating wastes are shipped
off-site for recovery and prior storage is required, the regulatory modifications could provide
substantial benefit as the study has concluded they would for off-site recovery of K061,
electric arc furnace dust. In addition, any pyrometallurgieal recovery of plating wastes is
likely to produce a residual such as slag. This type of recovery would benefit from a
derived-from rule exemption provided the slag is not characteristically toxic.
In evaluating the potential cost savings relative to total management costs from four
regulatory modifications, the study concluded that generally changes to permitting
requirements and a derived-from rule exemption would not be sufficient to change the
relative economics of treatment and disposal in favor of recycling if treatment and disposal
were more cost-effective to begin with.49 The study also concluded that small facilities
would benefit more relative to large facilities from such modifications.
In contrast, the study concluded that a corrective action exemption would provide a
strong incentive for recycling particularly for small facilities. The storage waste pile
exemption was determined to be beneficial for affected wastes but of limited applicability
since many wastes are not managed in piles.
On important question raised by the study's main conclusion is if metal recovery is
more cost-effective than treatment and disposal under RCRA currently, why aren't recovery
rates for wastes such as F006 higher than 15 to 20 percent?50 There are several possible
responses to this question.
-------
58
First, it is possible that only a small portion of a particular metal-bearing waste
stream is technically amenable for recovery. In the case of F006, a large portion of the
wastestream may contain too much organic content such as oil and grease to be effectively
recovered. If this is the case, then the recovery rate of F006 that is technically amenable for
pcovery could be much greater than the recovery rate for all F006 that is generated. A
second possibility is that metal recovery operations are less commercially available relative to
treatment and disposal facilities. If so, then additional shipping costs for distant metal
recovery could offset the cost advantages of metal recovery. Finally, the study suggests that
noneconomic factors may influence waste management decisions:
"This high cost of base case treatment/disposal to meet the newly promulgated land disposal
restrictions standards provides an incentive for waste generators to find other methods of waste
management. Given the fact that recycling under current regulatory conditions is economical,, there must be
other noneconomic factors influencing facility waste management decisions. Potential factors affecting
waste management decisions may include inertia, inadequate investment capital, recent technological
advancements not widely known, unavailable or fluctuating markets for recycled materials, concerns about
the quality of recycled materials, and issues of product specification. In addition, for facilities with sunk
capital that are only incurring the cost of operation and maintenance, the economics of recycling may not be
favorable due to the initial capital investment required for the recycling system."51
5.1.3 Conclusions on Regulatory Incentives and Disincentives To Metal Recovery
Viewing the trade association information and economic analysis presented in this
section, it appears that RCRA Subtitle C regulation has both incentives and disincentives on
metal recovery of hazardous waste.52 Trade association information submitted indicates that
the regulated community believes that several Subtitle C provisions including the derived
from rule, RCRA Subtitle C permitting, facility-wide corrective action and hazardous waste
shipping costs may be limiting factors on maximizing opportunities for additional metal
recovery capacity in the United States. The study that EPA commissioned on the economics
of recycling indicates that RCRA Subtitle C also has a favorable effect of encouraging metal
recovery by increasing treatment and disposal costs for metal bearing hazardous waste (this is
discussed further in Section 5.2). This mixed impact of RCRA incentives and disincentive is
consistent with EPA's case studies of metal recovery operations presented in Chapter 6.
Case study respondents indicated mixed impacts of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on their
operation. Some respondents indicated mild impacts; others, more serious. The net effect of
RCRA Subtitle C regulatory incentives and disincentives is assessed in Section 5.2.
5.2 Indirect Regulatory and Non-regulatory Factors Affecting Metal Recovery
Operations In The United States
To properly assess the effect of RCRA Subtitle C regulations on metal recovery of
hazardous wastes, it is critical to understand the indirect impact of RCRA Subtitle C on
metal recovery through creating markets for metal recovery as an alternative to traditional
treatment and land disposal of metal-bearing hazardous wastes. It is equally important to
assess the international and domestic demand for metal commodities to assess the
marketability of recovered materials from metal recovery operations.
-------
59
This section will summarize trend data and the current status of these two factors and
how they affect metal recovery operations in the United States. In Section 5.3, the net effect
of RCRA Subtitle C regulation and other factors will be evaluated in terms of their impact on
metal recovery of hazardous wastes.
5.2.1 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Costs
Essentially, metal recovery of hazardous wastes can be considered a substitute for
traditional hazardous waste treatment (primarily stabilization) and land disposal. Because
they are substitutes, metal recovery will be more attractive to the generator as treatment and
land disposal become more expensive. Conversely, metal recovery will be less competitive
if less expensive forms of treatment and disposal become available. A generator of
hazardous waste will presumably seek to limit his waste management costs and long term
liability.
From the perspective of the metal recovery operation, generators can be charged user
fees up to the point where the user fee equals the comparable tipping charge at a treatment,
storage or disposal facility (TSDF). All other factors constant, if the user fee exceeds the
tipping fee, generators will elect to dispose rather than ship their wastes for metal recovery.
The exception is for limited metal-bearing hazardous wastes that have recovery specified as
their treatment standard under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR). As mentioned
previously, LDR specify treatment levels for restricted wastes prior to their disposal on the
land (40 CFR Part 268). Although usually the specified treatment is a performance level for
either the waste extract (i.e., leachate) or waste concentration itself (i.e., total levels), for
selected metal-bearing hazardous wastes such as nickel-cadmium batteries, spent lead acid
batteries and high-category mercury wastes, the LDR specifies recovery as the treatment
standard. For these latter wastes, even if tipping fees for treatment and disposal are less
expensive than recovery, these wastes must still be recovered because of the LDR.
In the past, metal recovery projects may have been constrained due to low tipping
fees for treatment and disposal. For example, hi 1986 one feasibility study on the economics
of citing a central recovery facility to process plating wastes in Missouri concluded that the
facility could not operate profitably because the user fee it would have to charge to become
profitable would be substantially higher than the transportation cost and disposal costs of
shipping the wastes to a locally located Subtitle C landfill53. This study was completed
prior to the promulgation of LDR treatment standards for plating wastes. It is likely that the
economics would change substantially if treatment costs were factored into the analysis.
Data and economic analysis indicate that land disposal and treatment costs have
increased substantially over the last ten years. The treatment and disposal costs avoided
when hazardous wastes are managed for metal recovery are a powerful regulatory incentive
to recover rather than dispose of wastes.
-------
60
One report indicates that hazardous waste treatment and disposal costs increased from
an average of $153 per ton in 1984 to an average of $239 per ton in 1990.54 This report
projects that hazardous waste treatment and disposal costs would increase to an average of
$384 per ton by 1995. A 1990 commercial survey summarized as a final report in My 1992
for EPA indicates that most of the increase in this cost is treatment cost (stabilization).55
Survey respondents in the report indicated significant increases in wastes going for
stabilization since 1987. The report attributes this increase to LDR treatment standards for
heavy metals and states that there is near unanimous agreement among surveyed firms that
this is the case.56 The report also attributes most of the increase in stabilization cost to
LDR treatment standards that compel more expensive stabilization processes to attain the
standards.57
Trend data indicates that increases in hazardous waste management costs will continue
to increase. Annualized hazardous waste compliance costs are projected to increase from $
1.725 billion in 1987 to $ 12.062 billion by the year 2000.58
The report 1990 Commercial Survey of Selected Firms In The Hazardous Waste
Management Industry cited earlier included 4 metal recovery firms operating 5 facilities. In
addition to attributing increases in stabilization costs to LDR treatment standards, the report
states that:
"Waste volumes going to metal recovery have increased substantially since-1987 as LDRs raised
the cost of waste management involving land disposal. Air pollution control dusts from primary steel
production in electric arc furnaces (RCRA waste code K061) were responsible for most of the increase.
LDRs for characteristic metal wastes and metal finishing wastes (e.g., electroplating waste sludges) also
contributed to this growth.59
The report continues that metal recovery will experience a dramatic increase in
quantities of wastes processed. The report states that the reasons for the expected growth
are: 1) LDRs will continue to increase the cost of conventional hazardous waste treatment
and land disposal, 2) hazardous waste landfill capacity will decrease creating an incentive to
look for alternatives, 3) waste generators believe metal recovery will lower liability concerns,
and 4) municipal waste regulations will force manufacturers of metal-bearing waste streams
such as spent nickel-cadmium batteries to take back these materials and manage them as
hazardous wastes.
Some survey respondents in the report noted that some metal recovery operations still
have difficulty in competing in price with stabilization and landfilling.60 However, survey
respondents identified metals recovery as a growth market more frequently than any other
form of treatment or resource recovery listed hi their response.61
-------
61
As mentioned previously at the beginning of this chapter and this report, it should be
noted that increasing treatment and disposal costs, while important regulatory incentives for
metal recovery of hazardous waste, cannot ensure that additional metal recovery will occur.
To reiterate, some metal-bearing hazardous wastes are simply not amenable to recovery
either technically or economically. In other cases, metal recovery operations may not be
geographically proximate to generators so that increased hazardous waste transportation costs
to metal recovery operations may offset any price advantage that the recovery operation
offers over treatment and disposal. Notwithstanding this qualification, it appears empirically
that increased treatment and disposal cost are largely responsible for increased recovery of
hazardous waste since 1980.
5.2.2 Metal Prices In The United States and Their Relationship To Metal Recovery of
Hazardous Waste
Metal reclamation operations that recover metals from hazardous waste can derive
revenue from two sources, user fees and earnings from the sale of recovered metals. User
fee revenues from generators of hazardous wastes are dependent in part upon the price of
substitute treatment and disposal services. This was discussed in the previous section.
Similarly, earnings from the sale of recovered metals is dependent upon the world market
demand for metal commodities. This section reviews trends in U.S. metal prices from the
mid-1970's before RCRA hazardous waste regulations were promulgated to 1990 when the
most recent metal recovery data are available.
It is important to understand U.S. metal prices during this time frame for the
following reason. In order to determine the net effects of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on
metal recovery of hazardous waste, independent non-regulatory factors, such as U.S. metal
prices, that may either encourage or discourage metal recovery of hazardous waste need to
be evaluated. To the extent possible, the magnitude of non-regulatory factors must be
assessed relative to other factors such as RCRA Subtitle C regulation.
Several considerations concerning U.S. metal prices and metal recovery of hazardous
waste are hi order. First, the type of secondary metal materials recovered from hazardous
waste are often materials that have been partially reclaimed but need to be reclaimed further.
These materials may be metal concentrates or intermediate materials which would require
additional smelting or processing to complete the reclamation process. For example, a metal
recovery operation may produce a zinc or lead concentrate from a metal-bearing hazardous
waste such as K061 that must undergo further processing.
Thus, U.S. metal prices do not directly translate into the price paid for the secondary
metal intermediates and concentrates that often come from metal recovery operations
although the two types of prices are related. Primary concentrates and intermediates compete
with and substitute for secondary metal intermediates and concentrates in the production of
metal commodities. Independent economic factors can influence the demand for each type of
material in producing the metal commodity.
-------
62
Of course, when a metal recovery operation does produce a completely reclaimed
material, the link between U.S. metal prices and revenue that the metal recovery operation
derives from the sale of its products is a direct one. An example of the latter scenario are
the metals produced at the U.S. Filter Recovery Services facility in Minneapolis, MN (the
case study of this facility is presented in the next chapter). The electrowinned nickel from
U.S. Filter Recovery Services is completely reclaimed and does not require further
processing.62 This material will compete with other secondary materials such as nickel
scrap as substitutes for primary copper and nickel metal.
A second consideration in evaluating U.S. metal prices and metal recovery of
hazardous waste pertains to the type of wastes reclaimed and the metal commodities
themselves. The range of commodity prices for metals is quite wide. Looking at average
1993 commodity prices for metals typically reclaimed from hazardous waste in Table 5.1,
one can see that expected revenue from metal recovered from hazardous waste depends as
much on the types of metals present in the waste as it does upon the concentration of the
metals.
Table 5.1 Average 1993 Metal Commodity Prices
Metal
Silver
Nickel
Copper
Cadmium
Zinc
Lead
ton Scrap
Chromium
Average 1993 Commodity Price Per Unit (London
Metals Exchange Unless Otherwise Indicated)
$4.20/troy ounce (New York)
$2.33/lb
87C/lb
450(New York)
440/lb
18C/lb
4.8C/lb (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia,
Chicago)
2.70/lb (South Africa), 4.9C/lb(Turkey)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries 1994.
If the metals recovered from the hazardous waste are completely reclaimed, they may
sell for 80 to 90 percent of the world commodity price. If the metals recovered is an
intermediate or concentrate, its value will be much less as a percentage of the world
commodity price.
The degree of the incentive or disincentive of U.S. metal prices on the metal recovery
of hazardous waste depends upon a number of factors including: 1) the proportion of
revenue derived from the sale of recovered metals versus the revenue derived from user fees,
2) the average total cost per pound of recovering the metals, 3) the concentration and type of
metals present hi the waste, and 4) the type and concentration of impurities in the waste.
-------
63
Other things being equal, U.S. metal prices will have a greater effect upon metal
recovery operations that reclaim metals from homogenous materials that are relatively
constant in composition such as spent-lead acid batteries where the commodity (lead) is of
relatively high concentration and consistent quality. Historically, the recovery rates of these
batteries has been closely correlated with the world price of lead (it should be noted however
that this is currently not the case)63.
For metal recovery operations that reclaim metals from industrial sludges, by-products
and spent materials, these metal-bearing hazardous wastes are often variable hi terms of the
type and concentration of recoverable metal constituents and impurities. Often, metal
reclaimers set specifications that may limit the recoverability of a large portion of specific
waste stream that is too contaminated with impurities or too low in recoverable metals to be
reclaimed.
Even if a metal is amenable to recovery, it may only be marketable for a lower value
end use, e.g., one not requiring high levels of purity. In these situations, U.S. metal prices
may not affect metal recovery in exactly the same way as it would if the recovered metal
were fit for a wider variety of higher value end uses. Also, U.S. prices of lower grade
metals (i.e. those with lower levels of purity) closely track prices for higher grade metals
because lower grade metal prices are discounted from the higher grade metals.
Notwithstanding these considerations, U.S. metal prices is an important contributing
factor influencing metal recovery of hazardous waste. This review of U.S. metal prices will
focus on commodities most commonly recovered from hazardous wastes: copper, lead, zinc,
nickel.
The price for metal commodities in the United States depends upon both the supply
and demand or production and consumption of metals domestically and abroad. In general,
when supply of a commodity is constant, changes in the price of the commodity are directly
proportional to changes in demand to the commodity. So that, for example, if production of
a metal is constant, an increase in the demand of lead will cause an increase in the price of
the metal; a decrease in demand will cause a price decrease. In contrast, when demand is
constant, the price of a metal is generally inversely proportional to its supply. In other
words, if the demand for a metal remains constant, an increase in the production of the metal
will decrease the price; a decrease in production will lead to a price increase.
After a post-World War II boom, world metal demand began to slow in the mid-
1970's.64 Actual trends in world metal consumption for copper, lead, zinc and nickel
lagged far behind projected trends. Average annual growth rates in world consumption
between 1979 and 1987 for these commodities were 0.7, 0.0, 0.9, and 1.5 percent
respectively. By comparison, the rates between 1960 and 1973 were 4.8, 4.2, 5.6 and 6.4
percent,65 Growth rates were even lower in the OECD countries.
-------
64
The origins of this trend began hi the Energy Crisis of 1973 and subsequent world
recession. World metal production actually increased during the 1970's in spite of the slow
down in world consumption. This depressed the world price of metals and minerals due to
oversupply.66
To respond to depressed market conditions, metal producers made economic
adjustments including cutting production and closing inefficient operations. Labor costs were
reduced through layoffs and wage reductions. By 1986 and 1987, markets for metal had
improved dramatically. According to the National Research Council, between 1986 and
1988, the value of raw mineral materials produced in the United States has doubled from
$5.8 billion to $10.4 billion.67 Factors contributing to the recovery include the economic
adjustments described above and increased world metal demand resulting from economic
recovery. During this time period, the average annual growth rate in world consumption of
copper, lead, nickel and zinc was 2.5, 1.6, 5.6, and 3.4 percent respectively.68
To more specifically analyze trends in domestic metal prices and their relationship to
metal recovery of hazardous waste, EPA has looked at price information provided by the
Bureau of Mines69 for four metals: copper, lead, nickel and zinc. The Agency has looked
at price information over three five year periods: 1976 to 1980, 1981 to 1985 and 1986 to
1990. This information is summarized hi Table 5.2 below.
The 1976 to 1980 period represents a period prior to promulgation of RCRA
hazardous waste regulations when secondary materials could be discarded inexpensively
without extensive liability or cost considerations. The 1981 to 1985 period represents the
period when RCRA regulations were in force prior to enactment of the land disposal
restriction (LDR) program. Generators of metal-bearing hazardous wastes could dispose of
these wastes in landfills, surface impoundments or deep wells without being subject to
treatment standards. This period also represents a period of world recession and staggered
economic growth. The 1986 to 1990 period represents the period when RCRA
reauthorization was complete and the LDR program was put into effect. Metal-bearing
hazardous wastes became subject to treatment standards added to the expense of their
disposal. As mentioned above this period was also when mining and metal producers cut
production and world demand increased stimulating higher prices.
Data indicate that commodity prices hi the United States for metals commonly
recovered from hazardous wastes decreased hi the early to mid-1980s hi response to the
factors of oversupply and economic recession mentioned above. These prices increased hi
the late 1980's due to world recovery and closure of inefficient operations. Data in Table
5.2 indicates that the real price of copper, lead, nickel and zinc hi the United States was as
high or higher hi the mid to late 1970's before RCRA than hi the late 1980's when RCRA
regulations were in place.
-------
65
Because of data limitations for metal recovery rates of hazardous waste during the
1980 to 1989 period, assessing the strength of the recent increase in U.S. metal prices
relative to increased treatment and disposal costs as an incentive to metal recovery of
hazardous waste is difficult. To some extent, the relative strength of each factor depends
upon the material recovered and the presence of other factors than U.S. metal prices and
treatment and disposal costs. Available data will be analyzed in Section 5.3.
Table 5.2 U.S. Metal Prices For Selected Metals Between 1976 and 1990
Commodity/Time
Period
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Tune Period
1976 to 1980
1981 to 1985
1986 to 1990
1976 to 1980
1981 to 1985
1986 to 1990
1976 to 1980
1981 to 1985
1986 to 1990
1976 to 1980
1981 to 1985
1986 to 1990
Average Real Price
Based on Constant
1987 Dollars
($/lb)70
1.262
0.844
0.997
0.578
0.297
0.345
3.79
2.63
3.85
0.574
0.487
0.564
Average Percentage
Annual Change In
Price During Period
+2.65
-12.00
+10.60
+9.10
-17.5
+16.9
+3.7
-9.5
+25.9
-7.4
-2.4
+ 11.1
-------
66
5.3 Assessment of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation On Metal Recovery of Hazardous
Wastes: Spent-Lead Acid Batteries and Industrial Sludges, By-Products and
Spent Materials
In addition to data limitations, considerable uncertainty on the type and extent of
impacts on metal recovery from independent factors complicates the assessment of the impact
of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on metal recovery of hazardous wastes. Although this report
has tried to summarize and evaluate the affects such factors as U.S. metal prices (probably
the principle independent factor), other factors such as civil liability (nuisance suits for
example), state and local government regulation (zoning), other Federal regulation such as
Superfund liability, international law, anti-trust activities and criminal activity may affect
metal recovery of hazardous waste.
Notwithstanding these qualifications, EPA has been able to review existing
information and make general conclusions about the impact of RCRA Subtitle C regulation
on metal recovery of hazardous waste. This information is presented below hi below in
Subsections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.
EPA has reviewed available information on metal recovery rates for metal-bearing
hazardous wastes to determine the impact of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on metal recovery
of these wastes. Information to conduct this analysis is available for two categories of metal-
bearing hazardous wastes: 1) spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs) and 2) industrial sludges, by-
products and spent materials. Because of data limitations, portions of RCRA Subtitle C
metal-bearing hazardous wastes such as commercially generated metal-bearing wastes (e.g.,
selected batteries, thermostats, selected photographic wastes) are not represented in this
analysis. Many of these wastes are generated hi the service sector as either spent materials
or by-products of commerce. The potential for metal recovery of these materials is variable
and should not affect the overall conclusions of this study.
Spent-lead acid batteries and industrial sludges, by-products and spent materials will
be analyzed separately to determine how RCRA Subtitle C regulation has affected the
recovery of these materials. This is critical since spent lead acid batteries have historically
been recovered prior to promulgation of RCRA Subtitle C regulation hi 1980 where
industrial sludges, by-products and spent materials have not. Moreover, on the basis of
available information, it appears that recovery rates for SLABs (except in 1992) appear to be
more closely related to the world metal commodity prices than for industrial sludges, by-
products and spent materials whose recovery may be more closely related to the cost of
treatment and disposal.
-------
67
5.3.1. Spent Lead-Acid Batteries
Spent lead-acid batteries (SLAB) are spent materials that are regulated as hazardous
wastes under RCRA Subtitle C. SLAB are generally categorized as D008, characteristic lead
wastes. SLAB are generated in a manner different than industrial hazardous wastes.
Because they are generated in residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, these materials
require consolidation for collection and transport prior to recovery.
To encourage cost-effective collection and transport of SLAB, they are exempt from
generator, transporter and storage requirements prior to arrival at a reclamation facility, 40
CFR Part 266 Subpart G. This means that SLAB destined for reclamation can be shipped by
a nonhazardous waste hauler without a hazardous waste manifest and can be stored at a
consolidation point (i.e., an interim storage facility that does not also reclaim SLAB) without
requiring a storage permit. Reclamation facilities such as secondary lead smelters that
recover SLAB are subject to full regulation if they store SLAB prior to recovery.
EPA promulgated these regulations in 1985 when SLAB being recovered first became
regulated as a hazardous waste. The reduced Subpart G requirements were developed to
minimize interference with an existing infrastructure for SLAB reclamation. As mentioned
below, since 1990, SLAB have been subject to a Land Disposal Restriction treatment
standard requiring thermal recovery in a secondary lead smelter 40 CFR §268.42.
To reiterate the concerns of battery reclaimers as discussed above, the Association of
Battery Recyclers (ABR) contends that RCRA Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) requirements
(40 CFR Part 268) threaten to reduce recovery rates for SLAB by significantly increasing
battery reclaimer operating costs. ABR states that LDR requirements will raise battery
reclaimer costs by requiring expensive retrofitting of indoor waste pile storage areas to
comply with containment building standards and requiring expensive residual management
costs due to treatment of secondary lead smelter slag. ABR also remains concerned about
nonuniform state regulation of SLAB and RCRA permit costs.
To evaluate industry concerns, EPA has reviewed data on SLAB recovery rates and
compared them with a number of factors affecting recovery. Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett
report that recovery rates for SLAB have been volatile during the period 1960 to 1985,
varying largely with the price of primary lead.71 Average SLAB recovery rates during the
1960 and 1970s were 80 percent and 72 percent respectively. Between 1981 and 1985 the
average SLAB recovery rate was 69 percent. SLAB recovery rates increased from an all
time low of 61 percent in 1983 to 70 percent in 1985 when SLAB became regulated as a
hazardous waste.
-------
68
In spite of concerns about increasing environmental regulation, recovery rates for
SLAB have increased steadily between 1985 and 1990 from 70 percent to 97.8 percent,
declining slightly in 1991 in response to a decrease in the price of lead. Average recovery
rates and lead prices between 1987 and 1991 are summarized in Table 5.2.72 These data
indicate that SLAB recovery rates have remained relatively high in 1991 (decreasing only 1
percent) despite a 32 percent decrease in the price of world lead. This apparent anomaly
may be attributed to a number of other factors including state and municipal laws prohibiting
disposal of SLAB in municipal landfills, state and local deposit and refund programs for
SLAB, rising Subtitle C treatment and disposal costs, and applicability of the LDR treatment
standard in 1990.
Table 5.3 Spent Lead-Acid Batteries Recovery Rates/World Lead Prices 1987 to 1991
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Spent Lead Acid Battery Recovery
Rate (expressed as percentage)
88.6
91.0
95.3
97.8
96.8
Average World Lead Price:
London Metals Exchange (0/lb)
26.99
29.7
30.6
37.05
25.3
In 1993, 41 states and one city had enacted legislation promoting SLAB recovery.73
Most of the state legislation included provisions prohibiting the disposal of SLAB in
municipal landfills and requiring retailers to accept old batteries when new SLAB are
purchased. The EPA report concluded that these efforts were effective in encouraging SLAB
recovery. The report also indicated that the additional incentive to recycle SLAB from
deposit and refund requirements was less certain.74
The effects of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on SLAB recovery between 1985 and 1991
is somewhat more complex than state legislation. RCRA Subtitle C regulation may serve as
both an incentive and a disincentive to SLAB recovery. In terms of RCRA Subtitle C
disincentives to metal recovery, secondary lead smelters recovering SLABs are subject to
storage permit and LDR requirements for SLABs stored prior to reclamation. As stated
previously, ABR estimates containment building retrofitting costs to avoid LDR storage
prohibitions at $750,000 to $1 million per facility.75 Also slag generated from the
reclamation process is subject to LDR treatment standards for lead prior to disposal. ABR
has indicated that treatment and disposal costs for lead slag to be $250 per ton.76
-------
69
These RCRA Subtitle C compliance costs may act as a disincentive to additional
secondary lead smelter capacity or capital investment in new projects. Others point out that
the different regulatory provisions of RCRA itself are a disincentive to SLAB recovery since
slag from primary lead smelting is not subject to Subtitle C regulation at the Federal level
while slag from secondary lead smelting may be subject to Subtitle C regulation if it exhibits
a characteristic (40 CFR §261.4(b)(7)(ii). RSR corporation in particular has asserted its
belief that this is a harmful double standard. However, these actual and potential
disincentives must be evaluated against those portions of RCRA Subtitle C regulation that
serve to facilitate SLAB recovery and compliment state efforts to encourage this goal.
RCRA Subtitle C regulation may encourage SLAB recovery in two ways: 1)
conditional exemption from Subtitle C regulation for SLAB waste handlers prior to arrival at
a reclamation facility, and 2) LDR treatment standards specifying the thermal recovery of
lead. First, as mentioned previously, SLAB being reclaimed are not subject to RCRA
Subtitle C regulation prior arrival at a reclamation facility. Since this conditional exemption
would not apply to SLAB being managed for Subtitle C treatment and disposal, the reduced
shipping cost and collection cost for SLAB is an added incentive to manage these materials
for recovery. Second, RCRA Subtitle C LDR requirements contain an important incentive
for SLAB recovery. This is the LDR treatment standard for SLAB that specifies thermal
recovery in secondary smelters for SLAB (40 CFR §268.42). This standard became effective
in 1990 and precludes other forms treatment prior to land disposal of these materials.77
This provides an important incentive for SLAB recovery by sustaining demand for secondary
lead smelting. The LDR standard may be partially responsible for maintaining the high 1991
recovery rate in spite of a large decrease in the world price of lead.
In conclusion, RCRA Subtitle C appears to have mixed incentives and disincentives
for SLAB recovery. The weight of evidence suggests that RCRA Subtitle C regulation has
not adversely affected SLAB recovery rates. It is probable that RCRA Subtitle C regulation
has been a net incentive for SLAB recovery. The increasing trend of SLAB recovery
between 1985 and 1991 is largely due to increasing world prices for lead except for 1991.
However, the sudden decrease in lead prices in 1991 due to the world recession and the
stable high recovery rate for SLAB suggests mat SLAB recovery may be to some extent
insulated more now than in the past from the effects of the world price of lead. It is
probable that state prohibitions on SLAB disposal in municipal landfills and RCRA Subtitle C
incentives for SLAB recovery are the main factors causing the continued high recovery rate
of SLAB.
Even if RCRA Subtitle C regulation does not adversely affect SLAB recovery, this
does not mean that RCRA Subtitle C disincentives are not making that recovery less
profitable for secondary lead smelters. RCRA Subtitle C compliance costs may be
substantial. In 1990, the National Research Council (NRC) estimated that compliance costs
for all federal environmental regulations average about 6 cents per pound of lead.78
-------
70
NRC reports that these costs have contributed to a loss of competitiveness with the
U.S. lead industry relative to foreign lead producers who are subject to less stringent
environmental standards,79 RCRA Subtitle C costs represent a portion of this total and may
contribute to this loss of competitiveness.
On the other hand, it is important to assess the potential loss of competitiveness
against the potential risk to human health and the environment from the mismanagement of
SLAB. As mentioned in Chapter 3, SLAB recovery represents 50 percent of all Superfund
and hazardous waste sites involving metal recovery identified in this report. Discarded
battery casings and electrolyte (acid) have resulting in extensive contamination of
surroundings areas including surface waters, soil and groundwater.
Regardless of whether current RCRA Subtitle C regulations are the most cost-effective
management standards available, any proposed alternative set of management standards needs
to be carefully evaluated prior to adoption to assure an environmentally protective outcome.
As mentioned in Chapter 8, EPA has created the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force to
help conduct this type of evaluation.
5.3.2 Industrial Sludges, By-Products and Spent Materials
Metal-bearing industrial sludges, by-products and spent materials include slag, sludge,
and dust generated from the production of metals such as steel, copper and lead as well as
metal finishing operations such as electroplating, etching and conversion coating. Many of
these wastes are either listed hazardous wastes or exhibit a toxicity characteristic for one or
more of the TC metals. As mentioned in Chapter 1, if a characteristic sludge or by-product
is reclaimed, it is not a solid waste and therefore not subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
In contrast to SLAB, relatively little data is available on recovery of these materials,
particularly related secondary materials that are exempt from RCRA reporting requirements.
These industrial wastes are also different from SLAB in that their composition can vary
widely with the type of raw material placed into the production process. Industrial sludges,
by-products and spent materials can vary in terms of the percentage of a particular material
that is technically amenable to recovery. Some streams such as K061 are almost completely
amenable to recovery. Other materials such as F006 electroplating sludge may vary widely
in its composition and degree of contamination (i.e., from grease, oil or other impurities).
The metal products recovered from these materials are most often concentrates and
intermediate materials that require further processing before a pure metal is produced.
Often, these industrial sludges, by-products and spent materials are recovered in the form of
a metal oxide or salt (e.g., lead oxide, lead chloride, lead sulfate). As a general rule, the
markets for these materials are lower value when compared with end uses for the metal form
of the commodity.
-------
71
Relatively few if any of these materials were managed for metal recovery before
1980. The GAO reported in 1980 that rnetals from these wastes were not being recovered
because industry believed that there was simply no profit in it.80 Fewer than 15,000 tons of
metals were being recovered.81 By way of comparison today, one facility, Inmetco,
recovers more than that amount from K061, electric arc furnace dust, on an annual basis.82
As a result, GAO estimated that roughly $3 billion of metal principally copper, iron and
aluminum was being lost annually.83
According to industry data provided by trade associations and 1989 Biennial
Reporting System (BRS) and summarized in Chapter 3, EPA estimates that there are over 1
million tons of industrial sludges, by-products and spent materials (not including SLAB)
managed for metal recovery annually.84 These materials include F006, wastewater
treatment sludge from electroplating operations; K061, electric arc furnace dust; K062, spent
pickle liquor from steel finishing operations; and characteristic spent materials such as copper
etchants. In addition to these metal-bearing hazardous waste, there are other related metal-
bearing secondary materials that are not considered hazardous wastes but are nonetheless
managed for metal recovery largely as the result of RCRA Subtitle C regulation.
Related secondary materials such as characteristic sludges and by-products being
reclaimed may be managed for metal recovery possibly as a result of the exclusion from the
definition of solid waste and RCRA Subtitle C regulation. Examples of these materials
include solder skimmings from electronic manufacturing and emission control dust from
brass foundries. These examples are usually characteristically toxic for lead (D008) and
would be considered hazardous wastes if abandoned, or applied to the land. Even though
these materials are not considered solid wastes (and therefore hazardous wastes) when
reclaimed, they should be considered in any estimate of metal recovery since these materials
would be regulated as hazardous waste if discarded in a manner other than reclamation.
Characteristic sludges and by-products being reclaimed may be managed for metal recovery
to avoid RCRA Subtitle C treatment and disposal costs. In this sense, RCRA Subtitle C may
serve as an incentive for metal recovery of materials that though they are not hazardous
wastes are closely related.
Because these materials are exempt from RCRA reporting requirements, EPA does
not have precise data on what quantities of these materials are managed for metal recovery.
However, the most recent Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data 85(1991) indicates that metal
recovery of all metal-bearing secondary materials (mcluding both hazardous wastes and
related secondary materials) may be substantial. The data show that of all metal releases 65
percent are managed for recycling. The data also indicate that 82 percent of metals are
transferred off-site are managed for recycling (the others are transferred for treatment,
disposal, or discharge to a POTW).
-------
72
The total quantity of metals transferred off-site for recycling is 1.012 billion
pounds.86 This total includes substantial quantities of copper, lead, zinc, nickel and
chromium; metals commonly recovered from hazardous wastes. However, two caveats are
in order regarding making an inference of TRI data on metal recovery of hazardous wastes
and secondary materials. First, TRI data includes estimates of releases from other materials
such as industrial Subtitle D, nonhazardous waste.87 Second, the term "recycling" under
TRI may include processes other than metal recovery such as use as an ingredient. Even
though the data does not directly correlate with quantities of hazardous wastes and related
secondary materials managed for metal recovery, it raises the inference that these quantities
may be substantial.
The question raised by both the BRS/trade association data and the TRI data is what
accounts for the increase in metal recovery of industrial sludges, by-products and spent
materials between 1980 and 1993. The preceding discussion in Section 5.2 of hazardous
waste treatment and disposal costs and U.S. metal prices suggests that these are substantial
factors in causing the increase. RCRA Subtitle C has resulted in a substantial increase hi
treatment and disposal costs of metal-bearing hazardous wastes. In addition, RCRA Subtitle
C regulation has created a series of incentives for managing hazardous wastes for metal
recovery. Some of these incentives include:
• general exemption of the recycling process from regulation (40 CFR §261.6(c)),
• conditional exemption from Boiler and Industrial Furnace Subtitle C regulation for
industrial furnaces burning solely for metal recovery (40 CFR §266.100),
• Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards specifying metal recovery for the
following metal-bearing hazardous wastes: spent lead-acid batteries, nickel-cadmium
batteries, high category mercury wastes (>260 mg/ml), K069 (emission control dust
from secondary lead smelting), K106 (wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury
cell process in chlorine production), and commercial chemical products (40 CFR
§268.42),88
* exclusion from the definition of solid waste for characteristic sludges and by-products
being reclaimed (40 CFR §261.2(c), while these materials are regulated as hazardous
waste if disposed of,
• exemption from Subtitle C regulation for scrap metal being recycled, (40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(iv),
• variance from the definition of solid waste for materials that are partially reclaimed
but need to be reclaimed further (40 CFR §260.30(c)),
» generic delisting levels for nonwastewater residues from high temperature metal
recovery (HTMR) of K061, K062 and F006 (40 CFR §261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(l)).
-------
73
Although growth in world demand for copper• zinc, lead and. nickel was slow during
the early to mid-1980's, as mentioned above world metal demand began to increase around
1986. World consumption of copper, lead, nickel and zinc increased between 1985 and 1989
at an average rate of 3.2, 1.55, 3.8 and 2.1 percent per year respectively.89 The increase in
demand resulted in an average annual domestic increase in price between 1986 and 1990 of
10.6 percent for copper, 16.9 percent for lead, 25.9 percent for nickel (nickel prices spiked
in 1988) and 11.1 percent for zinc.90
Although there is enough data to show that RCRA Subtitle C and the recent increase
in world metal demand are probably the two main factors contributing to metal recovery of
hazardous waste, due to data limitations it is not possible to make any conclusions about the
relative strength of each factor. Irrespective of the relative contribution of RCRA Subtitle C
and world metal markets to metal recovery of industrial sludges, by-products and spent
materials, it is clear that incentives created by RCRA for recovery of these materials is
substantial.
First, metal recovery has increased and remained stable during periods before and
after the increase in metal prices from 1986 to 1990. Substantial amounts of metal recovery
of Subtitle C hazardous waste were occurring in 1986 prior to the increase of metal
demand.91 Analysis completed for EPA by the Research Triangle Institute stated that a
little more than 1 million tons of hazardous waste (including industrial waste and spent lead-
acid batteries) was recovered.92 This would indicate not only that RCRA Subtitle C apart
from world metal demand is a substantial incentive for metal recovery of hazardous waste,
but also that portions of RCRA Subtitle C program apart from the Land Disposal Restriction
(LDR) treatment standards were contributing to that incentive since the latter were not in
effect in 1986. Also, trade association data submitted to EPA by generators and reclaimers
of metal-bearing hazardous waste indicate substantial quantities of listed industrial sludges
such as F006 and K06193 were recovered in 1992 relative to 1989 and 1990 when the world
price of metals peaked out and began to decline due to world recession.
Second, many metal recovery operations derive 50 percent or more of their revenue
from, the user fees charged to generators of hazardous waste rather than the sale of recovered
materials. This is particularly true for firms recovering the lower value base metal (i.e.,
copper, lead, zinc) concentrates and intermediates from hazardous wastes. One metal
recovery firm representative indicated that the firm earned at least two-thirds of its revenues
in user fees. This is not uncommon since the cost of processing often exceeds the revenue
derived from the sale of the materials. Third, the relationship between RCRA Subtitle C
treatment/disposal costs and metal recovery user fees is a more accurate indicator of an
incentive than the relationship between world metal demand and revenue from the sales of
recovered metal materials. RCRA Subtitle C treatment and disposal costs are direct
substitutes for metal recovery user fees for generators. An increase or decrease hi the
tipping fees at a hazardous waste landfill or charge for stabilization can directly be related to
what user fee can be charged by a metal recovery operation.
-------
74
In contrast, world demand for metal commodities are not directly comparable to the
price a metal recovery operation can charge for its recovered materials. As mentioned
above, metals recovered from metal recovery operations are most often recovered in the form
a concentrate or intermediate oxide or salt. These materials are usually partially reclaimed
and the value added may be marginal compared with the value of the metal commodity.
Even completely reclaimed materials from metal recovery operations may be limited to sale
as scrap. If the end use markets to which these metals can be used are restricted to lower
value markets, then the world price for the metal commodity will not be a accurate indicator
for the degree of incentive realized by the owner/operator of a metal recovery operation.
The fact that world metal demand is a less reliable indicator creates additional uncertainty
relative to RCRA Subtitle C's effect on metal recovery of hazardous waste.
Finally, data in Table 5.2 above indicate that real U.S. metal prices were almost as
high or higher for copper, lead, nickel and zinc between 1976 to 1980 than during the 1986
to 1990 period. Yet, as mentioned above, the GAO reported that little or no recovery of
metal-bearing industrial waste occurred prior to 1980 because industry did not consider it
profitable to do so. This suggests that since real U.S. metal prices are not higher in 1993
than they were before RCRA was enacted that higher user fees made possible by higher
treatment and disposal cost are necessary (but not sufficient) to make metal recovery of
hazardous waste profitable.
As with SLAB, the disincentives in RCRA Subtitle C regulation identified in Section
5.1 by the regulated community may constrain metal recovery of industrial sludges, by-
products and spent materials to some extent and/or make such recovery less profitable. The
derived-from rule storage permit requirements and facility wide corrective action are among
the most serious disincentives cited previously.
Thus, while RCRA Subtitle C has had a net beneficial effect on metal recovery of
these industrial wastes, it is also possible that several RCRA regulatory provisions are
constraining metal recovery from hazardous waste from reaching its full potential. As with
SLAB these provisions help to ensure that metal recovery that does occur is completed in an
environmentally sound manner.
Any proposals to modify or eliminate RCRA regulatory provisions must be evaluated
against the adequacy of the proposed alternative to avoid environmental mismanagement that.
has characterized certain metal recovery operations of the past. The mission of the
Definition of Solid Waste Task Force created by EPA in 1992 is to help conduct such an
evaluation.
-------
75
In summary, there are substantial data limitations that inhibit assessment of RCRA
Subtitle C regulation on metal recovery of industrial sludges, by-products and spent
materials. Available information indicates that RCRA Subtitle C regulation has encouraged
metal recovery of hazardous waste through increasing treatment and disposal costs and
providing regulatory incentives for reclaimed materials. An increase in world metal demand
beginning in 1986 has probably also contributed to the increase in metal recovery of
hazardous wastes. Limited information suggests that RCRA Subtitle C has been a substantial
incentive, particularly with firms that recover lower value base metal concentrates where
revenues from their sale is low to begin with.
Finally, RCRA Subtitle C regulation may also constrain metal recovery of industrial
wastes from reaching its potential. However, due to nonregulatory factors, EPA cannot
predict whether reductions in Subtitle C compliance cost would significantly affect metal
recovery rates of hazardous waste. And as mentioned above, any regulatory modifications
must be evaluated carefully to ensure retention of environmentally protective management
standards for metal recovery operations. EPA has created the Definition of Solid Waste
Task Force to facilitate this evaluation.
5.4 Conclusion
Based on information reviewed in completion of this report, RCRA Subtitle C
regulation has been and will continue to be a substantial factor encouraging environmentally
sound metal recovery of hazardous wastes. There also appears to be room for improvement
to provide additional incentive for environmentally sound metal recovery of hazardous waste.
EPA is currently conducting a series of on-going activities to achieve this goal. These
activities are discussed in Chapter 8 of this report.
-------
76
Chapter 6 Case Studies of Metal Recovery Operations Subject To RCRA
Jurisdiction
EPA has completed five case studies of metal recovery operations that are currently
subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction. The purpose of completing these case studies is to
provide firm specific information on the way RCRA regulation may affect metal recovery of
hazardous wastes. To complete these case studies, EPA examined a number of metal
recovery operations and selected those operations that the Agency believes help to compare
and contrast different aspects of RCRA regulations on metal recovery. EPA has selected: 1)
a commercially established hydrometallurgical operation, U.S. Filter, 2) a commercially
established pyrometallurgical operation, Inmetco, 3) a pilot scale metal recovery operation
using an innovative technology, Molten Metal Technology, 4) a metal recovery operation
that partially recovers zinc from steel wastes, Horsehead Resource Development and 5) a
battery manufacturer that recovers spent lead acid batteries on site, East Penn Manufacturing
Co.. Case studies include the reason for selection, a case history, process description, and
RCRA regulatory issues and analysis.
EPA has presented the perspectives of the case study respondents on RCRA Subtitle C
regulation in order to learn how each firm views Federal hazardous waste regulations effects
on metal recovery from its operations. EPA's presentation of these perspectives does not
constitute Agency agreement with the accuracy of the statements. In addition, no statement
presented by these case studies should be construed to be a statement of Agency policy or
regulatory interpretation regarding the case study respondent's operations or their process
outputs (whether wastes or products).
-------
77
6.1 U.S. Filter Recovery Services Inc; Roseville, MN
EPA has selected U.S. Filter Recovery Services Inc. (USFRS) as a case study for a
variety of reasons. First, USFRS has been selected as a commercially established
hydrometallurgical metal recovery facility. In contrast to pyrometallurgical case study
respondents that use high temperature metal recovery, USFRS recovers metals from
hazardous wastes using hydrometallurgical recovery methods such as ion exchange, chemical
precipitation and electro winning. (At least one issue of regulatory significance is that
hydrometallurgical metal recovery processes are not potentially subject to Boiler and
Industrial Furnace permitting requirements.)
Second, USFRS processes listed materials generated from metal finishing operations
(e.g., electroplating sludge) in contrast to other case study respondent waste streams of spent-
lead acid batteries and electric arc furnace dust. Metals recovered from metal finishing
waste streams can include chromium, copper, nickel, zinc and iron. Metal finishing
operations are comparatively smaller and earn less revenue than other generators of metal-
bearing hazardous wastes. This limits their options for metal recovery on-site because of
economies of scale. For these generators, a central recovery facility may be the only
alternative to commercial treatment and disposal of electroplating sludges. This type of
facility processes and manages generator's wastes for a user fee (and also sells recovered
materials to supplement its revenue)
Third, USFRS is the only commercially established central recovery facility94 of its
type in the United States. Two other attempts to site central recovery facilities for metal
finishing operations in the United States have failed at least in part due to federal Clean
Water Act enforcement.95 In addition, two feasibility studies have concluded that central
recovery facilities would not be cost-effective when compared with other waste management
options.96 In light of this history and analysis, EPA has studied the regulatory climate and
history that has contributed to USFRS' success.
History
In 1982, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC, a local wastewater
management authority in Minneapolis-St. Paul) and local industry formed a task force to
evaluate the feasibility of a central recovery facility hi the area to process wastes and
waste waters from metal finishing operations. In 1983, local industry formed and became
share holders of the Metropolitan Recovery Corporation (MRC). In 1984, MWCC and MRC
agreed to allow MRC shareholders to apply civil penalties incurred for noncompliance with
federal pretreatment categorical standards for metal finishing operations toward the
construction of a central recovery facility. MRC shareholder companies raised $1.2 million
in revenue for the construction of the proposed facility. In October 1985, MRC submitted an
application for a RCRA treatment and storage permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. Its permit was approved in December of 1986.
-------
78
In My 1986, MRC formed a partnership with Lancy Recovery Inc. (Lancy) called
Metro Recovery Systems (MRS). Lancy provided $2.2 million in additional revenue. The
St. Paul Port Authority sold $6.2 million in revenue bonds to complete financing for the
facility. The facility was constructed between September 1987 and My 1988 when it
became operational and began accepting wastes. In December 1991, U.S. Filter Corporation
purchased MRS. It was renamed U.S. Filter Recovery Services in My 1992.
ProcessDescription (Refer to Chart Next Page)
USFRS has contracts with each of its customers to complete processing, transport and
collection of both dilute and concentrated waste streams. For dilute wastestreams such as
plating rinse waters, USPRS installs a series of ion exchange resin canisters on site at the
customer facility. When these canisters become spent, USFRS exchanges the canisters with
fresh ones and transports the spent canisters back to the central recovery facility. Metals
(principally zinc, nickel and copper) are stripped from the canisters and placed into
electrolytic metal recovery cells and recovered from plates as metals. The regenerated resins
are then returned to the customer facility. USFRS representatives state that by keeping waste
streams segregated that metals recovered from these streams have a higher level of purity
than rinse waters that are mixed together and then have metals reconstituted in a series of
separate processes.
Concentrated waste streams such as batch dumps are transported from the customer
facility to the central recovery facility and segregated by type (acids, alkalines, cyanides, or
ammonia). Then, depending upon the chemical characteristics of the waste, it is treated and
either processed for further recovery (electrowinnrng, chemical precipitation, solids
dewatering, chrome reduction, cyanide destruction) or stabilized and sent on for land
disposal. Metals (zinc, copper or nickel) can be recovered as either a metal (e.g., pure
copper) or as a metal compound such as copper oxide.
The USFRS facility itself has a series of engineering controls designed to prevent the
release of materials to the environment. The tanks receiving concentrated wastes are made
with reinforced fiberglass to contain materials that would corrode steel tanks. The tanks
themselves are within a secondary spill containment cement dike that is large enough to
contain the contents of an entire tank in the event of a rupture. The facility is entirely
surrounded by a six inch curb to prevent releases from the building. The floor is made of
eight-inch concrete with double rebar and coated with three layers of plastic impregnated
fiberglass to resist penetration by waste chemicals. All joints are sealed with polyvinyl
chloride water stops. The floor is also sloped to direct any spill into a series of trenches that
leads to a central sump for collection and subsequent treatment.
-------
79
During EPA's site visit to USFRS in February of 1993, the company was recovering
copper oxide for sale to wood preservers, animal feed industries and others. USFRS was
also recovering copper and nickel for sale to scrap dealers. The company was investigating
the possibility of hydrometallurgical recovery of nickel-cadmium batteries. Other recovered
products include regenerated acid and alkaline etchants, and nickel and zinc compounds.
Figure 6.1 Facility Diagram For U.S. Filter Recovery Systems Inc.
Operation of U.S. FILTER RECOVERY SERVICES
Centralized Recovery and Treatment of Industrial Wastes
Process
Water
Regenerated Canisters
Metals
Recovery
Systems
Customer Facility
U.S. FILTER RECOVERY SERVICES
Central 'Recovery
and Treatment Facility
-------
80
Regulatory Issues & Analysis
In general, RCRA has not been a major regulatory obstacle to recycling at USFRS.
The major regulatory issues related to metal recovery for USFRS are 1) the effect of the
derived-from rule on managing process residuals from the facility for recovery, and 2) the
effect of state taxes linked to the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act.
Permitting requirements and corrective action issues have been of secondary importance.
Derived-Prom Rule
Some of the sludges from concentrated wastes that USFRS receives from its
customers are not amenable for recovery in USFRS' process, but may be amenable to high
temperature metal recovery. However, USFRS' policy is to manage these materials for
treatment and disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. This conservative policy is designed to
prevent Superfund liability to USFRS and its customers. USFRS representatives state that
many of these materials would be managed for recovery rather than treatment and disposal if
not for the derived-from rule. The company is concerned that if the sludges are managed by
high temperature metal recovery and the slag is still considered to be a hazardous waste that
USFRS and its customers could become potentially responsible parties if the slag becomes
part of a Superfund site.
State Taxation
In addition to the derived-from rule concerns, USFRS contends that a major
regulatory disincentive to recovering metals from plating wastes is Minnesota's pollution
prevention fee. This fee is based on reported releases from facilities under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA also known as SARA Title III).
Under the definition of release, management on-site at the plating operation is not a release
and would not be taxed. However, if plating wastes are shipped off-site to the USFRS for
recovery, this is defined as a release and is therefore taxable. U.S Filter representatives state
that this is an economic disincentive for metal platers to ship their wastes to the central
recovery facility.
Permitting and Facility-Wide Corrective Action
According to company representatives, permitting and facility-wide corrective action
have not been regulatory impediments to recycling at USFRS. Regarding facility-wide
corrective action, the facility is located hi an industrial park in Roseville, a suburb of
Minneapolis and St. Paul. The site inspection did not reveal any releases of contaminants
although the company routinely monitors groundwater on its site.
-------
81
Despite a cost of $800,000 and 14 months to obtain its permit, the company obtained
both its RCRA storage and treatment permit in advance of constructing its facility.
However, permitting has been a major disincentive to siting additional USFRS facilities
across the nation. When asked about regulatory alternatives to permitting such as a permit-
by-rule or a self-implementing set of management standards, Brian Rooney, Recovered
Products Manager at USFRS,97 suggested that such an alternative would go a long way to
minimize the risk and uncertainty associated with the current permitting process.
As mentioned above, since USFRS is a hydrometallurgical operation, it is not
potentially subject to boiler and industrial furnace permit requirements. This is important
because plating wastes of the type USFRS recovers may not qualify for the metal recovery
exemption of Part 266 of 40 CFR (standards for boilers and industrial furnaces). BIF
standards may provide a competitive advantage for hydrometallurgical metal recovery
operations.98
Greg Norgaard, Vice-President and General Manager of U.S Filter has indicated
that cooperation between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and USFRS has been the critical factor in the company's success. State
and local efforts to assist in capitalizing, siting and permitting the project were paramount in
supporting the establishment of the central recovery facility in Minnesota. As mentioned
previously", the lack of these same factors contributed to failure to establish similar
facilities in Cleveland and New York/New Jersey. Plans to develop these facilities failed
when plating operations withdrew their support of a central recovery facility in order to
install on-site treatment to come into compliance with federal Clean Water Act regulations.
By contrast, the significant commitment and flexibility of Minnesota allowed the central
recovery facility project to develop.
Although Mr. Norgaard believes that other things being equal that on-site
management and recovery of hazardous wastes is preferable to off-site management of these
wastes, he also believes that effective on-site treatment and recovery is generally
unaffordable to small businesses and that a central recovery facility can offer a series of
comparative advantages over on-site management by the generator. He has stated that
central recovery facilities can provide better assurance for compliance with federal and state
regulations by entering into binding contracts with customers and inspecting customer
operations on a regular schedule (this is standard USFRS practice). Second, central recovery
facilities can provide technical and managerial assistance to small businesses that generate
hazardous waste. Third, because of economies of scale, a central recovery facility can
provide a variety of recovery alternatives that are not available with on-site management by
generators. Finally, a central recovery facility is better able to find end uses for recovered
materials. According to Tom Wentzler, senior vice-president of Tetra Technologies,
generators of hazardous waste do not have the sales, marketing, distribution or transportation
organization or experience to find end uses for their recovered products as well as an off-site
recovery facility.100
-------
82
Mr. Norgaard believes that a central recovery facility is fundamentally different from
a commercial treatment, storage, disposal or recovery facility (TSDR). He stated to EPA
that a central recovery facility is different in its method of operation in terms of its degree of
involvement with its customer operations, Mr. Norgaard feels that TSDRs don't provide the
day to day oversight into customer operations and offer the same degree of protection against
the mismanagement of hazardous wastes at generator facilities or during transport.
Conclusion
USFRS represents an example of a commercially successful metal recovery operation
that has developed largely through cooperative efforts between public and private parties.
RCRA regulations do not appear to have significantly impeded the company's ability to
recover metals from hazardous waste. RCRA has probably had a beneficial effect by
providing markets for USFRS' services (i.e., hazardous waste treatment and disposal cost
avoided). The critical regulatory factor in USFRS' success appears to be the cooperation and
flexibility provided by the state and local governments. In particular, allowing civil penalties
to be used for construction capital was essential in establishing the central recovery facility.
Conversely, case histories in Cleveland and New York/New Jersey indicated that stringent
enforcement of Clean Water Act regulations may have achieved faster compliance but
perhaps at the expense of a better long term option for managing these hazardous wastes.
-------
83
6.2 International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc., Ellwood City, PA
EPA selected the International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc., (Inmetco) as one
of its case study respondents in order to analyze regulatory issues related to a commercially
established pyrometallurgical operation. In addition, Inmetco has the distinction of being the
only high temperature metals recovery facility in the United States that recovers nickel-
cadmium batteries (and thus the only domestic reclamation facility for these materials that
may be collected because of EPA's recently proposed Special Collection Rule, 58 FR 8102,
February 11, 1993). Inmetco also recovers chromium, nickel and iron from emission control
dust generated from electric arc furnaces in the stainless and specialty steel industries.
Because the Office of Technology Assessment has identified chromium as a strategic material
for the United States, EPA also selected Inmetco as a case study respondent to evaluate the
regulatory impact of RCRA Subtitle C regulations on the firm's ferrochrome recovery.
History
The Inmetco Thermal Reduction Process was developed by Inmetco's parent
company, Inco Limited, in the mid-1970's. Inmetco began commercial operation in 1978 in
Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. The facility site is proximate to about half of the United States
stainless steel producers and all ten of the nation's stainless steel producers are Inmetco
customers. The company reported earnings of $2 million in 1991.101 Inmeteo applied to
the state of Pennsylvania in 1983 for a Part A and in 1985 for a Part B hazardous waste
storage permit. The state issued Inmetco its Part B storage permit in November 1992.
Process Description (Refer to Chart Next Page)
Inmetco uses a two stage pyrometallurgical process to smelt a variety of metal-bearing
materials into a metal pig consisting of iron, chromium, nickel and other metals. This pig is
then sold (or returned under a tolling agreement) to stainless steel producers for reuse in
their process. The main feedstocks for the Inmetco process are emission control dust from
electric arc furnaces (K061, a listed hazardous waste), mill scale from steel operations and
grinding swarf (a mixture of grinding chips, abrasive particles and bond from grinding
operations). Inmetco also uses a variety of other feedstocks including nickel-cadmium
batteries, electroplating sludge (F006, a listed hazardous waste) and sludge generated from
spent pickling solutions from steel finishing operations (K062, a listed hazardous waste when
it is not lime stabilized).
The process itself uses a rotary hearth furnace to melt and partially reduce iron and
nickel from an oxide into a base metal form and to reduce hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent form. The process intermediate is transferred in a pellet form from the rotary
hearth furnace to a stationary electric arc furnace for smelting and complete reduction. The
process generates a metal pig (described above) and a slag.
-------
84
In addition, two pollution control by-products are generated: a wastewater treatment
filter cake from the wet scrubber on the rotary hearth furnace and a baghouse dust from the
electric arc furnace. The slag is processed and sold as road bed aggregate and construction
materials. Both pollution control byproducts are sent to Horsehead Resource Development
for zinc, lead and cadmium recovery.
Figure 6.2 - Process Flow Diagram For Inmetco
M&1 SCALE FLUE OUST SPECIAL CARBON SWARF Metal Bearing CORSE CARBON
Dump Truck Pneumatic ADDITIVE BIN Pneumatic Dump Truck Liquids Dump Truck
Pneumatic Truck . Tankers
Drums
LIME
Pneumatic Truck
Truck
Truck 4^
Nickel-Cadmium
Batteries Waste
Baghouse Bags Refractories
ffffffff
CtaanAlr
Ellwood City Plant
Pennsylvania
FLOW SHEET
To Ellwood
City
Cd Metal
loMaritet
-------
85
1992 Process Outputs At Inmetco, Ellwood City PA
Recovered Metals
Slag
Pollution Control
Byproducts
22,000 tons of metal pig
(including 15,000 tons of iron,
3240 tons of chromium, 2080
tons of nickel, 210 tons of
molybdenum)
14,700 tons
6500 tons (including 1500 tons
of zinc, 272 tons of lead, and
110 tons of cadmium)
Regulatory Issues & Analysis
In October 1991, Inmetco provided EPA detailed sampling and analysis results of its
process inputs and outputs, pursuant to an agency-supervised Best Demonstrated Available
Technology data gathering project.102 More recently, Inmetco has communicated to EPA
its view of the effect of RCRA Subtitle C regulations on its operations.103 The company
has also put forth a narrative proposal for setting up an alternative regulatory system for
"hazardous reclaimable materials".104 Finally, in response to Agency requests, Inmetco has
developed an analysis comparing the risks and benefits of recycling metal-bearing hazardous
wastes versus the risks and benefits of producing metals from virgin ores.105
In its submissions to the Agency, Inmetco has identified a number of RCRA Subtitle
C regulatory issues that are of concern to the company, including slag management,
permitting, facility-wide corrective action and financial assurance. The company believes
that these issues are regulatory disincentives to metal recovery. The company has also
identified notification of hazardous waste generation and management, a tracking system,
appropriate storage standards and land disposal treatment standards for as generated waste as
beneficial aspects of the RCRA program. The company believes that land disposal
restrictions help create demand for metal recovery. However, Inmetco has stressed that
RCRA land disposal restrictions can be counterproductive when hi combination with the
derived-from rule (40 CFR Part 261.3), they require metal recovery slags to be disposed of
hi Subtitle C landfills.
-------
86
Perived-From Rule/Residual Management
Iranetco ranked potential slag management under EPA's derived-from rule (40 CFR
Section 261.3) as the greatest regulatory impediment to metals recovery. During the
Agency's visit to the Inmetco facility in December 1992, company representatives stated that
their slag was being purchased for $6 to $8 a ton for use as road bed aggregate or
construction material. The company reported to EPA mat treatment and disposal of the slag
as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA would cost the company between $300 and
$350 per ton for a total of $4-5 million a year total cost. Inmetco stated that this would have
turned the company's 1991 profit into a loss.105
Inmetco reported in its response to an EPA trade association survey that the state of
Pennsylvania's recently adopted PK-4 amendments to state hazardous waste regulations
define "hazardous waste" more broadly than EPA's rules and appear to have a narrower
exemption for waste-derived products used in a manner constituting disposal (40 CFR Section
266.20.). This is likely to place additional burdens on slag management. The company
reported a 1992 expenditure of $900,000 to manage air pollution control dusts and
wastewater treatment sludges. Inmetco estimates that this will increase to $1.2 million in
1993.
Permitting
The company has identified permitting as a major regulatory disincentive to metal
recovery. Inmetco's storage permit cost the company an internal investment of $50,000 per
year over 4 years and $200,000 in outside legal, engineering, laboratory and administrative
costs. Pennsylvania state regional officials of the Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER) responsible for permit oversight of Inmetco have questioned this estimate and
indicated to EPA that early drafts of Inmetco's permit application were incomplete which was
a contributing factor to the 5 year period of time required for the company to obtain permit
approval.107 Inmetco spends an additional $50,000 hi labor expenses for a full time
environmental technician to implement and ensure compliance with the storage permit
requirements. In addition to permit application costs, Inmetco estimates that compliance
expenditures to satisfy permit conditions include $3 million in capital expenditures.
Potential and prospective permitting issues for the company include becoming subject
to Boiler and Industrial Furnace Permit requirements, 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H and
Pennsylvania state PK-4 regulations that require permits for the reclamation process. Based
upon its experience in obtaining a storage permit, Inmetco estimated that obtaining each of
these permits could cost $300,000 to $500,000 each which the company said was a
significant disincentive to metal recovery.
-------
87
Corrective Action
Inmetco ranked facility-wide corrective action as the third most serious regulatory
impediment to metals recovery. Although the company did not attempt to estimate the
potential compliance cost associated with corrective action, Inmetco does state that it
represents a serious disincentive to investment in a new metals recovery operation or siting a
facility at an existing manufacturing site. The company believes that undesirable social and
environmental outcomes of this requirement might include siting a facility in a "greenfield"
location (i.e., one without previous contamination) and creating a disincentive to invest in
urban enterprise zones to create jobs and expand the tax base.
Financial Assurance & Legal Costs
Inmetco identified other regulatory issues of concern including financial assurance,
stigma and legal costs associated with hazardous waste management. Financial assurance
mechanisms for Inmetco include a $4 million irrevocable letter of credit and a $250,000 post-
closure bond posted with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. The
company estimates its actual financial assurance cost at $55,000 annually. Although Inmetco
could not quantify stigma, it does state that stigma requires additional time and money for
community relations. Inmetco's legal fees for the last 5 years for assistance on regulatory
and legislative changes were $750,000. This was hi addition to legal fees incurred in
connection with obtaining the facility's storage permit.
Inmetco has submitted to EPA its impressions of the opportunity cost of these
regulatory expenditures. The company stated in its response to an EPA trade association
survey that additional investment in high temperature metal recovery capacity is foregone in
order for Inmetco to comply with its RCRA Subtitle C regulatory obligations. Inmetco has
quantified nickel-bearing and chromium-bearing materials it believes are currently not being
reclaimed due to inadequate reclamation capacity. These materials include108:
o Nickel-Cadmium Batteries 10,000 - 20,000 Tons/yr.
o Plating Wastes 30,000 Tons/yr.
o Spent Chromium Refractories 25,000 Tons/yr.
o Chromium Leather Tanning Wastes 10,000 Tons/yr.
o Superalloy Slags 5000 Tons/yr.
o Metal Catalysts 500 -1,000 Tons/yr.
o Ni-Cd Battery Production Sludges 450 Tons/yr.
o Chromium Tailings (one time basis) 60,000 Tons
-------
88
Inmetco also indicated in its response to an EPA trade association survey that if the
company could expand capacity, it would be able to directly recover cadmium from Ni-Cd
batteries, zinc and manganese from alkaline batteries, and copper, cobalt and vanadium from
wastestreams containing those metals.
Inmetco estimates that it recovers about 1 ton of nickel, 1.55 tons of chromium and
7.2 tons of iron for every 27 tons of nickel-bearing secondary material that it processes. The
company estimates that it would take 110 tons of virgin nickel-bearing sulfide ore to produce
one ton of nickel. Secondary nickel recovery is more efficient because the nickel-bearing
materials are more concentrated resulting hi energy and material conservation and lower
pollution for each ton of metal produced. Inmetco states that roughly 100 tons of tailings are
produced for every ton of nickel recovered from virgin ores. By comparison, only 6.8 tons
of slag are produced for every ton of nickel Inmetco recovers (or .6 tons of slag per ton of
metal pig recovered).
Similarly, Inmetco reports that it uses less than half as much energy to produce a
pound of nickel and chromium as its parent company uses to produce a pound of nickel and
copper from virgin ore in Canada. Furthermore, Inmetco has recently installed a new water
recycling program that has increased its use of recycled water by over 90 percent, and the
company is striving to attain zero discharge of water within two years.
The ferrochrome and ferronickel that Inmetco recovers in its metal pig has value to
the U.S. both as a commodity that may mitigate the U.S. balance of trade deficit and as a
strategic material (for more on these issues see Chapter 7). Both nickel and chromium are
imported metals. According to the 1993 Mineral Commodity Summaries published by the
Bureau of Mines, 74 percent of the chromium and 64 percent of the nickel in the United
States are imported, and much of the rest is produced by reclamation or reuse of secondary
materials. In addition, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment has identified chromium
as a strategic material.109
Chromium is an ingredient hi the production of stainless steel and other superalloy
steels. According to the 1993 Bureau of Mines Mineral Commodity Summaries, chromium
has no substitutes for superalloys, its main strategic use. Over 60 percent of imported U.S.
chromium comes from South Africa or Zimbabwe. Currently about 26 percent of U.S.
demand for chromium is satisfied through stainless steel scrap.
Inmetco has submitted a proposal to EPA to establish an alternative set of regulatory
requirements for metal-bearing hazardous wastes that are destined for reclamation.110 The
company indicated in its submission that the proposal is one that they would consider
acceptable if they were considering expansion of their rnetals recovery operation, but the
company does not purport to speak for other metal recovery operations.
-------
89
Inmetco's proposal starts with a definition of legitimate metals reclamation.
According to the company, a legitimate recycler must recover material suitable for return to
commerce as a product or feed material for an industrial process. Materials received at the
facility would have to meet reclaimer specifications and be managed in a manner designed to
minimize loss. The facility would retain records to document the receipt, processing and
sale of products derived from secondary feed materials. Finally, at least one of the products
recovered would have to be returned to commerce for a use that is not land applied and must
meet specifications for use as a product or feed material.
Regulatory requirements for managing metal-bearing hazardous wastes destined for
reclamation under the Inmetco proposal are as follows. First, such wastes would be defined
as "hazardous reclaimable materials" to acknowledge that they are destined for reclamation
and to avoid the stigma associated with the term "hazardous waste". Second, generators and
reclaimers would notify EPA of their location, operation and material management activities.
Third, materials destined for off-site reclamation would be manifested. Fourth, reclamation
facilities would be subject to waste analysis requirements, security requirements, personnel
training requirements, location standards for new facilities, and chemical accident prevention
and preparedness activities.
Fifth, materials stored prior to reclamation would be subject to management standards
based on existing container, tank or containment building standards. Sixth, owner/operators
of reclamation facilities would be responsible for unit-specific closure and corrective action
related to the reclamation process. Seventh, financial assurance requirements would reflect
the more limited closure and corrective action responsibility and be based upon less
conservative assumptions. Eighth, reclamation facilities would conduct testing, maintain
records and allow inspections sufficient to demonstrate compliance with aforementioned
standards. Finally, metal reclamation slags would be excluded from operation of the
derived-from rule, so that they would not be restricted from use in roadbuilding or other
construction applications provided they meet appropriate health based criteria. Inmetco
believes that current generic exclusion levels for its slag are too conservative.
In evaluating the Inmetco proposal, it should be noted due to time and resource
constraints that the Agency has not requested an audit of Inmetco's operation to verify
company estimates of regulatory expenditures or to assess total compliance burden. Nor has
EPA questioned the company about economic predictions related to market factors which
could independently affect a business decision to expand HTMR capacity. Notwithstanding
this, Inmetco has supplied EPA with specific estimates of its compliance burden and its best
guess at what materials might be recovered hi the event of regulatory modifications.
-------
90
The trade off to society presented in this situation appears to be as follows. On the
one hand, reducing regulatory burdens and associated costs on metals reclaimers will create
an incentive (of unknown magnitude) to expand metals recovery capacity. Other things being
equal, this is desirable, because metals reclamation conserves nonrenewable resources,
reduces energy demands and pollution as compared to producing metal from virgin ore,
keeps metal-bearing materials from being landfilled and serves our country's balance of
payments and strategic interests.
On the other hand, depending on how RCRA Subtitle C regulations are modified,
streamlining regulatory requirements for metal-bearing hazardous wastes being reclaimed
could create some additional environmental risk beyond that which would exist if the
materials were regulated in accordance with full Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements.
The uncertainty in answering Congress's question about optimizing RCRA's dual
goals of environmental protection and resource conservation may relate to non-regulatory
factors that affect the company's operation. Source reduction of chromium, material
substitution for metal in products, expanded capacity outside of the United States for
hazardous waste metal recovery and the end of the Cold War (and defense-related
applications for chromium superalloys) may independently create market conditions that are
unfavorable for company expansion. EPA cannot quantify the probability or extent of a
metal recovery operation's increased investment or expansion due to specific changes in
regulations simply because of market uncertainty. This does not mean that regulatory
modifications to existing Subtitle C requirements would not be beneficial. It simply means
that the Agency is unable to predict or forecast a market outcome from specific regulatory
changes.
Conclusion
In contrast to the USFRS case study, the effects of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on
Inmetco's operation appear to be mixed. Inmetco has been in operation since 1978 before
RCRA Subtitle C regulations were promulgated. Since that time, electric arc furnace dust
(K061) has been listed as a hazardous waste and land disposal restriction (LDR) standards
based on high-temperature metals recovery have been promulgated. LDR standards for
nickel-cadmium batteries specify metal recovery prior to land disposal. Most recently, EPA
has proposed a new Part 273 regulation which would facilitate collection and transport of
nickel-cadmium batteries for recovery. These changes have provided or would provide
favorable market conditions for the recovery of these materials at Inmetco's operation.
Inmetco has stated by contrast that management of its slag, permitting costs and other
previously mentioned regulatory requirements are disincentives to expanding metals recovery
capacity at the company's facility in Ellwood City, PA. Inmetco feels mat the Pennsylvania
state PK-4 regulations may subject the facility to additional permitting requirements and more
stringent management standards for the company's slag.
-------
91
The impacts of these regulatory requirements are uncertain but may be substantial if
company compliance burden estimates are accurate and depending on how the Pennsylvania
regulations are implemented. Inmetco believes that regulatory modification to RCRA
Subtitle C would provide an important incentive for the company to make the investments
necessary to expand its operation. Because of the overlapping state and federal regulatory
roles, Inmetco believes it is important to ensure that appropriate regulatory modifications at
the federal level are matched by suitable actions at the state levels.
EPA is not certain of the extent of the incentive. Because of market factors affecting
long term demand for metal commodities, regulatory modifications may be necessary but not
sufficient to cause a significant increase in company investments in expanded metal recovery
capacity. The net effect of RCRA Subtitle C regulations on Inmetco's operation appears to
be mixed and somewhat uncertain for regulatory disincentives. The derived-from rule and
management of the company's slag appear to be the leading regulatory issue for
consideration.
-------
92
6.3 Molten Metal Technology Inc., Waltham, MA
EPA selected Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMT) of Waltham, Massachusetts as a
case study in order to analyze regulatory issues related to an innovative metal recovery
technology entering the marketplace. EPA wanted to analyze regulatory impacts of Subtitle
C regulation on new firms using innovative technologies that are not commercially
established. The MMT process has been selected for study in part because of: 1) the wide
variety of potential feed materials processed and materials recovered, 2) the unique nature of
the process (e.g., the company's description of the complete dissociation of materials injected
into the process which may have aspects of both recycling and treatment depending upon the
feed materials), 3) the operation of the firm's R&D facility under a state of Massachusetts
"Recycling R&D" permit and 4). regulatory issues identified by MMT as impediments to
metal recovery not often raised by the regulated community, but possibly acting as very
serious disincentives. EPA believes that evaluating an innovative technology like MMT will
help the Agency understand both the RCRA incentives and barriers to developing new
technologies for metal recovery from hazardous waste.
History
The catalytic extraction process (CEP) used by MMT (described below) was
developed by Dr. Christopher Nagel in 1986 while employed at U.S. Steel. Dr. Nagel
developed CEP further during his stay at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr.
Nagel developed CEP from traditional steel making technology.111 MMT was formed
November 1989m and owns the patent rights to the CEP.113
To develop the commercial applications of CEP, MMT has entered into business
alliances with a number of firms. In 1990, MMT arranged $5 million in equity financing
from Travelers Corp. of Hartford Connecticut. In April of 1992, Travelers committed an
additional $10 million.114 In April 1991, MMT and L'Air Liquide of France entered into a
joint venture in which L'Air Liquide has committed over 50 people and $30 million. L'Air
Liquide is also involved in research and sales in MMT. In May 1992, MMT reached
agreement with Du Pont to perform technical assistance and marketing services.115 Du
Pont has also contributed $1.5 million and technical training for hazardous waste handling
techniques.116
In May 1991, MMT announced an agreement with Rollins Environmental Services, a
hazardous waste management firm, to participate in technical development of the CEP
process. In October 1992, Rollins funded $1.2 million for a joint venture with MMT and
provided two senior technical staff to explore treating halogenated and metal-bearing
wastes.117 Finally, in June 1991, MMT established a marketing agreement with Am-Re
Managers, an environmental insurance company, to market MMT technology to Am-Re's
client base. Am-Re has indicated interest on testing MMT technology on specific waste
streams to reassure prospective clients of the technology's effectiveness118.
-------
93
MMT has completed construction of a $10 million, 36,000 square foot recycling
research and development facility in Fall River, Massachusetts. EPA completed a site visit
of the Fall River facility on January 26, 1993. The facility includes a 5 pound, 20 pound,
100 pound and a one ton CEP unit (note: CEP unit weight refers to the weight of molten
metal in the unit). A commercial one ton CEP unit would be capable of processing 15,000
tons of solid waste per year. MMT is currently conducting treatability studies at the facility.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) issued MMT permits
to conduct treatability studies in August 1992 and February 1993. MADEP issued an
operating air permit to MMT in December 1992. MADEP issued a R&D recycling permit
to MMT hi September 1993. As discussed below, MMT has quantified its permit
application costs at over $300,000 exclusive of in-house expenses estimated by the company
to be at least equal to that amount.119 Approximately half of this estimate can be attributed
to the R&D recycling permit. The regulatory issues surrounding that permit are discussed
below. Because MMT does not intend to store materials at Fall River for which a RCRA
storage permit is required prior to inserting them into its process, the company has not
applied for a RCRA Part B storage permit.
Process Description (Refer to Chart Next Page)
MMT is developing and commercializing a type of process known as the Catalytic
Extraction Process (CEP). The historical development of this process is described above.
The CEP unit is based on a steel converter unit that is used to melt steel scrap. The CEP
process differs from a steel converter in that the hood of the CEP unit is sealed and air tight
to maintain a reducing environment.
Essentially, the CEP unit is a steel cylinder containing a molten metal bath (usually
iron or hi some cases nickel or other metals) that is maintained between 1320°c and 1925°c
depending on the feed material. Feed materials, flux (to remove impurities) and oxygen are
added into the bath from the bottom of the cylinder. Feed materials are gaseous, liquid,
sludge or small particle solid feed. Specific wastestreams that MMT is looking at include
PCB's, nickel acetate, aluminum potliners, spent nickel catalysts, incinerator ash, pesticides,
transuranic wastes, flyash, municipal waste, and petroleum wastes.
These process inputs partition to the metal bath, the slag layer (referred to by MMT
as the specialty inorganic phase) or the gas phase. As MMT literature describes it, organic
constituents of feed materials dissociate into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Nonvolatile
metals partition to the metal bath. Inorganic elements like silicon and calcium are captured
in the slag layer. MMT literature describes process outputs as the metal bath, vitreous
material (slag), and recovered gases (H, CO).
-------
94
The first step of the CEP process is to dissociate the feed into its elemental
constituents and this may be thought of as "treatment". However, in most if not all
applications, MMT has stated that the intended operation would "complete" the process by
reconstituting these elements into useful products. Although there may be instances wherein
based upon the particular feed material and/or the resultant products, the application may not
qualify as "recycling", MMT believes that the principle intended applications include the
production of useful products.
The fate and transport of hazardous constituents, such as lead or cadmium, from
hazardous waste feedstocks is an important factor in evaluating both the legitimacy and safety
of a metal recovery operation. MMT reports that all organic hazardous constituents are
destroyed in the metal bath. Hazardous metal constituents would partition to the metal bath,
the vitreous layer or the off-gas system depending upon the specific metal constituent and the
operating conditions (rncluding temperature) of the CEP unit. At the time of this writing,
MMT is conducting trials to assess the optimal treatment and recovery conditions of their
process for managing hazardous constituents of their CEP feed materials.
Blgure 6.3 - Process How Diagram For MMT (process outputs are labeled from MMT
literature)
:EP's Feed Capability
Sealed Hood System
Bulk Solid
Feed
Gaseous, Liquid,
Sludge, Small
Particle Solid Fe«d
Gaseous Products
Specialty Inorganics
fct-Meta! Products
Cases
Flux and
Reactant
Additives
MMT
M*ftt» Mrtri TKkMhv
-------
95
MMT has provided EPA with an example of how the CEP process can be applied to a
metal-bearing hazardous waste stream, nickel-hydrocarbons and nickel catalysts. As
discussed in Chapter 7, nickel is largely an imported metal. According to the Bureau of
Mines, the United States imported roughly 64 percent of its nickel from Canada, Norway,
Australia and others. Recovering nickel from metal-bearing hazardous waste may be one
way to lessen the U.S. balance of trade deficit for mineral commodities.
Because the following description of the CEP process and nickel-bearing feedstocks in
this example is provided by MMT to EPA, please note that EPA has not verified the facts
stated in the description. Further, this example does not constitute an EPA endorsement of
the CEP process. EPA does not endorse specific commercial processes.
MMT has stated that metal-containing feeds are particularly well suited for processing
utilizing CEP technology. MMT has identified spent nickel catalysts and other nickel-
hydrocarbon streams as prime examples and MMT has evaluated a number of these nickel
streams. MMT has provided the following example of a nickel stream which it has
evaluated; the nickel-hydrocarbon feed material contains about 12% nickel, 66% carbon and
5% hydrogen, with the remaining elements principally being oxygen, nitrogen and
phosphorous, as well as trace amounts of other elements (such as 200 ppm of chlorine).
This material, together with oxygen and flux (calcium oxide and alumina) are fed into a
molten nickel bath.
MMT states that the process first dissociates all of the feed materials into their
elemental constituents. Nickel is dissolved in the metal bath, with essentially all of it being
recovered as high-quality metallurgical-grade nickel (e.g.; it contains less than 0.5% of
impurities). MMT states that the carbon and hydrogen are converted and recovered as CO
and H2 which is commercial grade, gaseous Syngas product, and is suitable (as produced or
after it is processed by conventional gas purification equipment) for use in the production of
methanol, acetic acid and other chemical processes. Other elements present in the nickel-
hydrocarbon feed are primarily partitioned to the vitreous or slag layer and recovered. This
vitreous material is principally CaO, Ca2P2Os, and P2O5 with trace amounts of other materials
(e.g. ;CaCl2) which are securely bound in the vitreous lattice. MMT states that the material
has sufficient physical properties to be used as commercial grade aggregate and possibly
commercial grade abrasive.
MMT maintains that CEP applications such as these demonstrate that CEP is a
bonafide environmentally sound recycling technology for several reasons. First, a mass
balance for nickel-hydrocarbon feed material demonstrates that all or substantially of the feed
constituents are converted into commercial grade products. Based upon the elemental
composition of the nickel-hydrocarbon feed:
-------
96
metal phase 2 molar % (i.e.; essentially 100%) is recovered as metallurgical grade nickel which is
worth S6000/ton;
gaseous phase 97 molar % is recovered as commercial grade Syngas, which is worth $50-150/ton; and
vitreous phase 1 molar % of aggregate or abrasive which is worth between $5 and $30 per ton.
Second, the feed's principle toxic impurities (i.e., toxic organic compounds) are completely
dissociated and converted to useful gaseous products (CO and H2) comparable in composition
and converted to other commercial grade Syngas and any inherently toxic materials (e.g.,
heavy metals) will either converted, recovered and/or placed in a benign form in the vitreous
lattice. The vitreous material contains elements from the nickel-hydrocarbon feed, as well as
elements from the flux and oxygen feeds. A relatively small amount of vitreous material is
produced (approximately 1 ton of vitreous material for each 8.0 tons of nickel-feed). As a
worst-case scenario, any vitreous material which did not meet product specification MMT
maintains will pass TCLP and be a benign material.
Regulatory Issues & Analysis
RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements may affect new metal recovery operations
that use innovative technologies differently than they impact commercially established metal
recovery operations. New metal recovery operations that use innovative technologies are in
the position of having a higher burden to demonstrate their potential effectiveness and safety
to potential customers and regulators than many older, well known operations. Establishing
the technical and economic feasibility of the operation may prove to be a greater challenge
man for a commercially established operation. RCRA Subtitle C regulatory provisions that
may have a greater effect upon innovative metal recovery technologies include certain
application and permit issuance requirements for research, development and demonstration
permits (40 CFR Section 270.65), and exclusion of samples undergoing treatability studies
from RCRA Subtitle C regulation including the 250 kilogram limit on waste processing
within a 24 hour period (40 CFR Section 261.4(f).
Regulatory determinations on the legitimacy of the process (i.e., whether the
operation is in fact recycling or merely treatment) may also be more problematic for
innovative metal recovery technologies due to the regulator's lack of familiarity with both the
"process" and the "product" of an innovative technology. In contrast, facility-wide
corrective action may have a lesser impact on a testing facility for an innovative technology
than a commercially established recycling operation because the latter may have a more
difficult time siting the facility. Finally, RCRA Subtitle C permitting requirements appear to
affect both types of operations.
-------
97
Under its regulations at 310 CMR 30,200, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
regulates recycling materials which EPA does not regulate as "solid wastes" (e.g.
characteristic sludges and by-products being reclaimed). These materials are regulated by
MADEP as Class A regulated recyclable materials. Regulated recyclable materials which
EPA does consider as solid/hazardous wastes are generally regulated as Class C regulated
recyclable materials. MADEP requires RCRA storage permitting for Class C material, but
not for Class A.
MMT has identified a series of RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements and
exclusions as incentives or disincentives to metal recovery for innovative technologies
becoming commercially established. RCRA incentives include land disposal restriction
(LDR) requirements for metal-bearing hazardous waste, treatability study exclusions from
RCRA Subtitle C regulation, closed-loop recycling exclusions to the definition of solid waste,
regulatory exclusions for totally-enclosed treatment facilities, and the general exclusion for
the recycling process. RCRA disincentives for metal recovery for innovative technologies
becoming commercially established include technology-based LDR treatment standards (i.e.,
where a specific technology must be used), permit requirements for storage prior to
reclamation, the absence of a research, development and demonstration permit that will
encourage recycling operations, and establishing the legitimacy of a reclamation operation.
Land Disposal Restrictions (as an incentive)
MMT reiterated the belief of many metal recovery operations that the land disposal
restrictions treatment standards (40 CFR §§ 268.41-43) create favorable market conditions
for recovering metals from hazardous wastes. Part 268 does this either directly by
specifying metal recovery as the required treatment for recycled wastes prior to land disposal
(e.g., spent-lead acid batteries, nickel-cadmium batteries, high category mercury-bearing
wastes) or indirectly by raising treatment and disposal costs of metal-bearing hazardous
waste.
Treatability Exemption
The second RCRA regulatory incentive MMT identified for metal recovery for
innovative technologies is the exemption for treatability studies for testing facilities (40 CFR
261.4(f)). Testing facilities conducting treatability studies on hazardous waste are exempted
under this provision from substantially all RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements (Parts
124, 262-266, 268, 270 and Section 3010 RCRA notification). This incentive is limited by
the 250 kilogram per day limit on the quantity of hazardous waste that can be tested at the
facility (40 CFR Section 261.4(f)(3)). The difficulty created by this limitation according to
MMT is that processing only 250 kilograms of material per day is insufficient to demonstrate
the feasibility of the CEP process for many feedstocks.
-------
98
MMT has stated that 250 kilograms of feed material is insufficient because of lack of
sufficient test duration and the inadequate test data that results. This creates two
problems.120
First, because the state of Massachusetts administers research and development
recycling permits, the state authorized MMT to conduct treatability studies in August 1992
and February 1993. The state has conditioned issuance of the R&D recycling certifications
on satisfactory results during the treatability studies; the 250 kg limit makes gathering
satisfactory data difficult. MMT maintains that 250 kg. is simply too small an amount to
reasonably demonstrate CEP's applicability to particular material streams. For example, in
the 1-ton unit, 250 kg would allow only about 1-2 hours of operation. For most
applications, this would be an insufficient time for reliable steady state demonstrations of the
quality of the recovered resources, accurate mass balances, process economics, etc.
Second, the 250 kilogram limit makes it difficult for MMT to demonstrate to the
potential customers the technical and economic efficiency of the process. At the time of this
writing, EPA is proposing a regulation to increase the daily 250 kilogram limit for some
hazardous wastes (i.e., contaminated soil and debris).
Closed-Loop Exclusion/Totally Enclosed Exemption
MMT in its literature identifies both the closed-loop recycling provision (40 CFR
Section 261.4(a)(8)) and the totally enclosed treatment provision (40 CFR Section
264.1(g)(5)) as possible incentives for its operation. The closed-loop recycling provision
excludes secondary materials from the definition of solid waste if they are reclaimed and
returned to the production process in which they were generated and reused within the
production provided that 1) only tank storage is involved and the entire process through
reclamation is enclosed through pipe or similar means, 2) reclamation does not involve
controlled flame combustion, 3) secondary materials are not stored in tanks longer than 12
months without being reclaimed and 4) the reclaimed material is not used to produce a fuel
or used in a manner constituting disposal.
The totally enclosed treatment provision exempts owner/operators from RCRA
permitting standards (40 CFR Part 264) that operate facilities that meet the definition of a
total enclosed treatment facility as defined in 40 CFR Section 260.10, Under federal
regulations a totally enclosed treatment facility is defined as one that is directly connected to
an industrial production process, which is constructed and operated in a manner which
prevents the release of any hazardous waste or constituent into the environment during
treatment (40 CFR Section 260.10). EPA is not commenting at this tune on the prospective
application of either of these provisions to the MMT process.
-------
99
Recycling Exclusion
The final RCRA Subtitle C regulatory incentive identified by MMT is the general
regulatory exclusion for the recycling process, 40 CFR Section 261.6(c). This provision
states that in general that the recycling process itself is not regulated. This would mean that
metal recovery operations that do not store prior to reclamation would not be subject to
RCRA permit requirements nor the facility-wide corrective action requirements and financial
assurance requirements that have been identified as serious regulatory impediments to metal
recovery from hazardous wastes.
Evaluation of how the RCRA regulations apply to a "recycling process" requires a
determination of whether the process involves "use/reuse" and/or "reclamation" of materials.
Under RCRA, a material is "recycled" if it is used, reused or reclaimed. 40 CFR Section
261.1(c)(7). "Used or reused" means "employed as an ingredient in an industrial process to
make a product.. .however, a material will not satisfy this condition if distinct components of
the material are recovered as separate end products (as when metals are recovered from
metal-containing secondary materials)". 40 CFR Section 261.1(c)(5). "Reclaimed" means
"processed to recover a usable product or regenerated". 40 CFR 261.(c)(4).
In many CEP applications, MMT states the organic and non-metallic inorganic
components of the feed materials would be dissolved into their elemental constituents and
transformed into new materials—specifically, gases such as CO and H2 and specialty
inorganic compounds. MMT states that in these applications, except for any metals in the
feed, there is no recovery of distinct components hi the CEP feed material because the
components have all been dissolved into their elemental constituents. Thus, MMT believes
non-metallic CEP feed materials may be considered to be used or reused in an industrial
process to make a product without being reclaimed.
If secondary materials are recycled by being used or reused to make a product; the
secondary materials would be excluded from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR
261.2(e)(l)(i), and so the feed materials would not be subject to RCRA storage permit
requirements. Also, the recycling process would not be subject to RCRA hazardous waste
regulations.
Finally, any residuals from the process would not be subject to the "derived-from"
rule which may be a significant impediment for many innovative technologies. As a result,
MMT believes that classification of specific CEP applications as use or reuse recycling
would provide a significant incentive for the use of the technology. EPA is not commenting
at this tune on the prospective application of the "use/reuse" provisions of the Subtitle C
regulations, 40 261.2(e)(l), to the MMT process.
-------
100
For waste feeds containing metals, metal components of the feed may be recovered.
Thus, with respect to the metal recovery from those feeds, CEP looks more like reclamation
because an identifiable component of the feed is recovered. However, if valuable gases
and/or specialty inorganics are also produced, use or reuse of CEP feeds may be occurring at
the same time that metal components of the feed are recovered. Even if a CEP unit
recovering metals is classified as a reclamation process, the CEP unit itself could still be
exempt from RCRA regulation121 (recall that under RCRA Subtitle C, the recycling process
is generally exempt from regulation. 40 CFR §261.6(c)(l)), although CEP feeds and process
residuals could be subject to RCRA regulation.
Storage Permit Requirements
As with other case study respondents, MMT has identified RCRA Subtitle C
permitting as a disincentive to metal recovery from hazardous wastes. Requiring a storage
permit could be a concern to the company. The issue of whether or not a treatment permit
is required will be discussed below under the issue of legitimacy. As mentioned above,
MMT does not store Massachusetts Class C regulated recyclable materials prior to
reclamation at the Fall River facility and so has not applied for a storage permit.
Nevertheless, storage permit requirements may become an issue for prospective CEP
operations where storage prior to reclamation may be necessary.
Also, MMT's concern about the lack of a definition of storage was mentioned during
EPA's site visit to the Fall River facility on January 26, 1993. During that visit, MMT
showed gravity feed bins (Flo-Bins) that would be used to put feed materials into the CEP
process. The EPA representative asked whether or not materials would be accumulated in
these bins for prolonged periods of time prior to insertion into the reclamation process.
MMT representatives responded that there would be two bins used in a continuous process
mode and that while one bin was in use that the other bin would be filled and prepared for
use. Thus, the fact that there is no federal definition and many different state definitions for
how long a material may be accumulated on site without being considered to constitute
storage represents a source of regulatory uncertainty for MMT.
Research, Development and Demonstration Permit
MMT has also stated that the difficulty in obtaining a federal research, development
and demonstration permit program that encourages innovative recycling technologies is a
major impediment for innovative metal recovery technologies entering me market place.
Both MMT and MADEP have noted the difficulty in obtaining a research, development and
demonstration permit (RD&D) for recycling at the federal level under RCRA although such a
permit exists for treatment and disposal.122 MMT also identified this difficulty as a
specific impediment for innovation metal recovery technologies that are becoming
commercially established.
-------
101
While the recycling process in general is not regulated under RCRA (40 CFR Section
261.6(c)(l)>, a research and development permit for recycling could benefit recycling
operations that store prior to reclamation. Normally, the benefit to recipients of federal
RD&D permits at the federal level is that the Administrator of EPA may issue these permits
without many of the Part 124 or 270 permit application or issuance requirements (40 CFR
Section 270.65). MMT rejected applying for this type of RD&D permit because of the time
and resource commitment for applicants and uncertainty of approval. MMT's specific
concerns included the RD&D permit's limited duration (1 year with limited renewals), the
reportedly difficult and lengthy permitting process and the focus on demonstrating
experimental treatment technologies generally, not the application of a recycling technology
to specific materials streams.
Land Disposal Restrictions (as a disincentive)
As noted above, the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) provide regulatory incentives
that help to create a market for innovative metal recovery technologies. The LDR may also
create disincentives for using new technologies. The LDR provide that hazardous wastes or
residues may not be disposed on the land unless they meet the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) standards specified in 40 CFR §268 1) a specific technology or 2) a
concentration based level that is not technology specific. EPA recognizes that concentration-
based BDAT standards (which may be achieved using any suitable technology) encourage
technological innovation. Nevertheless, some BDAT standards that are technology-based
create disincentives for new technologies.
In certain applications, a CEP unit may produce not only valuable products, but also a
non-salable residue that must be disposed. Disposal of this material (that MMT believes
would not exceed TCLP standards) may be complicated if it is considered a derived-from
waste for which there is an existing technology-based standard that by definition CEP would
not meet. In this case both the derived-from rule and the technology based BDAT standards
could be disincentives to use of CEP technology.
Legitimate Recycling
, Another RCRA regulatory disincentive that MMT identified is the lack of specific
established criteria for legitimate "recycling" (existing criteria is somewhat vague) to
determine whether or not MMT is a legitimate R&D recycler rather than a sham recycler
(e.g., one that actually treats rather than recycles). MADEP provided a draft R&D recycling
permit to EPA Region I for review that conditions issuance of a recycling R&D certification
for MMT on an economic test. The economic test specified that the value of the material
recovered is equal to or greater than the operating cost of processing it.123 MMT
maintained that economics should be a relevant factor, but not the sole determining factor.
The company also maintained that an economic test should not be the sole measure of
legitimate recycling because the benefits of recycling include avoided cost of disposal and
avoided future liability.
-------
102
If a narrow legitimacy test were applied and the CEP process was unable to meet it,
the company's R&D recycling demonstrations would be restricted to a smaller class of
materials. Additionally, commercial operations which could not pass the test would be
regulated as a treatment facilities rather than a recycling facility. As a commercial treatment
process, it would be subject to all federal treatment standards and permit requirements. The
CEP facility would also be subject to facility-wide corrective action and financial assurance
requirements. Although EPA does consider economics as a factor in determining
legitimacy124, there is currently no economic test for legitimacy under federal RCRA rules.
MADEP reconsidered the issue and sought additional input (including that of an
economic consultant) and eventually concluded that it was not possible to make a recycling
determination solely on the basis of an economic test. The final permit specifies subjective
criteria that MADEP will use to determine if a specific waste stream is legitimately
recyclable using CEP. The criteria include whether the CEP products are "commodity-like',
the relative recovery of products versus waste residuals, and the toxicity and risk associated
with CEP products and waste residuals.
In attempting to evaluate the regulatory effects of RCRA Subtitle C on MMT and
CEP, it is apparent that both the versatility of the MMT process and the diversity of potential
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes processed represent both an opportunity for substantial
innovation in hazardous waste treatment or recovery and a source of difficulty for federal and
state regulators trying to determine the regulatory status of the MMT process.
The MMT process is unique. Other pyrometallurgical metal recovery operations heat
the feed in an oxygen, oxidizing environment rather than a metal bath, reducing
environment. Operating temperatures for the MMT process may vary by 600 °c depending
on the feed material. This variability in temperature can change the fate and transport of
hazardous constituents in the MMT process. For example, at the higher operating
temperatures, lead will volatilize and be recovered in the off-gas stream. At lower operating
temperatures, some of the lead may partition to the slag layer.
The metal bath is usually iron or steel, but may be nickel, cobalt or other metal
depending upon the needs of the customer. And in contrast to metal recovery operations that
specialize in one waste stream, CEP is potentially applicable to a variety of feedstocks
ranging from incinerator ash to nickel catalysts.
The versatility of the MMT process and diversity of wastes processed may eventually
foster the recovery of metal-bearing wastes that have heretofore not been amenable to
recovery either because they were too contaminated or too dilute in metal content to be cost-
effective. At the same time, state and federal regulatory officials evaluating the MMT
process may have difficulty assessing the regulatory status of the operation under the current
RCRA Subtitle C regulatory framework. EPA has said that in order to assess the intent of
the owner/operator regarding the legitimacy of the process it is necessary to evaluate the
circumstantial evidence of the process.125
-------
103
The versatility and diversity of the MMT process presents many challenges to a
regulator trying to characterize it. In some applications, the MMT process may look more
like traditional treatment than recovery (e.g. processing an organic waste that does not
recover either hydrocarbons or metals as a separate end products). In other applications, the
process may more closely resemble a traditional metal recovery technology (e.g., recovering
nickel from a spent nickel catalyst as a ferronickel alloy).
The challenge to the regulatory agency in evaluating a firm like MMT is to find a
way to encourage this type of innovation without compromising agency standards for
identifying legitimate recycling and protecting the environment. This is not easy when a
technology does not fall neatly into any of the categories created by the regulatory scheme.
Conclusion
As of May 1994, MMT had begun its commercial introduction of its CEP technology
in the marketplace. The company has contracts in place with a diverse group of clients for
four commercial facilities utilizing its technology. Compared with many pilot and bench
scale innovative recycling technologies trying to become established on a commercial scale,
MMT is relatively well-capitalized and supported by corporate partners and investors. Thus,
the company be better able than smaller firms to overcome regulatory disincentives to
recycling.
To date, the effects of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on MMT have been mixed. The
company has clearly benefited from markets for recoverable metal-bearing hazardous waste
created by Subtitle C regulation and regulatory exclusions and exemptions for the recycling
process and testing facilities conducting treatability studies. At the same tune, the lack of
certainty surrounding the company's permitting status and the technical limitations for
conducting recycling demonstrations have constrained the company's ability to develop more
quickly.
Again, as with the other case studies, it is difficult to assess the proper level of
RCRA Subtitle C regulation for MMT and other innovative technologies to optimize RCRA's
dual objectives of environmental protection and resource conservation. With MMT, it is all
the more difficult because of the versatility of the process and diversity of hazardous wastes
processed.
EPA is examining how its regulations affect the innovation of technologies that
recover metals from hazardous wastes. In 1990, EPA recognized that its RD&D permitting
program has not been streamlined to encourage technological innovation.126 As mentioned
above, the Agency is also proposing a rule to modify its treatability exemption for testing
facilities.
-------
104
EPA has also recently encouraged innovative technologies for treating electric arc
furnace dust (K061) by specify ing treatments standards based on high-temperature metal
recovery (HTMR) and establishing generic exclusion levels for HTMR residuals managed in
Subtitle D landfills.127 This case study will support existing Agency efforts to meet this
goal by providing insight into which RCRA Subtitle C regulatory provisions are disincentives
to innovative recovery technologies.
-------
105
6.4 Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc.128
This case study is written solely to familiarize the reader with the processes involved in a
specific metal recovery operation (Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc.
(HRD)) and to present the company's view of how, based on its experience, the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations affect such metal recovery operations. This case study
discusses very complex issues in simplified terms, using general statements about the
hazardous waste regulations that may not accurately reflect the regulations applicable to a
specific situation. In addition, EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources are currently involved in enforcement proceedings against HRD regarding the
status of certain operations and materials under RCRA. Nothing in this case study should
be taken to represent the Environmental Protection Agency's position or interpretation of
the regulatory status of particular materials, activities, or facilities. Finally, the
terminology used in this case study is based on the federal regulations and should not be
construed to have any meaning in the context of Pennsylvania state law or regulations.
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. (HRD) was selected for a case
study because it is one of the largest and most established operations currently
recovering129 metal from hazardous waste in the country. HRD is also illustrative of
several other issues in that HRD has a number of facilities located in different states
throughout the country, and HRD's recovery process consists of a number of steps, some of
which are conducted sequentially at several of these facilities.
HRD recovers zinc (and smaller quantities of other metals) from electric arc furnace
dust, an air pollution control dust generated in the production of steel hi electric arc furnaces
(EAFs). Electric arc furnace dust has been listed as hazardous waste K061. EAFs are
smaller than other steelmaking furnaces and use scrap steel rather than molten pig iron as the
main feed stock. Technological improvements and the availability of scrap steel have
increased the number of EAFs hi use, which in 1992 made up approximately 38 percent of
U.S. steel production capacity. It is projected that by the year 2000, EAFs may represent 45
to 50 percent of the national steelmaking capacity.130 In 1992 it is estimated that 550,000
tons of EAF dust were generated in the United States.
In 1992, HRD processed 376,000 tons of EAF dust, which is approximately 68
percent of the EAF dust generated domestically. From that EAF dust (and 9,000 tons of
other metal bearing wastes) HRD produced 120,000 tons of zinc calcine (from which zinc
metal is refined at primary smelters) and 19,000 tons of lead concentrate. This quantity of
zinc calcine represents approximately 25 percent of the U.S. zinc concentrate market.
-------
106
HRD estimates that its recovery processes reduce the landfill capacity necessary for
disposal of EAF dust in the United States by approximately 57 percent.131 HRD further
estimates that its recovery processes replace the mining of approximately 1.5 million tons of
zinc-containing ore, 300,000 tons of lead-containing ore, and smaller quantities of copper-
and silver-containing ore. HRD's processes also recover over 200,000 tons of iron units,
roughly 30 percent of which are used in applications that replace the use of other iron
sources. Further, this replaced mining activity reduces the mine tailings that would be
generated to obtain the same quantities of these minerals from primary production by close to
2 million tons. Sulfur dioxide emissions are also reduced because HRD's sulfur emissions
are low and HRD's zinc calcine is low in sulfur compared to zinc concentrates from primary
sources. HRD obtains roughly half of its revenues from selling the recovered zinc calcine
(and other recovered products). The remaining half comes from the fees paid by EAF
generators (steel mills) for the recycling service.
History
Palmerton, Pennsylvania
HRD's oldest facility is located in Palmerton, Pennsylvania on part of the original site
of a primary zinc smelter that operated from 1898 to 1980. Zinc concentrates from captive
and third-party mines were shipped by train and track to the smelter in Palmerton, which is
located in a coal producing region. In 1929, a pyrometallurgical process utilizing inclined
horizontal rotary kilns known as Waelz kilns (from the German word "walzen," which means
to trundle or roll) was instituted at the Palmerton facility to process unique zinc ores from
captive New Jersey mines. In 1979, EAF dusts were first processed in the Waelz kilns to
replace zinc ores as the New Jersey mines began to be depleted. The quantity of EAF dust
reclaimed increased over time until 1986, when the New Jersey mines were closed and EAF
dust and other secondary feeds became the sole input to the Waelz kilns.
It should be noted that the Environmental Protection Agency listed EAF dust as
hazardous waste K061 under the RCRA regulations in 1980 due to its content of lead,
cadmium, and hexavalent chromium. Although this regulation became effective over time in
various states as each incorporated it into its own regulatory program, the end result was that
generators of EAF dust were required to send the waste to a RCRA permitted or interim
status treatment or disposal facility. In the case of EAF dust, management options included
hazardous waste landfills or recycling operations such as HRD.
In 1986, a second pyrometallurgical recovery step known as calcining was added at
the Palmerton facility to further concentrate the crude zinc oxide (CZO) produced in Waelz
kilns. Currently, materials are recovered at the Palmerton facility in five kilns (two Waelz
kilns, two calcine kilns, and one kiln that can be used for either operation). The HRD
Palmerton facility has been storing hazardous wastes under RCRA interim status and is
currently involved in litigation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources concerning a final RCRA permit.
-------
107
The Palmerton facility was owned until 1966 by The New Jersey Zinc Company,
Inc., then by Gulf 4- Western Industries, Inc. (now Paramount Communications, Inc.), and
was purchased in 1981 by Horsehead Industries, Inc. (HII). In 1986, HRD was created from
an existing division of HII and took over the Waelzing operation and the portion of the
facility on which the kilns are located. Currently, 45 percent of HRD is owned by HII, 45
percent is owned by Berzelius Umwelt Service AG (a subsidiary of the German company
Metallgesellschaft AG), and 10 percent is publicly held.
Chicago, Illinois
In 1988 HRD began Waelzing operations at its second location in Chicago, Illinois.
The facility had originally been a petroleum coke calcining plant owned by Great Lakes
Carbon Corporation, an HRD affiliate company from which HRD purchased the site. One of
the existing petroleum coke calcining kilns was converted to a Waelz kiln. HRD plans to
begin operating a second Waelz kUn at the Chicago facility in the first quarter of 1994.
Under the State of Illinois's RCRA program, EAF dust recovered at the Chicago plant is
considered to be processed immediately upon delivery (i.e., is not considered to be stored
on-site) and thus HRD is not required to obtain a RCRA permit for this facility.132 The
facility has air permits for its air emissions.
Rockwood, Tennessee
In December of 1990 HRD began Waelz operations at its third location in Rockwood,
Tennessee. Previously a direct reduced iron plant and then a carbon char plant, HRD was
able to convert the existing kiln at the plant to a Waelz kiln. Similar to the Chicago plant,
under Tennessee's RCRA program HRD is not considered to be storing EAF dust prior to
recovery and is thus not required to obtain a RCRA permit for the Rockwood plant. The
facility is permitted for air emissions.
Joint Venture: Bartlesville, Oklahoma
In 1988 HRD formed a joint venture with Zinc Corporation of America (ZCA), an
unincorporated division of HTI, to develop a hydrometallurgical operation to further recover a
lead concentrate produced in EAF dust recovery at Palmerton. The purpose for developing
the process was to recover a higher quality (maximum value) lead product than was possible
with other recycling options. A full-scale plant constructed at a ZCA facility in Bartlesville,
Oklahoma has been slow to become fully operational, a difficulty HRD ascribes to a lack of
pilot-scale research pushed by a concern on the part of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources that lead concentrate not be stored at the Palmerton facility for
long periods of time while the Bartlesville plant was constructed. Due to a State of
Oklahoma court determination that the lead concentrate is not a listed waste under the State's
RCRA program, and a State recycling exemption, the Bartlesville plant is not required to
obtain a RCRA permit.
-------
108
Monaca, Pennsylvania
In 1987 HII purchased a division of the St. Joe Minerals Corporation and with this
purchase also obtained a new pyrometallurgical metal recovery technology that St. Joe had
been researching since the mid-1970s. The process is known as flame reactor flash smelting.
St. Joe had constructed a pilot-scale flame reactor unit at a facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania
in 1982. The flame reactor technology was conveyed to HRD, who continues to conduct
research on the uses and operations of the technology at the Monaca plant which operates
under a RCRA Research, Development, and Demonstration permit issued by EPA Region III
in Philadelphia.
Beaumont, Texas
In June of 1993, HRD began operation of its first full-scale flame reactor recovering
metal from wastes. (The technology has previously been licensed to a U.S. company for a
non-waste application.) The plant was constructed on-site at an electric arc steel mill in
Beaumont, Texas, owned by North Star Steel, Inc. The flame reactor technology is being
used to recover EAF dust generated by North Star and by other nearby steel mills into a
material similar to the crude zinc oxide produced in Waelzing. Compared to the Waelz
process, the flame reactor technology requires much lower capital investment to construct
and a smaller volume of input waste materials to operate economically.
Process Description133
As in a primary metal production process, each step in HRD's metal recovery process
further concentrates the metals that are to be recovered, including zinc, lead, and cadmium.
It should be noted that this also means that the hazardous constituents in the EAF dust (e.g.,
lead, cadmium) are concentrated further at each step.
HRD's recovery process can generally be described as: 1) the original multi-step
process used to recover zinc and other metals from EAF dust, and 2) the flame reactor, a
relatively new alternative to the first step in the original process. The original process steps
consist of the pyrometallurgical Waelz kiln, the pyrometallurgical calcine kiln, and the
hydrometallurgical lead concentrate process. The alternative step, the flame reactor, can
replace the Waelz kiln step. In addition, HRD is recycling other non-EAF dust wastes in
relatively small quantities through the original process together with EAF dusts, and is
exploring options for recycling other wastes using the flame reactor technology either with or
without EAF dusts.
Figure 6.4 is a simplified process flow diagram for the first two steps in the original
process (Waelzing and calcining). Figure 6.5 illustrates in more detail these two steps as
conducted at the Palmerton, Pennsylvania plant. For comparison, Figure 6.6 illustrates the
process at the Chicago, Illinois facility, where, as at the Rockwood, Tennessee facility, only
Waelzing is conducted.
-------
109
EAF dust, which typically contains 20 percent zinc, is first received from off-site in
trucks or rail cars at HRD's Palmerton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Illinois, and Rockwood,
Tennessee facilities. The dust is unloaded in a receiving building, which is designed
differently at each of the three facilities. HRD has upgraded the design of materials handling
equipment hi the receiving buildings over tune as each new building was constructed, partly
to improve materials handling and partly to meet Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements. Prior to being fed into the Waelz kiln, the dust is
conditioned by hydration to achieve a free moisture content of about 10 percent, and mixed
with coal or coke, and fluxes. Approximately one ton of coal is used for each four tons of
EAF dust.
This conditioned mixture is then fed to the Waelz kiln. A Waelz kiln is an inclined
horizontal rotary kiln ranging from 160 to 180 feet in length and 10 to 12 feet in internal
diameter. The kiln is inclined slightly downward from the feed end with a slope of about
one inch per four feet of length. The kiln rotates at a speed of about thirty rotations per
hour, and together the incline and the rotation move the feed slowly down the kiln to the
discharge end. Residence tune for material that moves through the entire kiln is
approximately two and a half hours.
As the conditioned EAF dust mixture moves down the kiln it is first dried, and then
heated until the coal or coke begins to burn, which eventually raises the temperature of the
mixture to 1,100 °C or higher. The burning of carbon (from the coal or coke) hi the kiln
reduces most of the zinc, cadmium, and lead in the EAF dust to metallic form. These metals
volatilize, and are pulled out of the kiln hi a gas stream. The metals are reoxidized and
captured as particulate in a collector.
The collected particulate is known as crude zinc oxide (CZO), which contains
approximately 55 percent zinc. At Chicago and Rockwood, the CZO is pneumatically
transferred to railcars and shipped to Palmerton. Some CZO is sold directly to customers.
Inert materials are discharged from the kiln and cooled to form a non-vitrified slag that is
approximately 45 percent iron and is known as Iron Rich Material (IRM). The IRM is sold
for use in cement production (as an iron additive), as construction aggregate, asphalt
aggregate, anti-skid material for roadways, on-lot sewage treatment media, and ion exchange
water-filtration media.
At Palmerton, CZO from the Waelz kilns at Palmerton, Chicago, and Rockwood (and
from the flame reactor described below) is consolidated, and then fed to a calcine kiln. A
calcine kiln is similar in size and operation to a Waelz kiln, except that natural gas heat is
supplied at the lower end of the kiln to raise the temperatures to between 700 and 1,000 °C,
and no coal is added.
-------
110
Kgure 6.4 - Simplified Process Flow Diagram, Waelzing and
Calcining
CAP DUST
(approximately 20% Zinc)
CARBON 1 I i FLUX
LEAD-CADMIUM
CONCENTRATE
CALCINE
(55V60%Zine,
Source: Horsehead Resources Development, EAF Recycling Stalwart Expands Within
and Beyond its Core Business, El Digest, Environmental Information Ltd., May 1991.
As the CZO moves down the calcine kiln, the purity of zinc oxide is increased by
selective volatilization of lead, cadmium, and other minor constituents, which are pulled out
of the kiln in a gas stream. These constituents are captured hi a collector as particulate,
resulting in a material known as lead concentrate. This concentrate, which consists of 30 -
40 percent lead and 1-2 percent cadmium, is sacked and shipped by rail to the ZCA-HRD
joint venture facility at Barflesville, Oklahoma.
The remaining zinc oxide is discharged from the lower end of the calcine kiln, in the
form of zinc calcine, which is approximately 60 - 65 percent zinc. The zinc calcine is sold
to ZCA» which uses it as feedstock for its primary zinc smelters. The zinc calcine serves as
a substitute for zinc concentrate feedstocks at smelters. An advantage of the calcine over
zinc concentrates, however, is that the calcine is low in cadmium, lead, sulfur, and other
metallic impurities normally found in concentrates. As a consequence it can be introduced
near the end of the smelting process, rather than at the beginning. This has both economic
and envkonmental benefits for the smelter.
-------
Ill
Figure 6.5 - Detailed Schematic Process Flow Diagram, Palmerton, PA Facility
(Waelz and Calcine kilns)
Corf
Of
Cok*
.^
Una
FMi
V
Ho*
N«d
V
Source: Horsehead Development Company, Inc.
-------
112
Figure 6.6 - Detailed Schematic Process Flow Diagram, Chicago, IL Facility
(Wadz kiln only)
Co*l
or
Cok*
FMd
V
r~*
V
o. u uu,~ uu
ZbioFMd. I
T*Pakn*rton
Of
MmolM*
T
V
«r
Y
1 mw
,1 ""
— ^jfL,,^
•RtSiiSS
iy
J-ftUMii
8hlp«Hnl
.11 . k 8ri*i
/ ^^ MM
SMpMMt
Source: Horsehead Development Company, Inc.
-------
113
At the ZCA-HRD joint venture operation in Bartlesville, Oklahoma the lead
concentrate is processed through a largely hydrometallurgical recovery circuit. Outputs from
this operation include more concentrated lead concentrate, copper sponge, cadmium sponge,
and zinc oxide. Generally, these materials are sent to primary smelters. It should be noted
that the continued viability of cadmium recycling is dependent on the price of cadmium,
which is currently very low.
As mentioned previously, HRD has been developing a technology at its Monaca,
Pennsylvania research and development facility that can be used to recover various metals
from wastes and that can be used to replace the Waelz kiln step in the EAF dust recovery
sequence. HRD completed construction of its first full-scale flame reactor at a North Star
Steel EAF mill in Beaumont, Texas in early 1993. The facility began reclaiming EAF dust
from the North Star Steel mill and other local mills in June of 1993.
Figure 6.7 illustrates the flame reactor process. The flame reactor itself is a water-
cooled vertical reactor approximately 15 feet in height with an internal diameter of 22 inches.
The reactor consists of a burner section at the top and a reactor section at the bottom. Fuels,
which may consist of natural gas or dry, pulverized coke or coal are injected into the burner
section with oxygen-rich air. This mixture is ignited, and burns at approximately 2,000 °C,
producing a gas rich in carbon monoxide. This reducing gas is fed down into the reactor
section, where EAF dusts (or other wastes) are injected from storage bins. Certain metals in
the waste feed are selectively reduced and volatilized, and exit the reactor in the offgas. The
metals are subsequently oxidized and collected as a paniculate material that is similar to the
crude zinc oxide (CZO) produced hi Waelz kilns.
This material is shipped from the Beaumont facility to Palmerton for calcining with
the CZO from the other HRD facilities. A slag is produced in the flame reactor, which after
cooling, is similar in chemical make up to the iron rich material (IRM) produced in a Waelz
kiln. Flame reactor IRM is more vitrified, less porous, and has less compressive strength
than Waelz kiln IRM. HRD plans to market the flame reactor IRM for the same uses as
Waelz kiln IRM.
Regulatory Issues and Analysis
In discussions with the Agency and, as a member of the Metals Recovery Coalition
providing information on metal recovery to the Agency,134 HRD has described the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations as having a mixed effect on HRD's metal recovery operations.
In some ways, RCRA regulations have greatly increased the amount of EAF dust that HRD
recycles. Notably, the listing of EAF dust as a hazardous waste, which requires treatment or
disposal at a hazardous waste facility, and the identification of high-temperature metal
recovery as the required treatment technology for high-zinc EAF dust have driven recycling.
-------
114
Mgure 6.7 - Process Blow Diagram, flame Reactor
CMUtaWI
>l«l.»l»«Lt>MMii«)
V V
Source: Horsehead Resources Development, EAF Recycling Stalwart Expands Within
andJBeyond itsCore Business. El Digest, Environmental Information Ltd., May 1991.
However, HKD believes that many of the substantive requirements of RCRA
applicable to recovery operations pose great disincentives to recovering metals. HRD
identified the following five regulatory disincentives to metal recovery as the most
detrimental to their business:
• Derived-from rule;
• Uncertain regulatory status of partially-reclaimed products;
• Part B storage permit;
• Lack of consistency in state implementation of RCRA regulations; and
• Potential inclusion of metal recovery process conditions in permit.
Each of these disincentives is discussed below. In addition, HRD identified as a another
disincentive the inconsistent (less restrictive) application of RCRA regulations to other uses
of EAF dust such as use in fertilizer135 or use in a glassified material that is used to make
roofing shingles, abrasive blast, glass ceramic, or ceramic glazes.136
-------
115
Derived-From Rule
Under the RCRA regulations the derived-from rule stipulates that any solid waste
generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a listed hazardous waste continues to be
identified as that listed hazardous waste, unless the material is delisted (a case-by-case
determination made by the Agency in response to a petition submitted by the facility to
exclude the material from being a hazardous waste137). Wastes that are identified as
hazardous under the derived-from rule may or may not exhibit any characteristics of
hazardous waste, and may contain hazardous constituents at any levels ranging from 0 to 100
percent. It should be noted, however, that even without the derived-from rule, solid wastes
generated in the treatment of other wastes would be regulated as hazardous if they exhibit
hazardous waste characteristics.
The derived-from rule applies to any such solid wastes that are to be disposed of,
burned for energy recovery (or used to make a fuel), or used in such a way that they are
placed on the land (i.e., used in a manner constituting disposal, e.g., used as construction
aggregate placed on the land, as anti-skid material placed on roadways, or used to make
fertilizer). Generally derived-from hazardous wastes may not be used on the land without a
RCRA permit. However, there is an exemption that allows the use of EAF dust-derived
fertilizers, and of other waste-derived products if the hazardous constituents have been
treated so as to be inseparable by physical means (e.g., in cement or asphalt) and can meet
land disposal restrictions levels. However, this exemption, which allows the use of such
waste-derived products on the land but does not change their status as hazardous wastes, has
been criticized as not practical hi that such products that are considered hazardous waste have
a "stigma" and thus are difficult to market.
Since the main input to HRD's recovery processes is listed hazardous waste K061, the
derived-from rule could be interpreted to be applicable to any materials generated in the
recovery process that are disposed of, burned for energy recovery, or used in a manner
constituting disposal. Since the iron rich material (IRM) generated in the Waelz kilns (and
now also in the flame reactor) is sometimes used in applications involving placement on the
land, this issue has been a barrier to metal recovery for HRD hi two ways.
First, HRD indicates that lack of certainty and consistency in implementing this rule
has caused confusion, unnecessary litigation, and increased management costs. For example,
the status of IRM in Pennsylvania was only eventually decided through a state administrative
decision (that IRM was a product and not a derived-from waste), but this decision has not
been widely agreed upon or accepted by some parties, making the marketing of IRM a very
contentious issue. Subsequently, Pennsylvania has modified its hazardous waste regulations
and has added new residual waste (non-hazardous waste) regulations. These new
Pennsylvania regulations now define IRM as a waste and will subject its management to
some controls.
-------
116
Second, HRD indicates that the derived-from rule, in concert with the legitimacy
issue discussed below, creates an "unlevel playing field" for metal recovery companies
competing in the marketplace against primary metals producers and other competing product
manufacturers. For example, HKD explains that because a primary metal producer has not
introduced a listed hazardous waste into the metal production process (they use ores instead),
slags from the process that may have the same composition and physical characteristics as
metal recovery slags are not derived-from hazardous wastes, and thus would be hazardous
waste only if they exhibited hazardous waste characteristics.138 Thus, primary metal
producers may be able to sell slags as unrestricted products to be used on the land while
equivalent metal recovery slags would have to be managed as hazardous waste. In addition,
primary producers of products placed on the land that metal recovery slags may replace
(e.g., aggregate quarries), may be able to market products with higher levels of hazardous
constituents than metal recovery slags, while the slags must be managed as hazardous waste.
Partially-Reclaimed Materials
The second disincentive to metal recovery identified by HKD is the uncertain
regulatory status of partially-reclaimed materials. Under the RCRA regulations, hazardous
wastes that have been partially reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before distinct
components are completely recovered continue to be classified as hazardous wastes. In other
words, untE the reclamation process results in a final product, a hazardous waste being
reclaimed remains a waste.139 HRD indicates that this provision has been a major
disincentive to metal recovery hi two ways.
First, HRD points out that, starting with ores, materials in primary metal
manufacturing are continually purified and refined in numerous operations before the final
metal commodity is produced. HRD indicates that as materials become more concentrated in
the intermediate manufacturing steps, they become more economically valuable, and are
saleable to other primary metals manufacturers. HRD compares their metal recovery
operation to a primary manufacturing operation and argues that the materials produced in
their various processing steps (e.g., crude zinc oxide, zinc calcine, lead concentrate) are
analogous to these economically valuable materials hi primary metal manufacturing and thus
should be seen as recovered products rather than wastes.
Again, HRD indicates that potential classification of these materials as hazardous
wastes favors the primary industry because recovery facilities must handle as hazardous
waste (permits, recordkeeping, etc.) materials that are similar, if not more valuable than,
those handled as unrestricted products by the primary industry.
HRD is also concerned that hi addition to the substantive disincentives this provision
causes, in then: case uncertainty and disagreement about implementation of this provision has
caused conflicts over the scope of regulated activities, unnecessary litigation, long delays in
permitting, and conflicting interpretations by different slates concerning the same materials.
-------
117
Part B Storage Permit
The third regulatory disincentive to metal recovery identified by HRD is the RCRA
Part B storage permit. Currently under RCRA, except for boilers and industrial furnaces,
recycling processes are generally exempt from permitting (i.e., the unit in which recycling
occurs is exempt, but units in which materials are stored prior to recycling are regulated). In
addition, industrial furnaces in which only material recovery (i.e., not energy recovery)
occurs are exempt from the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) permitting requirements. As
such, HRD's metal recovery units are exempt from permitting. However, in Pennsylvania
(Palmerton facility) the receiving building hi which EAF dust is first received is considered a
storage unit, and storage prior to recycling does require a permit. Thus, the Palmerton
facility has operated under interim status for storage and is now moving toward a final
permit.
HRD identifies the storage permit as a disincentive to recovery for several reasons.
First, HRD argues that the cost of permitting is prohibitive, estimating that they have spent
$890,000 for the permit application, related legal expenses, and other related engineering and
studies at Palmerton. Second, HRD claims that the time delays in obtaining a permit and
then modifying it each tune a change is made to facility operations restricts the company's
ability to make technological advances for increased quality and decreased costs. For
example, HRD claims that because design details for the receiving building are included in
the permit application (and will be in the permit), they can not make improvements to the
building that would be beneficial to the environment without adding to the permit delay by
making changes to the application.
Inconsistent State Implementation
The fourth disincentive to metal recovery identified by HRD is lack of consistency hi
state implementation of RCRA regulations. HRD explains that hi their experience, similar
operations located hi different states have had widely varying requirements imposed by the
different state agencies under the states' RCRA hazardous waste program. HRD indicates
that this kind of inconsistency makes regulatory costs unpredictable, which inhibits
investment and thus metal recovery.
In addition, a great deal of tune and money is spent identifying the regulatory
requirements applicable from one location to another. HRD believes that this issue is of
particular concern for metal recovery because operations are likely to be located in various
parts of the country due to the widespread nature of the generation of input materials and the
multi-step nature of the recovery process. HRD would prefer clear and unambiguous federal
standards which are preemptive of the states on the basis that commerce must be regulated
consistently across the United States.
-------
118
Permit/Regulatory Control of Recovery Process
The fifth regulatory disincentive to metal recovery identified by HRD is partially a
prospective concern caused by promulgation of new regulations governing waste management
in Pennsylvania, and partially a concern that similar changes may be made in the future to
the federal hazardous waste regulations. Although it is not possible at this time to ascertain
specifically how the new regulations will affect HRD's Pennsylvania facilities, HRD is
concerned that the new rules will result in permits for and regulatory control over the
recovery process itself (e.g., the operating conditions of the Waelz and calcining kilns).
HRD indicates that changes in operating practices and technology are constantly made
in any manufacturing operation to improve product quality, productivity, environmental
quality, and competitiveness and that these changes must similarly be made in recovery
processes. HRD argues that any regulatory control imposed on the recovery process itself
will slow or halt routine changes necessary for proper operation and maintenance of the
process, in addition to stifling innovative changes that could improve the process over time.
HRD cites the example of the Palmerton receiving building permit application that
includes detailed engineering specifications for the existing structure (to be included in the
permit). In order to make any improvements to the building, HRD would have to go
through a permit modification, which HRD believes is a burdensome and time consuming
process.
As an alternative approach, HRD points to its experience at the Chicago facility in
Illinois and the Rockwood facility in Tennessee, where HRD believes the regulatory agencies
have imposed very strict limits on emissions from the plants through air permits, but have
not imposed RCRA permits specifying how any of the facilities' operations are to be
conducted. HRD believes that not having to go through permit modifications has allowed
them to rapidly apply new and unproved containment technology which has benefited both
HRD and the state through improved competitiveness and reduced emissions.
It should be noted that while these regulatory disincentives may discourage recovery
of metals, the purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste controls is to protect against the risks
posed to human health and the environment from management of materials that may leach
toxic constituents or pose other hazards. Wastes, from which metals that are also hazardous
constituents are recovered (e.g., lead), by necessity have relatively high concentrations of
these hazardous-constituent metals (and may pose other hazards). Through the numerous
steps of a recovery process intermediate materials tend to be more and more concentrated in
these metals, while at the same time becoming more and more valuable as commodities.
Thus, balancing the need for regulatory control against regulatory disincentives for recovery
is not an easy task.
-------
119
RCRA Regulatory Incentives to Metal Recovery
As a counterpoint to these regulatory disincentives, HRD also points out that a great
deal of their business has been created by RCRA regulations. Although HRD began
recycling EAF dust before it was listed as a hazardous waste, HRD acknowledges that even
though the price of zinc was relatively high at the tune, before EAF dust was listed as
hazardous waste HRD's market was limited to local steel mills from which transportation
costs were low. After the listing, EAF dust generators had only the options of hazardous
waste landfill or hazardous waste recycling. HRD indicates that landfilling was in some
cases less expensive, and thus that its customers were generally those companies that felt that
recycling was environmentally a better alternative.
In addition, in August of 1991, an Environmental Protection Agency RCRA
regulation went into effect tightening the 1988 treatment standard for EAF dust, or hazardous
waste K061, containing greater than 15 percent zinc. Specifically, this regulation required
that high-zinc EAF dust be treated to levels based on High Temperature Metal Recovery
(HTMR). HRD's Waelzing and calcining process was identified as an HTMR technology, as
was HRD's flame reactor technology. HRD was one of only a few companies in the U.S.
offering HTMR at the time, and was the only company in the U.S. with significant existing
treatment capacity. This was primarily due to the concurrent depletion of a mine which had
been the primary source of material for HRD's Waelz kiln refining process. Since it became
known that this requirement would go into effect, HRD greatly increased its capacity to
reclaim EAF dust by adding new kilns in Chicago, Rockwood, and Palmerton, and by
commercializing the flame reactor and opening the first plant in Beaumont. Once HTMR
was required for high zinc EAF dust in 1988, HRD's existing business almost doubled.
Conclusion
Like other case studies, RCRA Subtitle C regulation has had a mixed impact on HRD
to recover metals from hazardous wastes. While EAF dust recovery rates in the United
States remain relatively high, evaluating RCRA Subtitle C regulation to encourage
environmentally protective metal recovery remains an Agency priority.
-------
120
6.5 East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc.140
East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc. (EPMC) in Lyon Station, Pennsylvania,
manufactures over 200 types of automotive and industrial lead-acid batteries under the Deka
label, EPMC also produces a number of battery accessories such as battery cables, booster
cables, spark plug wires, and battery trays. EPMC receives spent lead-acid batteries back
from customers and recovers the lead, acid, and plastic battery casings for use in their
manufacturing process.
EPMC was selected for a case study for several reasons. First, EPMC is primarily a
manufacturing company; their main focus is on producing quality products for their
customers. Recycling is an important part of EPMC's business, but they recover only
materials that are produced in and/or utilized in their core manufacturing operations.
Second, EPMC provides an example of the role that recycling can play in product
stewardship. Besides materials produced in EPMC's own manufacturing processes, all of the
materials that EPMC recycles are spent products returned from their customers after use.
Third, EPMC recycles spent lead acid batteries, a hazardous waste that is exempt from
RCRA hazardous waste regulations throughout the waste management cycle until the batteries
reach the recycling facility. In addition, EPMC's recycling activities illustrate in part how
the market value of a recycled material may influence the recycling rate. Specifically, the
national recycling rate for lead acid batteries in 1990 was approximately 98 percent.141
History
EPMC began as a small family owned company hi rural Pennsylvania in 1946. The
company began manufacturing lead-acid batteries to meet a shortage of batteries that
occurred after the end of World War II as part of a large increase in automobile
manufacturing and use. EPMC, which has grown steadily since 1946, is owned and directed
by one of the original founders. The company's operations now consist of one industrial and
three automotive battery manufacturing plants, cable and wire manufacturing plants, and
numerous support services including research and development, storage and distribution, a
large self-maintained truck fleet, and maintenance and machine shops. The company's
manufacturing and support operations have been at the same location in eastern Pennsylvania
since 1946. The site was originally a Civil War era iron oxide mine. EPMC also has 26
storage and distribution centers located throughout the eastern United States.
In 1992 EPMC's sales were 250 million dollars. EPMC is now one of the six largest
U.S. manufacturers of lead-acid batteries in the country,142 producing five and a half
million automotive and custom industrial batteries in 1992. The U.S. lead-acid battery
market is predominantly supplied by domestic manufacturers.143
-------
121
EPMC first began smelting spent (used) lead-acid batteries, off-specification batteries,
and manufacturing scrap to recover the lead for use in their manufacturing process several
years after the founding of the company. The first smelter was a very small furnace, which
has been replaced several times by larger and more modern equipment. In the late 1970s a
cupula blast furnace was installed, and in the late 1980s a reverberatory furnace was added to
increase capacity and treat materials prior to the blast furnace. To illustrate how EPMC's
lead recovery activities have grown, while approximately 24,000 tons of lead were recovered
in 1980, EPMC estimates it will recover approximately 60,000 tons of lead in 1993.
Process Description
EPMC annually receives approximately four and a half million spent lead-acid
batteries back from customers and processes them to recover lead, sulfuric acid, and
polypropylene chips. The lead and sulfuric acid are used at EPMC to produce new batteries.
The polypropylene chips are sent off-site to one of EPMC's battery casing suppliers who
uses the chips to make feedstock for the manufacture of polypropylene products, including
battery casings. Figure 6.8 presents a simplified flow diagram of EPMC's recovery
processes.
Spent lead-acid batteries are returned to EPMC in a reverse distribution system ~
spent batteries are returned after they are replaced through the same distribution chain new
batteries are delivered. The majority of spent batteries are brought to EPMC on company
trucks from the distribution centers, distributors, and battery users to which the trucks
deliver new batteries. The returned batteries may be of any brand, since customers may be
replacing and returning any brand of battery.
Spent batteries, which generally do contain the acid electrolyte, are stored outside on
pallets near the smelter prior to being fed into the recovery process. Under an agreement
with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, no broken or damaged
batteries may be stored in this outdoor area. Automotive batteries are loaded onto a
conveyor that feeds them to a slow-speed saw. The tops of the batteries are sawed off, and
the acid is drained and piped to EPMC's patented acid refining process. Impurities such as
iron are removed from the acid, which can then be used to replace sulfuric acid that EPMC
would otherwise have to purchase. By reusing the acid, EPMC also avoids the cost of acid
neutralization and treatment. The plastic tops and casings are sent to EPMC's plastic
recovery plant, where the plastic is crushed and washed to remove any entrained lead oxide
and metallic lead pieces.
The remaining portions of the batteries, which consist of lead oxide paste and metallic
lead grids and posts, are known as lead groups. The groups are fed into a material storage
building where they are stored hi a pile and moved around with a front end loader. Lead
cleaned from the casings at the plastic recovery plant, off-specification batteries from
EPMC's quality control checks, and lead plant scrap from EPMC's manufacturing operations
are also fed into the material storage building.
-------
122
The building is approximately 100 feet long and 80 feet wide, and is completely
enclosed. Constructed in 1983, the floor consists of ten-inch thick concrete covered with a
poured, acid-resistant asphaltic membrane, and a layer of acid resistant brick. A supply of
approximately 700 tons of lead groups is maintained in the building, which is enough to feed
the smelter for five days.
In the storage building the lead groups are loaded into a hopper that feeds a
reverberatory furnace. This oxidizing furnace is fueled with propane and operates at
temperatures exceeding 2,000 °F. A relatively pure lead bullion is tapped from the
reverberatory furnace and sent to large wet-chemistry refining kettles where additional
copper, nickel, and tellurium are removed from the lead as a dross. The remaining lead,
known as soft lead, is molded and cooled, and sent to EPMC's lead-oxide department.
There the soft lead is used to produce a fine lead-oxide, which is then made into paste that is
used to coat metallic lead grids to make battery plates.
Slag produced hi the reverberatory furnace is fed with coke and fluxes into the
reducing blast furnace which operates at temperatures exceeding 2,000 °F. A hard lead alloy
containing antimony, arsenic, and tin is tapped from the blast furnace and sent to large
kettles where the balance of the lead aEoy is adjusted to produce hard lead, or antimonial
lead, in varying specifications. A dross generated in this process consists largely of metallic
oxides and sulfides and is high enough in lead content to be returned to one of the furnaces,
depending on the composition. The antimonial lead is molded, cooled, arid then sent to
EPMC's casting department where the lead grids used to make battery plates and other
battery parts are cast.
Slag and matte (a sulfide mixture) generated in the blast furnace are recharged to the
blast furnace in a batch operation run under different conditions in which additional hard lead
and a vitrified slag is produced. The slag generally does not exhibit characteristics of
hazardous waste and is disposed of in a non-hazardous industrial landfill. Any slag generated
that does exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead can be disposed of in a Subtitle C landfill
(until May of 1994 when the land disposal restrictions will require treatment prior to land
disposal).
-------
123
Figure 6.8
Process Flow Diagram for East Penn Manufacturing Company,
Inc.'s Recycling Operations
Sled Cuts
CeQi
Stkto
Sled
Eccydint
AtiMMCh*
BitteriB
Son Speed
Sao
T
I I I 1
Add VoAGnaft Tept Cm
pH Add
Adjustment Mhinj -
ia Smelter Oeputneot
Itnlur RCIOUTV
. : Kant •- "
I 1
Mr- MeUffle
nut
Senp
StJelc
Batter]' Cue
MiBututnrers
I
Other
Mjltria! Storage
I ' BaSSinz
ToOnde To Grid*
Mmnfxfiire Pull
I I
T» Stack SUe to
Ftrtfliier
bdan?
Source: "Secondary Lead Smelting at East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.," in
Proceedings from the AIME Extraction Processing Division Congress, 1993, ed. John P.
Hager, p. 945.
Note to Figure 6.8: There is only one blast furnace at the facility. The furnace is shown twice in the flow diagram
to illustrate that slag from the furnace is reintroduced a second time with fluxes and reducers to recover additional
metal.
-------
124
Off-gasses from both of the furnaces are cleaned using an afterburner, a baghouse,
and finally a wet scrubber. The dust collected in the baghouse is fed directly back into the
reverberatory furnace to recover additional lead. The wet scrubber solution, which is rich in
nitrogen, is sold as an ingredient for fertilizers. The concentrations of heavy metals in this
solution are significantly below the hazardous waste characteristic levels.
EPMC expects to recover approximately 60,000 tons of lead from lead-acid batteries
in 1993. At the current record low price of 18 to 22 cents per pound, EPMC will avoid
having to purchase approximately 21.6 million dollars worth of lead from other sources (plus
transportation costs). Additional savings are made from the acid and plastic recovery.
EPMC also believes that the service they offer their customers, quick and easy removal and
proper handling of one battery for each battery sold, increases their share of the battery
market. Within some geographic radius, EPMC should be able to recycle batteries at lower
cost than other secondary lead smelters due to their use of the reverse distribution system for
transportation. In other words, EPMC's trucks would be returning to the plant after
deliveries in any case, it costs little more to bring the truck back full of batteries. As there
is only one other battery smelter located at a manufacturing site in the country, this would
not be true for most other smelters.
Regulatory Issues and Analysis
Partial Exemption for Lead-Acid Batteries That Are to Be Recycled
Lead-acid batteries, which are hazardous under the toxicity characteristic due to the
lead content (approximately 52 percent lead by weight), are regulated differently than any
other hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. If lead-acid batteries are recycled, only
facilities recycling the batteries (e.g., battery crackers and secondary lead smelters) are
subject to regulation. A permit is required only for storage of the batteries prior to
recycling. Thus, batteries that are to be recycled are not subject to any hazardous waste
regulations when they are in the hands of generators, transporters, or intermediate storage
facilities.
In the past, if lead-acid batteries were to be disposed of, they were subject to the full
panoply of Subtitle C regulations including those for generators, transporters, and treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. Since May of 1990, however, under the land disposal
restrictions program, thermal recovery of lead in secondary smelters has been specifically
required for lead-acid batteries, essentially removing the disposal option for these batteries.
Batteries that are to be recycled were exempted from generator, transporter, and
intermediate storage requirements in 1985 for several reasons. First, the recycling rate was
already quite high, thus there was already a recycling system in place demonstrating that the
batteries were generally not disposed of in the municipal waste stream or abandoned such
that they could pose a risk to human health or the environment.
-------
125
Second, Department of Transportation regulations already covered battery transport.
Third, it was believed that batteries were not generally stored for long periods of time,
minimizing the risk of the casings cracking and causing a release to the environment.
Permitting requirements for recycling facilities were retained because there had been a
history of environmental damage from recycling operations at battery crackers and smelters.
A number of these older operations were known to have become Superfund sites.144
With this background, it should be clear that the batteries EPMC receives back up the
product distribution chain are not subject to regulation until they reach EPMC's facility.
Thus, customers remrning batteries are not subject to hazardous waste generator
requirements, interim storage facilities (e.g., retailers, distributors) do not need permits for
their battery storage, EPMC's trucks do not have to be hazardous waste transporters, and no
manifests are required for battery shipments. EPMC, however, requires a permit for storage
of the batteries prior to cracking and resmelting. (It should be noted that under recent
changes to the Pennsylvania state regulations, secondary lead smelters handling only lead-
acid batteries will in the future not require site-specific permits but will be granted permits-
by-rule as long as they comply with specified requirements.)
Lead-acid batteries are somewhat different than many other hazardous wastes because,
at least in the past, the economics of recycling have been such that spent batteries have had
net economic value. In other words, even including payments to generators to purchase
spent batteries, it has been possible to resmelt batteries and both cover the costs of
transportation, storage, and smelting and to make some profit on the sale of the recovered
lead. This contrasts with the majority of hazardous waste recycling, for which the recycler
generally charges the generator a fee for the recycling service (although the fee may be less
than the cost of operating the recycling operation due to profits made in the sale of the
recovered product). One reason the economics of lead-acid battery recycling work out this
way is that batteries are a very concentrated source of the recovered commodity, lead. A
typical automotive battery weighs 32 pounds, of which approximately 17 pounds is lead.
Thus, much less concentrating is necessary to recover salable product than is generally the
case for less concentrated hazardous wastes such as sludges or air pollution control dusts.
As a result of the economics of lead-acid battery recycling, secondary smelters (or
collectors further down the distribution chain such as service centers and distributors) have
generally paid generators for their spent batteries. For example, EPMC offers customers a
discount on a new battery for every spent battery they buy. EPMC believes that the fact that
batteries can be returned for a fee ensures, without regulatory controls, that batteries will not
be managed improperly (e.g., left by the side of the road or dumped in municipal landfills).
The fee provides an incentive for return. The consistently high rate of lead-acid battery
recycling over tune provides support for this argument (see discussion hi Section 5.3.1.1 of
this report).
-------
126
For example, although wastes, including batteries, generated by households (do-it-
yourself battery changers) and conditionally exempt small quantity generators are not subject
to hazardous waste regulations, for the recycling rate to be as high as 98 percent most of
these batteries must be returned for recycling. Thus, even unregulated batteries are generally
returned for recycling,145
It should be noted that the continuing drop in the price of lead (now around 18-22
cents per pound), is threatening to change the economics of lead-acid battery recycling. If
the price were to continue to drop, at some point it would become more expensive to
transport, store, and smelt spent batteries than to buy virgin lead on the market. EPMC
points out that complying with the hazardous waste regulations (e.g., permit applications and
modifications, construction of indoor storage, reconstructing the materials storage building to
meet containment building requirements) is, along with the price of lead, one of the major
variables in the cost of recovering lead from spent batteries and thus has a direct effect on
whether batteries are purchased, or generators must pay for recycling. EPMC also notes that
due to the current exemption for lead-acid batteries, hazardous waste transporter fees,
manifest costs, and costs for permits for interim storage locations are not incurred, and that
these costs would have a large effect on the costs of recycling if these things were required.
EPMC believes that if the costs of recycling were to increase to the point that recyclers had
to charge generators to take their batteries illegal disposal would increase and recycling
would decrease.
Battery Storage
Battery storage is an important issue for EPMC. First, batteries (the majority of
which are automotive) tend to fail and require replacement when it is either cold or hot. The
beginning of winter is the high point in battery replacement; spring is the low point. For
East Penn to utilize the full capacity of its smelting operations it must have a constant supply
of approximately 20,000 batteries a day. Thus, batteries must stored during times of high
generation, to be used in times of low generation. To ensure supply for the smelter, EPMC
may store on-site up to 100,000 batteries at one time. EPMC estimates that approximately
4,000 square feet of storage space is necessary to store this quantity of batteries.
For several reasons, EPMC believes that storage at their facility is preferable to the
alternative; storage at the numerous locations where batteries are generated (automotive
service centers, dismantling centers, etc.). First, storage at the facility assures EPMC that
they will have the stocks necessary for a constant feed to the smelter. Second, EPMC's
customers do not want batteries stored at their locations due to environmental and safety
concerns, as well as the space that would be required. Prompt removal of spent batteries is
part of the service that EPMC offers with purchase of its new batteries. Finally, it is
environmentally preferable to have the batteries stored at one controlled location rather than
at numerous unidentified, uncontrolled locations.
-------
127
Battery storage is an issue of environmental concern because the electrolyte contained
in batteries is not only an acid, but contains lead and other contaminants. In addition, the
plastic battery casing is vulnerable to drying and cracking if left in the sun for long periods
of time.
EPMC first operated under interim status, and then obtained a final Part B permit for
storage from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) in 1988.
The permit covers storage of the lead groups in the material storage building after the
batteries have been cracked (cut open and dismantled), but does not cover storage of the
batteries prior to the cracking operation. Under the RCRA permitting standards, secondary
containment would be required for the battery storage area. As part of a consent agreement
concerning storm- and waste-water management issues, EPMC has agreed to construct indoor
storage for these batteries by the end of 1993. EPMC estimates the cost of constructing the
indoor storage to be in excess of one million dollars.
Containment Building Requirements
Under the land disposal restrictions program, which was created by 1984 amendments
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, storage of hazardous wastes on the land is
prohibited unless the waste has been treated to meet specified treatment standards. Under
this program, lead groups (cracked batteries) may not be stored on the land. EPMC's
materials storage building has been in the past considered (and permitted as) a waste pile.
This is based on the RCRA definition of waste pile, which includes piles of waste whether
they are indoors or out. In the 1984 amendments to RCRA, Congress defined land disposal
to include waste piles, thus in effect banning the storage of plates and groups in indoor or
outdoor piles.
In order to allow the continued storage of lead groups (and other wastes), which due
to their weight, volume, and physical form can practically only be stored in piles and moved
around by front end loader, EPA created a new regulated unit known as a containment
building. To meet the intent of Congress in prohibiting land storage, the regulations
governing containment buildings include, in addition to fugitive air emissions controls,
secondary containment and leak detection requirements.
As described in the process section above, EPMC's materials management building
(i.e., waste pile) has extensive fugitive air emissions controls. The building also includes a
foundation and flooring designed to meet stringent performance standards for acid resistance
and structural integrity. The air emissions controls are adequate to meet the containment
building requirements, but the building does not have secondary containment and leak
detection.
-------
128
In essence, to meet the secondary containment and leak detection requirements for a
storage building like EPMC's, there must be a double floor under the building. The bottom
floor and space above it would provide containment for and allow detection of any leaks
from the top floor. To meet this requirement, EPMC will have to again reconstruct its
materials containment building to install a double floor. EPMC estimates that the cost for
this reconstruction will be at least $500,000. In addition, EPMC estimates that the permit
modification necessary to change its permit to include containment building standards in
place of waste pile standards will cost approximately $100,000.
The land disposal requirements are being phased in over time, and the prohibition on
storing plates and groups goes into effect on May 8, 1994. Thus, EPMC must have
completed the reconstruction by this date. EPMC was granted a two-year variance to
continue storing lead groups in the material storage building (a waste pile) to allow it time to
complete the reconstruction, however, the variance runs out at the end of 1994, eight months
after the effective date for me ban. Thus, EPMC actually has just over a year to complete
the construction (including design approvals from the federal EPA, which is implementing
this part of the program in Pennsylvania). The permit modification will have to be made
with the PADER, prior to construction.
Timing of Requirements Imposed by Different Regulatory Agencies
EPMC's agreement with PADER requires that EPMC construct indoor space for its
battery storage by -the end of 1993. Under the federal land disposal restrictions program,
EPMC is required to reconstruct its materials storage building to meet containment building
storage standards by May 8, 1994. EPMC explains that these two activities together
represent a huge capital outlay for a company of EPMC's size, and that such situations
present large disincentives to recycling, or continuing to recycle. Covering the costs of these
two activities witMn one year will greatly strain EPMC's financial resources, not only in
terms of the cost to borrow the money if necessary, but also in displaced improvements to its
manufacturing operations which could, eventually, affect its competitiveness in the battery
market.
In cases where various regulatory agencies govern different aspects of a recycling
operation's activities, EPMC would recommend that the regulatory agencies be sensitive to
this concern. If appropriate, the various regulatory agencies could coordinate and institute a
planning process to avoid the company being forced to incur a disproportionate amount of
regulatory costs during any one year.
-------
129
Financial Assurance for Closure of Facility
Under the RCRA permit requirements EPMC must provide financial assurance (e.g.,
insurance, trust fund, bond, letter of credit) sufficient to completely close the facility if, for
example, the company were to go out of business. EPMC must include coverage for the cost
of sending its maximum storage of batteries off-site for disposal. EPMC believes that
coverage for this cost is unnecessary in that lead-acid batteries can generally be sold for
recovery and would not be disposed of. EPMC is not allowed to deduct the fees that would
be generated from sale of the battery inventory from the closure costs it must provide
coverage for.
New State Regulations
PADER has recently promulgated new regulations in Pennsylvania that include
regulatory controls for recycling processes (which are currently exempt under federal RCRA
regulations and have, in the -past, been exempt in Pennsylvania (other than boilers and non-
metal recovery industrial furnaces)). However, secondary lead smelters were exempted from
these new requirements if they only treat lead-acid batteries. EPMC suggests that without
this exemption they might not be able to continue their smelting operations in that the
increased costs might make it uneconomical.
EPMC notes that hi order to retain this exemption they will not accept any wastes
other than lead-acid batteries. EPMC had been considering the possibility of accepting other
lead-bearing waste generated nearby, such as lead-containing process residues from the
manufacture of lead shielding for picture tubes. (This waste would not be regulated as
hazardous waste under the federal regulations in that it would be a characteristic by-product
being reclaimed.) EPMC believes that limitations such as this one on the wastes that a
facility can accept (regardless of whether the waste is amenable to the facility's recovery
process) will increase the cost of recycling, decrease the rate of recycling, and force
additional wastes to disposal.
Potential Federal Taxes
Finally, EPMC notes that a 45 cents per pound federal tax on lead produced has been
proposed in the U.S. Congress. Given that the price of lead is currently 18 - 22 cents per
pound, this would represent a tax of approximately 250 percent. For the 60,000 tons of lead
that EPMC expect to produce in 1993, this could amount to $27 million in additional taxes.
EPMC is particularly concerned that if imposed, primary lead producers or importers
may be exempted from this tax. This type of tax structure would greatly increase the costs
to secondary producers relative to primary producers, and would be a major economic
disincentive to lead-acid battery recycling.
-------
130
Conclusion
This case study demonstrates a number of points. First, as mentioned in Chapter 5,
each metal-bearing hazardous waste stream is unique and includes aspects that need to be
considered hi applying regulations to these wastes. Spent lead-acid batteries are much more
closely tied to the price metal commodities (i.e., lead) than other hazardous wastes. Both
spent lead-acid batteries and many operations that reclaim them may be more similar to
commodities and manufacturing processes than other metal-bearing hazardous wastes. This
can change the economics of metal recovery (recall Chapter 5). When metal prices decline,
spent lead-acid battery recovery may be much more vulnerable than other types of metal
recovery of hazardous waste.
Second, RCRA Subtitle C regulation affects spent lead-acid battery recovery
differently than other metal-bearing hazardous wastes. Although similar in that RCRA
contains both incentives and disincentives for metal recovery of spent lead-acid batteries,
different RCRA Subtitle C regulatory provisions appear to be of greater concern to EPMC.
The RCRA Subtitle C regulatory provision of greatest concern to EPMC appear to be
containment building standards compared with the derived-from rule which has been a
greater concern in other case studies. RCRA Subtitle C regulatory incentives also differ in
that the partial exemption for spent lead-acid batteries prior to recovery may be the greatest
regulatory incentive for these wastes compared with the Land Disposal Restriction program
in other case studies. Finally, the net effect of RCRA Subtitle C regulation on EPMC may
be more difficult to assess given that many regulatory costs are prospective. However, if
company estimates of capital outlays for retrofitting its containment building are accurate,
RCRA Subtitle C regulatory impacts could be substantial.
-------
131
CHAPTER 7 Assessment of U.S. Balance of Trade And Strategic Metals
Issues And Their Relationship To Metals Recovery Of
Hazardous Waste
Metal recovery of secondary materials provides a number of important benefits to the
United States. Metal recovery from secondary materials can offer a comparative advantage
in energy savings over primary mining and mineral processing operations (though it may not
do so in every situation). Metal recovery of secondary materials may also result in a lower
generation of solid residuals when compared with primary mining and mineral processing
operations. EPA has included examples of these benefits in the Inmetco case study in
Chapter 6. This Chapter reviews two additional benefits provided by metal recovery of
hazardous waste: 1) reduction in U.S. balance of trade deficits for metal commodities, and
2) alternative sources of supplies of strategic metals such as chromium.
As mentioned below, a 1980 GAO report completed hi 1980 indicated that substantial
quantities of metal values were being lost through the disposal of industrial wastes. The
GAO estimate indicates that at least one third of our current balance of trade deficit for
metals could be addressed through metal recovery of secondary materials, many of them
hazardous wastes. Metal recovery of hazardous wastes may also be an important part of a
strategy to minimize U.S. vulnerability to supply disruptions of strategic metals. Preliminary
data indicates that land disposed hazardous wastes may contain a substantial quantity of
chromium, a strategic metal used as an alloy in steel production.146
7.1. U.S. Mineral and Metal Commodity Balance of Trade
In authorizing RCRA, Congress recognized the importance of material recovery as
one means of reducing the balance of trade deficit and dependence on foreign sources for
materials:
"The Congress finds with respect to materials, that- 1) millions of tons of recoverable material which could
be used are needlessly buried each year; 2) methods are available to separate usable materials from solid
waste; and 3) the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce the dependence of the United
States on foreign resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments" 42 U.S.C. §6901(c) [RCRA
§1002(c)].
Balance of trade is the net flow of goods (i.e., exports minus imports) between one
country and other countries. It can be measured as the movement of a single good, a group
of goods, or all goods between two countries (e.g., the U.S. and Japan) or as the flow of a
specific good (e.g., copper) between the U.S. and all other countries. Considering trade
balance from the latter perspective, a country is said to be running a surplus for a specific
metal, say copper, when the value of its copper exports are greater than the value of its
copper imports. Conversely, when the value of a country's copper imports exceed the value
of its copper exports, the country is running a trade deficit for copper.
-------
132
There are a number of problems with ranning a trade deficit. First, if the deficit is
sufficiently large, the country running the deficit may be vulnerable to supply disruptions
from the country running the surplus when the commodity in question is one of critical use
and substitutes or alternate sources of supply are limited. An example is the Arab Oil
Embargo of 1973. Oil from the Middle East was critical to the U.S. economy and petroleum
prices in the United States skyrocketed when the supply of oil from the Middle East was
disrupted. When either substitutes for the commodity are readily available or its value to the
economy as a whole is minimal, there is little risk of significant economic impact. Trade
deficits of metal commodities that are of critical use to the U.S. economy is discussed in
Section 7.2 on strategic materials.
There are also some potential problems associated with running a prolonged balance
of trade deficit in all goods with the rest of the world, as the United States has done over the
last decade. When a country imports a greater value of goods than it exports, it must pay
for its trade deficit by either selling assets, drawing down foreign reserves, or by borrowing
the needed foreign currencies. All three methods have been used in recent years. Various
U.S. assets have been sold to foreign buyers, including many very competitive corporations
and large tracts of prime commercial and residential real estate. The profits and benefits
generated from those assets are now being transferred to their foreign owners, as the United
States continues to finance its trade deficit by selling portions of its wealth.
The U.S. has also financed its trade deficit by borrowing from foreign creditors.
Since 1980, the United States has gone from being the world's largest creditor to the world's
largest debtor. That is to say, hi 1980 the United States was collectively owed more money
by the rest of the world than any other nation, while currently it owes more money to the
rest of the world than any other nation. The United States has had to pay substantial
amounts of interest to its foreign creditors, and this trend will continue for the foreseeable
future.
The significant amount of U.S. currency that is owed to foreign creditors makes the
United States vulnerable to sudden shifts in demand for the dollar. If foreign creditors
decide to shift their holdings to another foreign currency, such as one yielding higher interest
rates, then the U.S. must respond by either raising interest rates and risking a recession or
by allowing the value of the dollar to fall relative to other foreign currencies, this makes
imports still more expensive. Either response would require painful economic adjustments.
Finally, one short term effect of running a sufficiently large balance of trade deficit is
a loss of jobs domestically and decreased earnings of the domestic industry.
Any significant reduction in U.S. balance of trade deficit will help to decrease our foreign
debt and reduce the need to fund imports with the sale of productive assets or debt
instruments.
-------
133
The balance of trade issue then is really a series of problems stemming from a
common source. The first problem mentioned above is excessive reliance on foreign sources
of a specific commodity. The term "net import reliance" is generally applied when
discussing the balance of trade for a single good. Net import reliance, as the name implies,
refers to the level at which a country is dependent on other countries for its supply of a
commodity. That is, it is the amount of a commodity that a country must import, minus any
exports, and minus the amount of domestic production or stockpiling of the commodity, to
meet the manufacturing and consumption needs of the country.
The U.S. presently has a net import reliance of 100 percent for three metals (arsenic,
manganese, and columbium (a.k.a niobium)). The U.S. also runs high trade deficits for
chromium, cobalt, nickel, platinum group metals (PGMs), tungsten, tantalum, and tin. As
mentioned in the next section, the significance of this reliance varies from commodity to
commodity.
The second problem stemming from balance of trade deficit is the amount of U.S.
currency accumulating in foreign countries. The actual cost of U.S. trade deficits or the
U.S. net import reliance for the first and second tier mineral and metal commodities, based
on the difference between import and export values for each commodity, is estimated to be
approximately $9 billion.147 This data is summarized in Table 7.1 on the next page. This
estimate is based on primary mineral and metal commodities and excludes both imports and
exports of manufactured goods containing the metal (manufactures), wrought metals and
other forms that are secondary in nature such as pigments and chemicals. The five
commodities with the highest net import reliance cost are iron and steel, platinum group
metals, nickel, copper, and bauxite and 'alumina, respectively.
The value of U.S. exports exceeds that of imports for 6 of the 23 minerals included in
this report. The U.S.'s most valuable metal export is aluminum; however, the U.S. imports
a substantial quantity of alumina and bauxite to produce the aluminum. Aluminum is
followed in net value by molybdenum, magnesium, lead, vanadium, and mercury.
U.S. manufacturing industries may be able to make greater use of metal recovery
from hazardous waste streams to minimize both problems of overreliance on foreign metals
and accumulation of U.S. currency by foreign entities. Although the U.S. does not have
large domestic reserves for high net import reliance metal commodities such as chromium,
cobalt, nickel and tungsten, there may well be recoverable levels of these metal in hazardous
(and nonhazardous) waste streams. Further research would be required to assess the viability
of this approach.
-------
. 134
Table 7.1 Comparison of Value of U.S. Mineral and Metal Imports and Export 19912
Metal or Mineral3
1. Iron and Steel
2. Aluminum
3. Platinum
4. Copper
5. Bauxite/ Alumina
6. Nickel
7. Zinc
8. Manganese
9. Chromium
10. Cobalt
11. Tin
12. Lead
13. Magnesium
14. Magnesium Compounds
15. Columbium
16. Tantalum
17. Silver
18. Arsenic
19. Molybdenum
20. Selenium
21. Cadmium
22. Vanadium
23. Mercury
Total
Value of Imports
$9,135,492,000
$2,268,296,000
$1,742,866,000
$1,257,212,000
$1,127,206,000
$1,123,536,000
$726,959,000
$614,174,000
$293,860,000
$181,650,000
$163,637,000
$74,100,000
$72,955,000
$67,815,000
$46,173,000
$32,071,000
$29,399,000
$17,219,000
$16,388,000
$15,630,000
$7,928,000
$6,310,000
$301,000
$19,021,177,000
Value of
Exports
$3,673,404,000
$3,356,065,000
$461,588,000
$306,873,000
$417,515,000
$91,359,000
$281,229,756
$39,397,000
$18,439,000
$30,683,000
$5,455,000
$95,141,000
$129,980,000
$58,250,000
$7,007,000
$27,894,000
$8,535,000
0
$136,521,000
$1,939,000
$218,000
$17,755,000
$3,144,000
$9,168,391,756
Estimated Cost of
U.S. Net Import
Reliance4
$5,462,088,000
(+)$!, 087,769,000
$1,281,278,000
$950,339,000
$709,691,000
$1,032,177,000
$445,729,244
$574,777,000
$275,421,000
$150,967,000
$158,182,000
(+)$21,041,000
(+)$57,025,000
$9,565,000
$39,166,000
$4,177,000
$20,864,000
$17,219,000
(+)$120, 133,000
$13,691,000
$7,710,000
(+)$!!, 445,000
(+)$2,843,000
$9,852,785,244
1 Manufactured and secondary materials sure riot included.
* Metal and mineral estimates have the following exclusions. Iron and steel includes steel mill products and pig iron. Aluminum estimates include crude and
scmkrude; excludes manufactured materials. Copper estimates include semimanufactures and unmanufactures, but not scrap. The value of bauxite and alumina imports listed
does DOC include the value of crude and dried bauxite which accounts for 11,793,000 metric tons of total quantity. Estimates for the value of this material were not available.
Niclct cHirrjio excludes secondary and wrought products. Manganese estimates exclude chemicals. Chromium esurnates exclude chemicals and pigments and preparation-
bucd chromium. Cobalt estimates exclude wrought metals. Tin estimates exclude manufactures, tin plate and tin plate scrap. Lead estimates exclude pigments and
compounds. Magnesium estimates exclude waste and scrap. Silver estimates exclude bullion (refined) and waste and scrap. Arsenic estimates include arsenic metal and
trkwkJe. Molybdenum estimates excludes wrought material and wire. Vanadium estimates exclude vanadium-bearing materials.
(+) indicates that there is a trade surplus for the commodity.
-------
135
Metal recovery of hazardous wastes may also alleviate a substantial portion of the
balance of trade deficit for metal commodities. Previous studies indicate that substantial
quantities of metals are available in industrial wastes (hazardous and non-hazardous). In
1980, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that approximately 10 million tons of
minerals with a market value of $3 billion (1980 dollars) were lost in industrial waste
streams148, mostly copper, iron and aluminum with smaller quantities of zinc, chromium,
tin, lead, manganese and nickel. This represents about a third of the U.S. total balance of
trade deficit attributable to metals.
Copper, iron, lead, and zinc tend to be the highest concentration metals found in
hazardous waste streams. Often these metals are recovered through various
pyrometallurgical processes. However, most metal-bearing hazardous waste streams will
also contain significant concentrations of one or more of the following: arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, magnesium, manganese, and nickel. According to some studies, these metals
only need to be present at concentrations of 1 percent to make recovery economically feasible
from slags, and recovery of much lower concentrations are technically and economically
feasible from more dilute wastes such as plating waste effluent.149
Given the dramatic change in the manufacturing sector from high volume applications
of metals to more refined, high technology applications, such as composites and specialty
alloys, recovery and use of metals from metal-bearing waste streams is an increasingly
realistic possibility and should be considered as a potential metal supply.
Currently, data limitations on characterizing metal-bearing hazardous wastes represent
a significant barrier to providing technical assistance to industry about metal recovery
alternatives. Significant quantities of metal-bearing secondary materials such as characteristic
sludges and by-products being reclaimed are not subject to reporting requirements that would
allow EPA to analyze their potential hi ameliorating the metal trade deficit. The data that
has been gathered needs to be validated, updated, and expanded so that it is possible to
accurately match waste streams with available recovery technologies and provide technical
assistance to generators of metal-bearing waste streams to assist these generators hi
identify ing recovery alternatives.
Further research also needs to be pursued regarding the actual level of metals
presently recovered from the metal-bearing hazardous waste streams. Reliable and consistent
data on the quantities of metal-bearing waste streams that are sent to recovery versus
treatment and disposal are sparse. The availability of this information would afford a better
idea and increased confidence of the availability of recovered metals and would assist in
expanding recovery technologies as alternatives to treating and disposing metal-bearing
wastes.
In spite these data limitations, it appears on the basis of available information that
metal recovery of hazardous wastes can play a useful role hi maintaining the health and
competitiveness of the U.S. economy.
-------
136
7.2 Strategic Metals
In May 1985, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) issued a
report entitled Strategic Materials: Technologies to Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability. A
strategic material is defined by OTA as:
"[a material] for which the quantity required for essential civilian and military uses exceeds the
reasonably secure domestic and foreign supplies, and for which acceptable substitutes are not
available within a reasonable period of time,"150
Therefore, a strategic material is defined by both the critical nature of its use and the
vulnerability of its supply. This report identified four strategic metals (chromium, cobalt,
manganese, and platinum group metals) as critical to the U.S. industrial sector, based on
each metal's importance to U.S. manufacturing industries, the level of domestic production,
and the potential for disruptions in the supply of each metal to U.S. markets. These four
metals will be referred to herein as "first tier" metals.
Currently, there is little or no domestic production of these metals and production
during the period covered by the OTA report was centered in the Soviet Union, South
Africa, and Zaire. Chromium, cobalt, manganese, and platinum are essential in the
production of high-temperature alloys, steel and stainless steel, industrial and automotive
catalysts, electronics, and various other applications critical to the U.S. economy and
national defense.
The OTA report also identified eight "second tier" metals that are critical to U.S.
manufacturing but are not as open to import vulnerability as first tier metals. These include
bauxite/alumina, beryllium, columbium, futile, tantalum, tin, titanium sponge and vanadium.
Data for these metals will be presented where available, but only the first tier metals will be
discussed in detail.
The OTA report identified potential approaches to decreasing import vulnerability for
first tier metals. These approaches are centered on increasing the diversity of supply of
strategic metals through the development of promising deposits throughout the world;
decreasing the demand for strategic metals through improved manufacturing and recycling;
and identifying and testing substitutes and new materials that could replace strategic metals in
one or more of their primary uses. For a detailed discussion of these alternatives refer to the
original OTA report.
Reclamation of the first tier metals from metal-bearing hazardous waste streams is a
possibility and chromium and platinum group metals are routinely recovered from certain
waste streams. However, treatment and disposal of metal-bearing waste streams is still the
norm despite the high value of many of these metals and the potential for supply disruptions.
Recovery opportunities may also exist for certain second tier metals such as beryllium and
vanadium.
-------
137
OTA also suggested that the U.S. establish an economic stockpile of critical metals.
A National Defense Stockpile of strategic materials exists, but this is not available to industry
when supply is disrupted by international events that do not threaten U.S. national security.
The Pentagon is seeking to reduce this stockpile by selling approximately $2 billion of
materials; hence, it seems unlikely that government support is available for the creation of an
economic stockpile of critical metals. This stockpile is discussed below.
The following section will provide an update of the information contained in the OTA
report and discuss to what extent the recommendations of the OTA report have been met
through 1) an analysis of U.S. apparent consumption of the metals, 2) U.S. net import
reliance for the metals, and 3) a discussion of the National Defense Stockpile, its current
status and how it may differ from strategic materials issues generally. Throughout the
section, available information on metal-bearing waste streams containing strategic metals and
possible opportunities of additional recovery are discussed.
7.2.1 U.S. Apparent Consumption Of Strategic Metals
Apparent consumption is defined as total imports minus exports plus domestic
production and increases in the quantity of domestic stocks and inventories. Apparent
consumption is a useful indicator of the demand for a given metal by industry. Table 7.2151
shows U.S. apparent consumption of the metals identified in the OTA report (bauxite,
beryllium, chromium, columbium, cobalt, manganese, platinum group metals, rutile,
tantalum, tin, titanium sponge, and vanadium).152 This table shows the average apparent
consumption hi the U.S. for the periods 1978 to 1982 (the period covered by the OTA
report) and 1988 to 1992, as well as the percent change in apparent consumption between
those two periods. The averages provide a more accurate picture of U.S. change in
consumption than any single-year figures because the averages help to ameliorate single-year
anomalies.
As Table 7.2 shows, U.S. apparent consumption decreased for seven of the first and
second tier metals since the period covered by the OTA report, and increased for the other
six. Apparent consumption for manganese, one of the four first tier metals, has decreased
substantially, with a decrease of nearly 50 percent. Chromium consumption has also
decreased, although not so substantially. Apparent consumption of cobalt and platinum-
group metals, the remaining first tier one metals, has increased 3 percent and 28 percent,
respectively. Platinum-group metals showed the largest increase in apparent consumption of
the first and second tier metals. The following paragraphs provide explanations for these
changes with a discussion of developments hi U.S. consumption patterns, use of substitute
materials, and recycling.
-------
138
Table 7.2 U.S. Apparent Consumption of OTA Tier 1 and Tier 2 Metals-Selected
Years (Metric Tonnes)
Mineral or
Metal
Platinum
Rutile
Columbium
Cobalt
Chromium
Bauxite and
Alumina
Tin
Beryllium
Tantalum
Manganese
Vanadium l
Titanium 2 Sponge
Annual Average
Apparent Consumption
(1978-1982)
79
252,015
3,262
7,252
474,637
5,166,600
56,428
245
550
969,050
7,773
21,711
Annual Average
Apparent Consumption
(1988-1992)
110
348,000
3,425
7,522
447,400
4,696,800
49,488
197
387
649,000
4,129
20,622
Percent
Change
28.0
27.6
4.8
3,6
-6.1
-10.0
-14.0
-24.4
-42.2
-49.3
NA
-5.3
' 88-92 figure is reported consumption, s reported consumption
Chromium
Average apparent consumption of chromium decreased very little during the period.
This is most likely due to the fact that, although there exist substitute materials for most uses
of chromium, these substitutes are often less desirable. Chromium is used for many highly
specialized and sensitive applications. Close substitutes for chromium are generally much
more expensive than chromium and result in an inferior product. In other cases, the
alternative may have more severe environmental repercussions, such as substituting creosote
in wood preserving for chromium-copper-arsenic. There are a few areas, however, where
decreases in chromium consumption will be seen and should be pursued to the greatest extent
possible. Domestic use of chromium as a corrosion inhibitor may begin to decrease as the
military budget is pared and the demand for corrosion resistant pigments for land and air
military vehicles decreases.
-------
139
Stainless steel must contain at least 10.5 percent chromium before it attains its
corrosion resistant properties. After this point the chromium content is a function of the
desired level of corrosion resistance. Chromium is the least expensive alloying element.
Therefore, after the 10.5 percent chromium alloy is attained, other metals such as
molybdenum or nickel can be added to stainless steel without diminishing the desired
properties of the alloy. However, substituting other metals for chromium in stainless steel
can be done only at a higher price. On the other hand, manufacturers of heat exchangers,
chemical-storage tanks, reactors, boilers, and other process equipment made from stainless
steel are turning to stainless steel alloys that can withstand higher temperatures and
pressures. These superaustenetic stainless steels are alloys of nickel, chromium, iron,
copper, and molybdenum, and may contain less chromium than conventional stainless steel.
Changes are occurring in the market for chromium hi other areas as well that will
cause future reductions hi apparent consumption. Chrome yellow pigments used hi paint and
printing inks are facing increased environmental regulation because the toxic heavy metal
chromium has the potential to leach from the paint or a landfill and accumulate in water
supplies. Hence, various substitutes, such as a pigment blend of organic hansa and inorganic
titanium dioxide, are coming into the market. Also, many state regulations have recently
gone into effect banning the introduction of, among other things, hexavalent chromium in
packaging. In 1989 EPA banned the use of chrome for inhibiting corrosion hi comfort
cooling towers, (e.g., commercial air conditioners and refrigeration systems). Thus,
manufacturers have been forced to turn to substitute materials.
Recycling has decreased chromium consumption to some extent. Secondary
chromium is recovered from stainless steel scrap and presently accounts for 26 percent of
chromium demand. In 1982, recycling of purchased scrap (primarily prompt and obsolete
scrap) accounted for 12 percent of domestic chromium demand. The potential for chromium
recovery from metal-bearing hazardous waste streams is the highest of the four first tier
metals. Chromium is found in high concentrations in wastes from chromium pigment and
iron blue production, electroplating, ferroalloy production, and petroleum refining.
Chromium is recovered from these wastes, but available data suggest that many chromium-
bearing waste streams are still treated and disposed.
Given the importance of chromium as a corrosion inhibitor and given the fact that
chromium is less expensive than other alloying agents, the most effective means of reducing
chromium consumption will be 1) removing chromium from pigments when it is not
absolutely necessary for corrosion resistance; 2) improving the efficiency of production
processes, especially those in the electroplating industry; 3) promoting the use of alloys using
a greater mix of metals; and 4) recovering chromium from all potential sources. These
practices are clearly underway; however, many chromium-bearing resources, such as metal-
bearing hazardous waste streams, remain comparatively underutilized.
-------
140
Cobalt
Table 7.3 shows a slight increase of approximately 3 percent in cobalt consumption
since the 1985 OTA report. Superalloys account for the largest single use, about 40 percent,
of cobalt consumption. Superalloys are high performance metals able to withstand high
temperatures, high stress, and corrosion. The market for Superalloys has been somewhat
depressed by the recession of the early 1990s; however, consumption of cobalt in superalloy
production has more than tripled since the 1960s.
Rapid increase in the price of cobalt in the early 1980s and again hi the early 1990s
due to political unrest in Zaire, the world's largest cobalt producer, helped to keep the
consumption of cobalt from increasing more. Continued turmoil in Zaire caused many
manufacturers to invest in research for identifying cobalt substitutes during the 1980s.
During the early 1980s, some substitution did take place in the superalloy market with
alternative alloys, such as Inco 718, coming into use.
The largest market for superalloys is jet engines. With the continuing decrease in
military budgets, the slowdown in production of commercial airplanes, and the increased use
of composite materials in aircraft design, demand for cobalt in the jet engine market should
stay at approximately 1992 levels even as the U.S. manufacturing sector recovers from the
recession. One report suggests that composite use in civil transport in the year 2000 will
have grown from today's 7% to about 25% of structural weight per airplane.153
An historically large market for cobalt, accounting for about 10 percent of cobalt
consumption, has been the production of cobalt-samarium magnets. Cheaper and stronger
neodymium-boron-uron magnets, however, have been developed. Although not as corrosion-
resistant as cobalt-samarium magnets, the neodymium-boron-uron magnets have rapidly
replaced cobalt-samarium magnets in the production of office and telecommunications
equipment.
Recovery of cobalt from secondary sources can play an important role hi protecting
U.S. industries from potential disruptions in the supply of cobalt. Cobalt can be recovered
from a variety of sources, including superalloy production scrap, superalloy scrap (e.g., used
jet engine parts and dismantled jet engines), spent petroleum catalysts, homogenous catalysts
from the chemical processing industry, and used cemented carbide wear parts and tool
inserts. Cobalt from scrap represents approximately 15 to 20 percent of U.S. consumption.
Scrap cannot replace all uses of cobalt metals, particularly high-grade metal Superalloys.
Two metal reclaimers in the U.S. presently process spent petroleum catalysts to recover,
among other constituents, cobalt as a mixed cobalt-nickel residue or alloy. Most
metallurgical industries in the U.S. have well established cobalt recycling or recovery
practices in place.
-------
141
According to a report prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, economic factors, such
as metal prices, costs of scrap collection and processing, will continue to influence whether
cobalt-bearing materials are recycled, downgraded, or landfilled. The report also states that
other economic and environmental factors, such as the cost of landfilling, were the driving
force behind the initiation of metals recovery from spent petroleum catalysts during the past
two decades. With environmental regulations becoming even more stringent and treatment
and disposal costs rising, this will continue to be a factor.
Manganese
The U.S. average apparent consumption of manganese has declined nearly 50 percent
since the 1985 OTA report. This is primarily for two reasons. First, approximately 90
percent of U.S. consumption of manganese is in steelmaking. The recession and
international competition have served to lessen demand for American steel. Beyond this,
steelmakers have decreased their unit consumption of manganese in steelmaking. That is, for
every ton of steel produced, fewer pounds of manganese are required. This increased
efficiency, largely the result of such improved techniques as bottom blowing, has decreased
unit consumption of manganese in steel manufacturing by almost 25 percent over the past
decade.
The amount of manganese used in ferroalloys has also declined as producers shift
from ferromanganese to silicomanganese, an alloy with a high percentage of silicone.
Silicomanganese is preferred in the production of steel from scrap in electric furnaces
because it is less expensive for smaller operations and the metallurgy of the continuous
casting process favors silicomanganese. Many of these "mini-mills" have now expanded to
where they are competing with the large, integrated steel producers, thereby increasing the
demand for silicomanganese and cutting into the market for medium-grade ferromanganese.
In general, it is difficult to find an economically feasible substitute for manganese that
does not lead to other problems in the metal product. For example, aluminum could replace
manganese hi some steel production, decreasing oxygen content hi steel, but then the alloy ing
effects of manganese, which bind impurities such as sulfur, are lost. Similarly, titanium,
zirconium, vanadium, or columbium could all be used as substitutes for manganese hi some
capacity. However, the cost per desired effect of such substitution is high, which makes all
of these alternatives much less cost effective than manganese.
In another example, the electric power generating industry is interested in almost
zero-impurity steel for generator rotors. In this case, the steel must be refined so that sulfur
and carbon levels are greatly reduced. This is achieved at a significantly increased cost.
When the sulfur and carbon levels are extremely low, however, chromium can be used as a
substitute for manganese. Unfortunately, this is simply substituting one first tier strategic
metal for another.
-------
142
According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the amount of manganese recovered from
scrap is insignificant.154 Considerable amounts of manganese reenters production as a
minor component of steel scrap, steel slag, and nonferrous scrap. Such recycling of
manganese does not lead to a progressive buildup in steelmaking. Therefore, although
research should proceed pertaining to recovery of manganese, especially from non-traditional
sources such as metal-bearing hazardous waste streams, the most promising means of
reducing manganese consumption is the continued improvement in steelmaking efficiency.
Manganese is found in certain metal-bearing hazardous waste streams such as zinc
smelting process wastewater and titanium chloride reactor slurry. These concentrations are
generally low and probably would only contribute marginally to the high volumes necessary
for steelmaMng.
Platinum Group Metals
Platinum group metals (PGM) are one the- two first tier metals for which average
apparent consumptions increased between the two periods covered by Table 10. Demand
actually exceeded supply of PGMs for most of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Platinum,
endowed with strong catalytic qualities, is now used hi the manufacture of one in five
consumer products.
The primary market for PGMs is catalytic converters. Increasingly strict automobile
emission requirements, promulgated as part of the new Clean Air Act, have spurred the
development and employment of catalytic converters using platinum group metals as emission
catalysts. Palladium, a PGM, has become the metal of choice in new catalytic converter
development. Although weakness in the U.S. automobile market may affect PGM demand,
this area should be one of strong growth, consuming substantial quantities of PGMs.
As research on catalytic converters continues, improved production efficiency may
reduce the amount of PGMs consumed in the production process. However, at present,
more platinum is being used in catalytic converters. Research has been conducted to make
catalytic converters more efficient, and perhaps less reliant on PGMs, but it appears that no
immediate reduction in domestic demand for platinum is forthcoming. Constant demand
appears likely since new catalytic converter development, for the most part, has only shifted
emphasis from one PGM to another.
Electrical applications are the next largest market for platinum group metals, using
PGMs in capacitors and resistors. The petroleum refining industry also uses PGMs in
reforming, cracking, and isomerization reactions.
-------
143
Platinum group metals are presently recovered from certain hazardous waste streams
resulting from PGM use as a catalyst in petroleum refining. Because of their high value,
PGMs are also routinely recovered from chemical catalysts, automobile catalysts, glass fiber
bushings, electronic scrap, laboratory equipment, and other sources. Catalysts and PGM-
bearing solutions can be processed to increase their grade for resale. As an increasing
number of automobile catalysts and electronics parts are retired, more PGM-bearing waste
streams will be available for PGM recovery. In 1991, the U.S. Bureau of Mines released a
publication tracing the flow of PGMs through then- metallurgical, catalytic, and chemical
applications. This document highlighted areas in which significant issues arise involving
downgrading, export, or disposal. To exploit recoverable sources and minimize losses of
PGMs, the recommendations of this publication should be considered and implemented.155
Platinum recovery from hazardous wastes in the United States is currently being
encouraged through the precious metal exemption in RCRA Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR
Part 266 Subpart F). The provision conditionally exempts precious metal recovery from full
Subtitle C regulation while retaining notification and recordkeeping requirements for storage.
7.2.2 U.S. Net Import Reliance of Strategic Metals
Net import reliance as a percent of apparent consumption was an important criterion
in OTA's designation of first tier rnetals in the 1985 report. Net import reliance measures
the U.S. balance of trade in metals and the extent to which the U.S. is reliant on other
countries for its supply of a given metal. Table 7.3 shows the U.S. net import reliance for
metals identified in the OTA report.156 As Table 7.3 indicates, average U.S. net import
reliance decreased for chromium and cobalt between the periods of 1978 to 1982 and 1988 to
1992. Average net import reliance for manganese and platinum group metals increased
between these periods. The following discussion addresses the changes that have occurred in
world production and U.S. import sources for each first tier metal since the 1985 OTA
report was published as well as the political situation in key producer countries that may
impact future trade hi a given metal.
When the OTA report was published in 1985, the Soviet Union, South Africa, and
Zaire accounted for 67 percent of the world's production of chromium, cobalt, manganese,
and platinum group metals. In 1991, Russia (USSR), South Africa, and Zaire still produced
64 percent of the world's supply of first tier metals. However, various other countries have
begun to increase then: output and, more importantly, the U.S. has begun the important
process of reducing its reliance on these three countries for its supply of first tier metals.
-------
144
Since publication of the 1985 OTA report, the U.S. has decreased its average net
import reliance on chromium by over 14 percent. During the 1980s the U.S. was able to
eliminate its reliance on Soviet (Russian) supplies of chromium and reduce its reliance on
supplies from South Africa. Despite these efforts, however, the U.S. must continue
diversifying its sources of chromium imports. Decreasing U.S. reliance on unstable supplies
of chromium will be difficult given the limited number of countries producing chromium.
To the extent it is possible, then, the "U.S. must continue investigating chromium substitutes
and new sources of recovered chromium.
Table 7.3 U.S. Net Import Reliance for OTA Tier and Tier 2 Metals
Years
-Selected
Metal
Manganese
Bauxite
Cobalt
Chromium
Platinum
Tin
Tantalum
Columbium
Annual Average Net
Import Reliance
(1978-1982)1
98.0
94.2
93.0
90.0
87.0
77.4
93.0
100.0
Annual Average Net
Import Reliance
(1988-1993)
100.0
98.2
82.0
76.8
90.4
74.6
86.0
100.0
Percent
Change
2.04
4.24
-11.82
-14.66
3.90
-3,61
-7.52
0.00
Expressed as a percent ot apparent consumption
U.S. average net import reliance on cobalt decreased by almost 12 percent since
publication of the OTA report, and as discussed earlier, consumption of cobalt has also
decreased markedly. The U.S. decreased its reliance on Zaire for cobalt imports by 27
percent, due in part to greatly reduced Zairian output, while increasing the share of imports
from Canada by 150 percent, from Zambia by 77 percent and from Norway by 57 percent.
At present, the demand for cobalt has not revived from the recession and supply of cobalt,
while important, isn't as critical as at other times. There is still a large supply of Russian
cobalt that has been dumped on the market and the U.S. government is beginning to sell
much of the cobalt in the national defense stockpile. Despite these supplies, the situation is
critical enough in the primary cobalt-producing countries that the U.S. should work towards
a sustained recycling program and further investigation of substitutes in alloying.
-------
145
The United States is totally reliant on foreign sources of manganese. However, over
the past decade the U.S. has radically altered the structure of import sources. Imports of
manganese ore from South Africa were eliminated for the 1988-1991 period, reducing U.S.
reliance on South Africa for manganese ore and ferromanganese by more than 50 percent
since the early 1980s. This is quite significant, considering that South Africa increased their
output of manganese between 1981 and 1991.
Perhaps as a result of expectations over the North American Free Trade Agreement,
the U.S. increased manganese imports from Mexico by 80 percent. Manganese imports from
Brazil also increased by 68 percent and imports from Gabon were up 55 percent. Although
U.S. average apparent consumption of manganese has decreased significantly, the decrease hi
reliance on South African imports and increase hi imports from Gabon, France, Mexico and
Brazil seem to constitute positive steps toward smoothing potential supply disruptions, and
may also contribute to unproved relations between the U.S. and its trading partners hi the
Americas.
Platinum Group Metals represent a somewhat different case than the other three first
tier metals. Because of their use as a catalyst in catalytic converters and increasingly
stringent air emission regulations applicable to automobiles, PGM apparent consumption and
net import reliance have both increased. Further, production of PGMs is almost exclusively
centered hi South Africa and the former-Soviet Union. At the end of 1992, Russian platinum
output was runnhig at 68% the 1991 rate. Recession hi South Africa, low metal prices, and
labor strife may disrupt PGM production in South Africa.
The U.S. decreased imports from the former-Soviet Union and South Africa by 19
percent and 11 percent, respectively, since publication of the OTA report, while imports
from the United Kingdom increased by 45 percent. U.K. production of PGMs, however, is
from ores originating hi South Africa and Canada.
Given the extreme reliance on PGMs across the U.S. manufacturing sector and the
tenuous nature of their supply, the U.S. must work toward fostering the recovery of
secondary PGMs, increasing the use of substitutes, and investigating the alteration of
production processes so that they are less reliant on PGMs. At present the U.S. accounts for
almost 3 percent of world PGM production. The possibility of increasing domestic
production and tailoring domestic manufacturing processes to use the PGMs produced
domestically should also be investigated further.
The supply situation for chromium, cobalt, manganese, and PGMs has deteriorated
since the 1985 OTA report with the deterioration of conditions hi South Africa, the former-
Soviet Union, and Zaire. Substitute materials are being pursued to reduce reliance on these
metals but development is progressing at a slow pace and it may be a long time before such
substitutes as composite materials have reached a level of uniformity where they are available
for widespread use.
-------
146
The most obvious track the U.S. should follow, then, to reduce its overall reliance on
imported metal supplies is that which decreases demand for the metals. This can be
accomplished through applying measures to increase U.S. production efficiency, recycling
scrap material and recovering metals from alternative sources such as metal-bearing
hazardous waste streams when such sources are available.
7.2.5 National Defense Stockpile
In addition to the basic commercial need for strategic materials to the U.S. economy,
these materials have specific application to the Nation's defense. Its importance has declined
somewhat with the end of the Cold War. However, conservation of these materials in
hazardous and nonhazardous waste streams may be one strategy to ensure our national
security in the event that need arises.
Under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1946, the Department
of Defense (DOD) has maintained a stockpile of strategic and critical materials to sustain
military, industrial and essential civilian needs during a 3-year conventional global war. At
the end of 1992, the stockpile contained 99 strategic and critical materials worth
approximately $9 billion. This Act was amended by the Defense Authorization Act of 1993
(hereafter referred to as the Act), and DOD is currently in the process of downsizing the
stockpile to reflect the changes caused by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, although the
value of the stockpile will still contain many metals which have been discussed as candidates
for recovery from hazardous waste streams. Increasing our domestic supply of strategic and
critical materials, and thus mitigating the reliance on potentially instable import sources, is a
major objective of the Act.
The Act defines strategic and critical material to include materials that would be
needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States
during a national emergency and are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient
quantities to meet such needs. A national emergency means a general declaration of
emergency with respect to the national defense made by the President or by the Congress.
A 1992 report by me General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the disposal
of six materials from the stockpile could be considered a high risk from a national security
perspective based on a sensitivity analysis of the reliability of the source country. These
metals were antimony, refractory grade chromite, iridium, palladium, platinum and tungsten.
Furthermore, the GAO considered the sensitivity analysis of country reliability to be the most
influential factor in yielding high stockpile requirements for a material. Therefore,
increasing the domestic supply of all strategic and critical materials would be the most
beneficial towards increasing national security.
-------
• 147
Section 8 of the Act recognizes the need for increasing the domestic supply of
materials, and supports the rationale for the increased recovery of metals from hazardous
waste streams. The section states that the President shall make scientific, technological, and
economic investigations concerning the development, mining, preparation, treatment, and
utilization of ores and other mineral substances that are found hi the United States hi
inadequate quantities or grades, and are strategic material. Such investigations shall be
carried out in order to determine and develop new domestic sources of supply of such ores
and mineral substances and develop substitutes for such essential ores and mineral products
7.2.4 Conclusion: Strategies To Increase Opportunities For Strategic Metal Recovery
From Hazardous Wastes
For the United States to take advantage of additional supplies of strategic metals in
hazardous wastes, several steps may be necessary. First, hazardous waste streams that
contain recoverable levels of strategic metals should identified. To date, comprehensive
analysis has not been completed on which hazardous waste streams contain recoverable levels
of strategic metals. Second, technical, economic and regulatory barriers to recovery of these
materials must be determined and analyzed to develop strategies to remove these barriers.
Third, cost-effective incentives that are environmentally protective would need to be
implemented. Generator concerns of compliance cost and long term liability would need to
be addressed hi the development of these incentives. Finally, end markets for secondary
strategic metals would need to be developed and encouraged by the Federal government
through procurement, subsidies, grants or other means. The opportunity for strategic metal
recovery of hazardous waste may depend largely on the specific metal being recovered.
Chromium recovery has the greatest potential for strategic metal recovery due to its
prevalence hi hazardous waste streams. And while Inmetco (the case study respondent in
Chapter 6) is recovering ferrochrome alloy from chromium-bearing K061, there are probably
substantial quantities of other chromium-bearing wastes that are amenable to recovery. Data
presented in Chapter 3 indicates that characteristic chromium waste, D007, accounts for over
3 million tons, by far the leading quantity of any single metal-bearing hazardous waste
stream. While only a portion D007 contains recoverable levels of chromium, the total mass
of recoverable chromium hi these wastes may be substantial. Chromium may also be
available in plating wastes such as F006, the second largest metal-bearing waste stream
identified hi Chapter 3. Further research on chromium recovery of hazardous waste is
warranted.
As mentioned above, platinum recovery from hazardous waste streams is already
being encouraged through the precious metal exemption hi RCRA Subtitle C. However,
precious metal industry representatives remain concerned that RCRA Subtitle C may be
discouraging precious metal recovery by subjecting precious metal recovery operations to
hazardous waste manifesting requirements.
-------
148
Less is known about the potential for cobalt and manganese recovery in hazardous
waste streams. Scrap and non-hazardous waste streams may be the most likely source of
these metals. Cobalt is believed to exist hi recoverable levels in spent petroleum catalysts
which may be nonhazardous. As with chromium, additional research may be warranted.
-------
149
Chapter 8 Encouraging Environmentally Sound Metal Recovery
The second issue Congress asked EPA to study is how metal recovery can be
encouraged. The regulated community has provided a series of proposals reviewed above in
Chapter 5. The case studies in Chapter 6 provide insight about specific RCRA Subtitle C
regulatory provisions that might be modified to facilitate metal recovery in the United States.
This Chapter reviews current EPA activities that may encourage environmentally sound metal
recovery of hazardous waste including the Hazardous Waste Identification Program and the
Definition of Solid Waste Task Force. This Chapter also reviews a series of non-regulatory
alternatives such as waste exchanges and incentive-based alternatives to traditional command
and control regulation such as pollution taxes and marketable permits.
8.1 Current EPA Activities Encouraging Environmentally Sound Metal Recovery of
Hazardous Waste
EPA is currently conducting three activities (one initiative and two rulemakings) that
will affect metal recovery of hazardous waste: the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force
(Task Force), the proposed Part 273 Special Collection System regulations, the proposed
universal treatment standards for metal constituents in hazardous wastes. While none of
these activities was established solely to promote metal recovery of hazardous waste, each
initiative will play an important role in modifications to Subtitle C regulation affecting metal
recovery.
8.1.1 Definition of Solid Waste Task Force
On October 1, 1992, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) established the Definition
of Solid Waste Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force was created to develop a
comprehensive strategy to modify Subtitle C regulation to simplify the current regulatory
scheme, to reduce disincentives to safe recycling and innovative technologies and to address
concerns about increased risk from expanded use of products derived from hazardous wastes.
The Task Force has been established to conduct followup to prior definition of solid
waste activities including the RCRA Implementation Study (July 1990), RCRA Forums
(November/December 1990) and the RCRA Implementation Study Update (July 1992). Since
its inception, the Task Force has conducted important public outreach with various
stakeholders on Subtitle C regulatory issues includes industry, environmental groups and state
governments.
In completing this outreach, the Task Force has built upon the previous EPA initiative
mentioned above through the consideration of options to modify the definition of solid waste
in order to encourage environmentally sound recycling. These options have included
modifications to RCRA jurisdiction and regulatory requirements over secondary materials,
including metal-bearing secondary materials, to better optimize RCRA's dual objective of
resource recovery and environmental protection.
-------
150
One option currently under consideration include establishing -a new recycling system
that tailors management requirements to the type of recycling, e.g., dividing recycling into
categories based on the source of the recyclable materials and the recycling location. In
evaluating all of the options, the Task Force has relied on several key operating principles
for recycling under RCRA jurisdiction:
• Safe recycling operations use equipment designed to prevent releases of
hazardous constituents to the environment, especially groundwater.
• Recyclers must quickly and effectively respond to releases of hazardous
constituents that occur despite these prevention measures.
• Government regulators must know the identity of recycling facilities and basic
recycling data to enforce compliance with the appropriate management
standards.
• An effective regulatory system must assure safe transportation and tracking of
secondary materials from "cradle to grave."
• Waste-derived products must pose no more threat to human health and the
environment than the virgin products they replace or compete with.
• The community surrounding a recycling facility should be notified if the
facility will be receiving and recycling hazardous waste generated at another
facility.
8.1.2 Part 273 Special Collection System Regulations
Recently, EPA proposed a rulemaking (58 PR 8102, February 11, 1993) to establish a
streamlined set of regulatory requirements for collection of certain hazardous wastes such as
batteries and certain recalled pesticides that may be widely distributed in commerce,
generated by a large number of users, and problematic in municipal solid waste streams.
These proposed requirements known as Part 273 or Special Collection System regulations are
designed to facilitate collection of batteries, certain recalled pesticides and possibly other
"universal" hazardous wastes to ensure proper management prior to recycling or
treatment/disposal. Part 273 would facilitate collection in part by simplifying requirements
(such as reduced recordkeeping and reporting requirements) for generators, transporters and
owner/operators of interim storage facilities known as "consolidation points"). Part 273
would also facilitate collection through lower compliance costs (e.g., use of a non-hazardous
waste hauler for some shipments; operation of a consolidation point without a storage
permit).
-------
151
Although Part 273 was not specifically proposed to encourage metal recovery in
particular, when final it may facilitate metal recovery of certain metal-bearing hazardous
waste such as hazardous waste batteries and other mercury-containing wastes such as
thermostats by removing disincentives to collection and consolidation. For many of these
wastes (cadmium-containing batteries, lead-acid batteries, high category mercury containing
batteries and mercury-containing thermostats), thermal recovery is already required under the
Land Disposal Restriction program. Part 273 would improve the efficiency of collecting
these wastes prior to recovery. Potentially, in the future Part 273 could be applied to other
metal-bearing hazardous waste streams that may be appropriate for recovery.
8.1.3 Universal Treatment Standards for Metal Hazardous Constituents
On September 14, 1993 (58 FR 48092) EPA has proposed a rulemaking that would
establish uniform performance-based treatment standards, called "universal treatment
standards" under the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) program for 14 metals: antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, vanadium and zinc. Currently, metal constituents present in different hazardous
wastes may be required to be treated to different levels depending upon what type of
hazardous waste the constituent is part of.
For example, cadmium present in D006 nonwastewaters, waste which exhibits the
toxicity characteristic for cadmium, must be treated to the characteristic level of 1 ppm prior
to being land disposed while cadmium present in F006 nonwastewaters, wastewater treatment
sludge from electroplating operations, must be treated to 0.066 ppm prior to land disposal.
Under proposed universal treatment standards, cadmium present in either D006 or F006
nonwastewaters would need to be treated to 0.19 ppm prior to land disposal thus simplifying
the LDR program. The proposed universal treatment standards would not modify treatment
standards where a technology has been specified as the treatment standard for a particular
waste stream.
Because the proposed universal treatment standards would be performance-based
rather than technology-based, they would not encourage metal recovery of hazardous through
mandating recovery. However, the proposed universal treatments standards for 13 of the 14
metal hazardous constituents are based upon either high temperature metal recovery or
stabilization (the proposed arsenic standard is based upon slag vitrification). This may be an
incentive for generators to chose high temperature metal recovery as a preferred management
choice for their waste since this technology is the basis for achieving performance levels
required prior to land disposal. It may also preclude generators from using other non-
recovery management treatment options than do not meet the levels required by the proposed
universal treatment standards.
-------
152
8.2. Non-regulatory and Incentive-based Approaches To Encouraging Metal Recovery
From Hazardous Waste
In addition to traditional regulatory approaches to managing hazardous waste, non-
regulatory approaches such as technical or financial assistance and incentive-based
approaches may play an important role in facilitating metal recovery of hazardous waste in
the United States. EPA has reviewed one non-regulatory approach (waste exchanges) and
several incentive-based approaches (pollution taxes/fees, marketable permits/recycling
credits, deposit/refund systems, and removal of federal subsidies for primary metals) that
have been used in other countries and may have value in facilitating metal recovery in the
United States.
8.2.1 Non-regulatory Approaches To Encouraging Metal Recovery From Hazardous
Waste/ Waste Exchanges
Historically, non-regulatory approaches such as financial and technical assistance to
encouraging metal recovery of hazardous waste have been used by countries such as Japan as
a compliment to strict regulation of industry. In 1980, the GAO reported that the Japanese
government was providing financial assistance to the private sector to invest in metal
recovery equipment.157 The GAO found that comparatively little such assistance was being
provided by the U.S. government to the private sector.
In addition to financial assistance to encourage investment in metal recovery, waste
exchanges are another type of non-regulatory alternative designed to encourage metal
recovery and reduce disposal of metal-bearing hazardous waste.158 Waste exchanges are
public or private institutions that are dedicated to promoting the reuse and recovery of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
The history of waste exchanges dates back to World War II, when waste exchanges
were established by the British in 1942. When World War II ended, most exchanges had
met their original goals consequently ceased to exist.
In 1972, the concept of promoting transfers of industrial waste was reborn in the
Netherlands. This first modem-day exchange was known as the VNCI Waste Exchange.
Shortly after the VNCI Waste Exchange began, other European nations began to recognize
the environmental benefits of promoting the reuse of industrial wastes and established their
own exchanges. From 1972 to 1976, approximately 12 exchanges were established in
Europe.
At the same time, other nations outside of Europe also began to focus on programs
that helped to protect the Earth's resources. During the early to mid-1970's waste exchanges
were set up in New Zealand. The government of Australia in 1977 set up an Industrial
Waste Exchange which still operates today as part of the government. The first North
American Waste Exchanges were established in 1973.
-------
153
Waste exchanges in the United States are comparatively new to those in Europe.
European waste exchanges successfully exchange about 30 to 40 percent of wastes listed
compared with 10 percent for U.S. exchanges. In 1978, Canada established a National
Waste Materials Exchange. The GAO reports that the Canadian national waste exchange was
relatively successful its first year in operation.
Most of the early waste exchanges served strictly as information exchanges and did
not provide for actively pursuing matches of industrial waste generators and users. While
some of the early exchanges operated for-profit, most were not-for-profit. The for-profit
exchanges tended to deal solely with surplus inventories, while the not-for-profit exchanges
dealt surplus inventories, off specification products, and waste products.
Hazardous wastes were included on many of the waste exchanges and, in fact, some
exchanges dealt primarily with hazardous wastes. Waste exchanges were generally limited to
trades on a regional basis and not on a national basis. Funding for early exchanges carne
from several sources: government (federal, state and local), private donations, listing fees,
and subscription fees.
In recent years, computers and telecommunications technology has greatly facilitated
the ease with which waste exchanges can be set up and managed. For instance, a national
computerized bulletin board is linking together regional markets. States and municipalities
are starting more localized exchanges, and some exchanges are actively seeking wastes and
markets for waste as opposed to serving only as informational exchanges, as hi the past.
Throughout their history, waste exchanges worldwide have faced similar problems as
they attempt to expand and grow. As the waste exchange concept grows and becomes part
of the standard business operating procedure, operational problems that exist today (e.g.,
funding, marketing, liability concerns) will need to be addressed in order for exchanges to
succeed.
High purity, steady supply and high disposal costs avoided are primary factors
contributing to success of materials successfully matched at waste exchanges. Data from
California indicates that solvents, oils and aqueous metal solutions are the materials most
commonly recycled off-site. Additional materials that are technically and economically
feasible to recycle through waste exchanges include alkalis, acids, metals and metallic
compounds and catalysts. Specific data on which metal-bearing hazardous wastes were listed
on exchanges has not been available.
-------
154
Recently, EPA awarded a contract for $350,000 to Pacific Materials Exchange (PME)
to develop a computerized National Material Exchange Network (NMEN). NMEN became
operational in January 1993. Although it is too early to tell what effect NMEN will have on
waste exchanges in the United States, the hope is that greater access to materials and markets
on a national basis will improve the probability of matching buyers and sellers of secondary
materials. With the help of state and local waste reduction requirements, NMEN facilitated
the development of new waste exchanges by reducing start up costs for new exchanges. As
of May 1993, 22 exchanges are being developed in 19 states.
Waste exchanges may provide additional opportunities to encourage metal recovery of
hazardous wastes. Financial and technical assistance to regional and local waste exchanges
could compliment NMEN to encourage metal recovery.
Studying which metal-bearing hazardous wastes are currently amenable to recovery
but not being listed at waste exchanges is a another opportunity. The objective of all
alternatives would be to facilitate establishing end markets for partially recovered metals
from metal recovery operations as well as encouraging generators to manage metal-bearing
hazardous waste for recovery.
8.2.2 Incentive-Based Approaches To Encouraging Metal Recovery of Hazardous Wastes
Today, economists and environmental policy analysts speak of a dichotomy between
"command and control regulation" and "incentive-based approaches" to environmental
protection. This dichotomy is based on how government influences or directs changes in a
polluter's behavior.
Command and control regulation is the traditional means that government uses to
achieve environmental protection. Command and control regulation directs polluters how to
reduce or manage pollution as well as prescribing what level of pollution is permissible.
Command and control regulation is a characterization which includes traditional permitting
(non-transferable, location specific); performance, design or technology-based standards, and
traditional compliance monitoring/enforcement procedures (e.g., issuance of orders, civil
penalties). RCRA Subtitle C is an example of a command and control system. Examples of
modifications to command and control regulation include proposed modifications to Subtitle
C regulation presented by the regulated community hi Chapter 5 and those currently under
deliberation by the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force.
Incentive-based approaches rely on market behavior of polluters to achieve a
reduction in levels of pollution or to improve pollutant management. Incentive-based
approaches usually do not direct a polluter how to reduce pollution. Rather, these
approaches set performance levels (based on quantity) or charges (based on price). In
contrast to command and control regulation, incentives-based approaches influence rather
than dictate the behavior of polluters. Pollution taxes or fees, transferable permits and
deposit/refund systems are examples of incentive-based approaches.
-------
155
Economists have traditionally been critical of command and control approaches to
environmental protection, preferring incentive-based approaches instead. They assert that
command and control approaches are economically inefficient because they do not take into
account the varying cost of reducing pollution from facility to facility. Environmental groups
have traditionally favored command and control approaches believing that they provide a
greater level of certainty and uniformity than incentive-based approaches and that compliance
can be enforced.
The use of incentive-based approaches is gaining in popularity across the globe.
According to a review by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), there are 150 different applications of economic instruments in 14 countries.159
For example, Green Taxes have been adopted across Europe - though more as a revenue
raiser than as a tool for behavior modification.
In the United States, some forms of incentives (such as tradeable permits) have been
studied for several years. Through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and elsewhere,
the Agency is expanding the use of incentive-based approaches such as fees, charges and
marketable permits. For example, incentive-based approaches are now a major part of
EPA's approach to the problem of acid rain. The Clean Air Act Amendments include
provisions for the use of tradeable emission allowances to more cost-effectively reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions from utility plants that contribute to acid rain.
On a local level, waste management officials in many communities are working to
send a stronger market signal directly to consumers of disposal services. Through "unit
pricing programs," homeowners and commercial entities are charged a fee per unit (volume
or weight) of waste disposed. Generators of waste may then decide (independent of any land
of mandate) whether or not to change their disposal practices, increase their source
reduction/re-use behavior or step up their recycling efforts. EPA is evaluating the
effectiveness of unit based programs across the country.
This section on incentive-based approaches is presented to provide a full range of
alternatives to encourage metal recovery of hazardous wastes. This section includes
discussion of several categories of incentive-based programs that could be considered for
managing the metals reclamation industry along with questions a policy-maker or analyst
would ask in deciding which among them might be most effective. Finally, the chapter
concludes with a brief discussion of some of the limitations of an incentive based system and
barriers to their acceptance.
EPA is beginning to analyze the use of several types of incentive-based programs that
may be relevant to the metals reclamation industry.160 Typically, these programs fall into
four categories:
-------
156
1. Pollution Charges (Both Fees and Taxes) (Section 8.2.2.1);
2. Tradeable Waste Generation Permits and Recycling Credits (8.2.2.2);
3. Deposit/Refund Programs (8.2,2.3);
4. Removal of Federal Subsidies (those that support the use of virgin products)
(8.2.2.4).
Because further evaluation is needed on a case-bv-case basis, neither this chapter nor
this report endorses any of the incentives described. Rather, this report provides a starting
point for discussions with legislators, industry and environmentalists.
8.2.2.1 Pollution Charges (Both Fees and Taxes)
161
Pollution fees and taxes impose a charge per unit of pollution or per unit of
production or activity. Pollution charges tend to be effective when the policy question is
how much (as opposed to whether) waste generation is acceptable.162 Government levies a
fee or tax on the inputs or outputs of manufacturing, recycling or reclaiming metals.
Pollution charges create an incentive for industry to reduce pollution up to the point where
the incremental cost of controlling pollution equals the pollution fee or tax rate.
Two approaches can be used in setting fee or tax levels. First, fees could be set to
approximate the harm imposed by pollutants forcing the cost to be paid by the polluter rather
than the public. In this approach, industry would determine total waste generation levels.
The second approach hybridizes an incentive-based system and a performance-based system.
Waste generation targets are calculated using economic and scientific assessments. Via this
approach, charges are computed as a tool for reaching those targets.
The effectiveness of a pollution charge is directly tied to: 1) the calculation of the fee
or tax rate; and, 2) enforcement and oversight of industry. According to environmental
economics, if environmental goals are to be achieved, the policy maker must calculate the
"correct" charge. The "correct" charge is that which results in the generation of an
"optimal" amount of pollution - the amount of pollution at which the incremental cost of
controlling pollution equals the value of damage avoided by reducing pollution.
In order to calculate the correct charge, the policy-maker must know the private costs
of pollution control and the costs to society of pollution damages (i.e., the benefits to society
of reducing pollution). The cost to society is typically viewed as the cost of health and
environmental damage - often very contentious issues. Because private costs of control are
heavily guarded and damages occur to essentially public goods (on a local - not a national -
level), this is an especially difficult task.
-------
157
Failure to calculate the "correct" charge and/or provide adequate enforcement can
have severe and far-reaching implications. For example, a tax on an inelastic input will yield
no reduction in waste generation and only increase regulatory burden. If the charge is too
high, industry may employ pollution controls that are excessive and economically inefficient
(i.e., environmental control costs exceed their environmental benefit). If the charges are too
low, goals for reduced waste generation will not be achieved.
The calculation of pollution charges may ultimately be an iterative process with the
charges rising and falling until the "correct" charge is found. This volatility is, perhaps, the
most significant obstacle to a successful program. Investments in pollution control may make
sense when pollution charges are high but not when charges are low. To industry, it may be
optimal to wait for charges to stabilize (itself, distorting the economics by adding bias to the
supply and demand curves) before investing hi pollution control.
For these reasons, policy-makers generally take a conservative approach hi the early
stages of a pollution charge system.163 Adjusting the charge upward over time toward
"optimal" levels serves to reduce economic impacts at the early stages of the program (as
firms evaluate methods for increased waste reduction) while still encouraging some
reductions so as hi waste generation. However, it would be important to make future
increases predictable to ensure that industry could anticipate the economics of future
reductions in waste generation rates.
Pollution charges and taxes give industry two incentives: to reduce waste generation
and also the incentive to misrepresent waste generation. This latter distortionary effect is one
which adds a significant cost to the system: the costs of enforcement and oversight.
Currently, though some of the wastes are captured by RCRA's various reporting
requirements, many are not. Though random monitoring of facilities may discourage under-
reporting, it does so only at some cost.
Some state governments have tried pollution charges on hazardous waste generation.
As mentioned above in Chapter 6 in the U.S. Filter Recovery Services (USFRS) case study,
the State of Minnesota has levied a tax on releases tied to the Federal definition under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). Unfortunately, USFRS
reports that the tax creates no distinction between off-site recycling and traditional treatment
or disposal. This is likely due to the fact that the Federal definition of release under EPCRA
made no such distinction. Recent revisions to Form R used to report EPCRA release now
contain additional data elements distinguishing between off-site treatment or disposal and
recycling.
-------
158
In 1985, Noll et. al. reported several variations on state hazardous waste taxes.164
Some state government structure higher hazardous waste taxes on treatment and disposal than
for recovery. Other states provide lower permit application fees for recovery facilities. Noll
reports that in 1985 both Kansas and Tennessee had authorized their regulatory agencies to
impose a tax based upon risk of the material and the cost of treatment and disposal. Indiana
imposed a $1.50 per ton tax on waste disposal but not recovery. The state of Kentucky
structured its fee system in a manner that assess hazardous waste fees for on-site treatment
and disposal at one-half the fee for off-site treatment and disposal. On-site treatment and
recovery is exempt from assessment unless there is landfilling of process residuals.
What is not made clear in the review of state regulations is whether the fees are
simply used as revenue sources, or as a mechanism to reduce hazardous waste generation. If
it is the latter, the administrative costs of such a system would be greater due to economic
adjustments required to set fees at levels to reduce waste generation rates. The review also
does not make clear how revenue raised from pollution charges is to be allocated. It may be
added to general revenue to reduce any deficit. Alternatively, revenue may be used to
subsidize metal recovery operations, research and development grants for innovative
technologies or loans for pollution prevention projects.
In summary, if the charge is calculated correctly and if properly administered and
enforced, a pollution charge system will yield four significant benefits. First, the incentive
system minimizes the aggregate costs of pollution control. Second, pollution fees and taxes
give generators continuing incentives to develop and adopt more efficient and effective
pollution control technologies. Third, pollution fees and taxes tend to be a comparatively
progressive form of taxation - the per entity fraction of tax paid increases in direct proportion
to income.165 Fourth, pollution fees are revenue raisers which will serve to reduce the
federal or state deficit (or reduce the need for other, more regressive taxes), albeit for a short
time only. Nevertheless, the policy-maker must recognize that the costs of administering and
monitoring such a system could place a heavy incremental burden on government.
8.2.2.2 Tradeable Waste Generation Permits and Recycling Credits166
Tradeable waste generation permits and recycling credits are collectively referred to
as "marketable permits." Tradeable waste generation permits are used when the
environmental goal is to minimize waste generation rates and to achieve a national waste
generation target. These permits are entitlements to emit or generate specified amounts of a
pollutant during a specified time in a specified location. Locations may be defined in terms
of facilities, bubbles,167 ecosystems168 or nations. Every generator of waste must have a
permit in order to operate.
-------
159
As with traditional command and control regulations (i.e., performance standards),
tradeable waste generation permits ration the total amount of pollution that the control
authority is willing to allow. Just as when performance standards are applied, those entities
with permits can only generate the amounts of pollutants specified in the permits that they
own. Unlike performance standards, however, these permits are not entity specific: they can
be purchased, sold, leased or bartered across entities. They are freely transferable.
Recycling credits, in contrast, are devices used when the environmental goal is to
either maximize recycling of certain waste streams or to realize pre-determined national
recycling rates (or content standard). Through the use of recycling credits, entities could do
their part to satisfy the environmental goal by either diverting wastes to recyclers (or by
using the required percentage of secondary materials) or by purchasing "credits" from other
entities which have exceeded their recycling requirements. An entity must achieve a total
"use" of secondary materials either in practice or through some combination of waste
diversion (or use of secondary materials) and credit purchase. Ultimately, the same amount
of recycling should occur as under a uniform standard, but the total costs of compliance are
less since those entities best suited for recycling (or using recycled materials) would
essentially be paid by other entities to undertake the bulk of the recycling (or recycled
material usage) burden.
This transferability of either mechanism provides industry with much more flexibility
than traditional command and control regulations.169 For instance, if the Agency were to
develop a marketable permit program, waste generators with low pollution control costs
and/or low reformulation costs would have the incentive (assuming the entity is a profit-
maximizer) to alter their processes and market their excess waste generation capacity. Less
flexible entities would be required to purchase marketable permits in order to continue
operating in instances where they exceed their original allotment. Generators who wish to
increase their levels of waste generation could also go out on the market and acquire permits
for waste generation greater than their individual allotment. Finally, environmental
organizations which hope to reduce aggregate generation beyond the government allowance
could purchase permits.
Historically, marketable permit schemes have been applied to air and water quality
management. More recently the concept of "Debt for Nature" swaps has gained in
popularity. In the future, marketable permits may be used to manage waste, phase out the
use of certain materials170 or foster recycling.171
The establishment and implementation of any marketable permit scheme involve
several discrete policy decisions: 1) specifying a policy objective; 2) selecting a target; 3)
allocating permits; and 4) monitoring and enforcing the system. Each is described briefly
below.172
-------
160
The economics literature tends to focus on two objectives with regard to marketable
permits: efficiency and cost-effectiveness.173 When efficiency is the objective, the
regulator "balances... the damage cost incurred from remaining uncontrolled pollution with
the costs of avoiding this damage." In other words, the regulator seeks an allocation which
minimizes the sum of damage costs and avoidance costs. In contrast, cost effectiveness,
"suggests that the 'best* allocation is the one which achieves a specified policy target at a
minimum cost."
Creating an efficiency-based program, like a pollution charge program, requires
knowledge of both control and damage costs: a resource intensive endeavor. Thus, because
the costs of developing an efficient policy are often prohibitive, the cost effectiveness
criterion is more readily adopted. Cost effectiveness, in contrast, separates the two
components integral to a marketable permit program: the selection of a policy target and the
adoption of a system to meet that target. Cost effectiveness always addresses the latter
component and, only occasionally, the former. Economic efficiency addresses both.
Target selection tends to fall into one of two categories: aggregate emissions cost
effectiveness (ECE) or performance standards. Tietenberg writes that the, "ECE criterion
envisions the establishment of some standard - a legal celling - on the allowable weight of
[waste generation] and then allocates the responsibility for meeting that standard among the
[generators] in such a way as to minimize the resources committed to pollution control."
The cost is that the individual generator will select a waste output level based on economic
criterion and not on individual risk and that the resulting distribution of waste generation will
not minimize risk (given a particular compliance cost). The benefit of the ECE is that it is
comparatively simple to administer. In contrast, the performance standard, "represents target
waste generation levels measured at specific regions at specified average times." The
performance standard is more closely related, from a risk perspective, to environmental
degradation than is the ECE. Unfortunately, the relationship of the waste generator to that
standard is less clear.
The initial allocation of permits is, perhaps, the most difficult of the four key
decisions regarding marketable permits.174 The government specifies an acceptable level of
pollution. The total acceptable level is divided among polluting firms and then allotted in the
form of permits. Should the permits then be allocated by auction or endowment? Should
they be allocated free of charge? If they are allocated free of charge, what should be the
criteria? What about new entities that enter the market after the original distribution? How
should importers be addressed?
Depending upon the allocation method selected, the cost burden for pollution control
may be borne by the government (if the entitlements are considered held by the generator),
consumers, potential new entrants or the polluter itself (if the entitlements are considered
vested in the state).175 Currently, there is no preferred method of allocation. Like the
details of any market-based program, the selection of an allocation method is case specific
and dependent upon the environmental goals and industries involved.
-------
161
Finally, like a pollution charge system, a marketable permit system will only be as
good as the enforcement function and its ability to detect violations. Oversight is so crucial,
because without the ability to detect non-compliance, entities need not acquire permits. All
of the properties of an incentive system are lost in an environment where non-compliance
exists. Those entities that are non-compliant must be subject to sufficiently large fines or
penalties so as to make non-compliance an extremely unattractive option. Moreover,
violations must be broadcast to the broader regulated community.
Despite the fact that marketable permit systems are in their infancy, several conditions
have been identified which will assist in the development of efficient markets:176
a. Compliance: Entities must accurately report waste generation (or use of
materials) and acquire the number of permits needed to conform to usage.
b. Transaction Costs: Effectiveness and efficiency of marketable permit systems
are achieved only if transaction costs (including the costs of finding buyers and
sellers and trade approval) are sufficiently low.
c. Competitive Market Conditions for Permits: Sufficient quantities of buyers
and sellers are needed to avoid conditions where a single entity can influence
the price of the permit. Economic efficiency will only be realized if ample
buyers and sellers participate in the market.
d. Certainty hi the Permit Market: Trading will only occur if the rights of
permits are clearly defined and there is little or no question concerning the
legitimacy of transactions. If accountability is placed with permit sellers (not
buyers) and permits are registered with the government, the certainty issue is
minimized.
Marketable permit systems offer real potential for achieving environmental goals at
private costs equal to or lower than conventional command and control alternatives.177
There are, however, numerous issues that must be addressed as these systems evolve. Like
pollution charges, the cost of control is not known in advance. Thus, economic efficiency is
an iterative process.
Also like pollution charges, success is in large part dependent upon the enforcement
function; detection of violations and the legal ability to deal with violations once detected.
The costs of enforcement and oversight can be high if the regulated universe is large or if
imports are involved.
-------
162
The use of marketable permit trading has not been extensive either in the United
States or abroad. Isolated cases, (controlling the use of chlorofluorocarbons and reducing
lead in gasoline) have yielded promising results. Research concerning the further
development of marketable permit systems should continue. Specifically, research must be
conducted on the short- and long-run elasticities of supply and demand of potential
targets.Analysis concerning the distributional effects of these systems should also be
conducted. Finally, with regard to certain metals, foreign trade issues (sales and subsequent
enforcement of permits oversees and balance of trade issues) must be more closely examined.
8.2.2.3 Deposit/Refund Programs™
Deposit/Refund programs are designed to accomplish several goals. First, the refund
provides an incentive to follow the rales for proper disposal by raising the costs of illegal
disposal. Second, deposit/refund programs that encourage proper disposal produce a desired
composition of demand.179 Third, deposit/refund program foster the conservation of raw
materials. Deposit/Refund programs often promote the least-cost means for collecting
waste. 18°
Deposit/refund programs are probably the easiest economic incentive program to
develop, implement, understand and enforce. Essentially, a deposit/refund program is a
front end tax on waste precursors. For example, a deposit/refund program might be used to
control the disposal of sealed lead-acid batteries. A surcharge could be applied at any point
along the production chain: from the acquisition of raw materials, through the manufacturing
process or at the point of wholesale or retail purchase. The "taxed" party pays a surcharge
which is refunded to them when either the battery is sold (by the subsequent purchaser who
then bears the responsibility for proper disposal) or the product is sent on for recycling or
proper disposal.
In principle, the size of the deposit equals the social cost of illegal disposal. Ideally,
as the product moves through the sales chain (from manufacturer -> wholesaler -> retailer -»
consumer) the purchaser of the battery repays a deposit to the seller - mirroring the shift in
responsibility for disposal from one party to another. This continues until the ultimate
consumer returns the battery to a certified collection center responsible for recycling or
disposal.
Refunds are paid from tax revenues that are paid out to collection centers upon
verification of proper disposal. The certified recycling center repays the taxed party.
Refund monies that are not repaid to consumers might be split between the government and
the private sector.
-------
163
Like other economic incentives, there are problems which limit the utility and
effectiveness of deposit/refund programs. First, they are successful only where the targeted
product or material is easily identifiable. Sealed lead-acid batteries are easily identifiable
(except that it may be difficult for the consumer to distinguish between sealed lead-acid
batteries and other types of rechargeable batteries such as Ni-Cds) and their sources are
fairly limited. Clearly, deposit/refund programs create the incentive to turn toward
imitations, substitutes and counterfeit products. If the targeted product is not identifiable,
fraud will be prevalent, revenues will be insufficient to repay depositors and environmental
goals will not be achieved.
Second, the transportation costs associated with proper disposal vary by location and
may exceed the cost of the refund. Thus, not all waste may be properly disposed.
Third, collection facilities may face the significant incremental costs of handling
hazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C simply by virtue of the volumes of waste
managed.
Finally, the policy-maker must look at the reaction/distortion chain: How will
impacted manufacturers and consumers react? What substitutions will occur in the
marketplace? Will there be shifts toward riskier (but not addressed) materials? Will the
programs yield increases in the theft of recyclable goods? Will it undermine the viability of
more or marginally successful waste management programs?
According to the Project 88 Report, deposit/refund programs are most appropriate
when the incidence and consequences (to human health and the environment) of illegal waste
disposal are great. There are three reasons:
i. Relative to command and control regulation, enforcement costs are lowered
dramatically;
ii. Industry has a far greater incentive to conserve in process materials relative to
virtually every other regulatory and incentive-based program; and,
iii. Because materials are always lost in process, industry has a greater incentive
to look for materials that are "safer" (i.e., that are not subject to the
deposit/refund system).
For these reasons, deposit/refund systems hold the greatest potential for
containerizable hazardous wastes, batteries and other recognizable and verifiable goods.
-------
164
8.2,2.4 Removal of Federal Subsidies181
For more than 100 years, the federal government has granted subsidies for the
extraction and refining of certain natural resources - minerals, timber and energy stocks.
These programs were originally implemented to encourage and maintain the development of
mineral and other natural resources during periods of national economic difficulty. Though
many were conceived to be temporary, many of the subsidies have remained in place over
time. These programs endure, in large part, because of claims that they are important to
national security and that they foster local stability. Federal subsidy programs generally fall
into one of two categories: federal tax code provisions or federal programs.
It is generally held that a potential disincentive to recycling exists where a federal tax
policy increases the cost of using recycled materials (where they are practical substitutes)
relative to the cost of the virgin material. A disincentive is, thus, created by increasing the
price of a recycled material or by decreasing the price of a virgin material. A recent EPA
draft report examined four tax disincentives that impact the metals reclamation industry:
i. Percentage/Cost Depletion Allowances: Available to primary minerals and
oil/gas extraction companies. In fiscal year 1988, beneficiaries received a tax
break of greater than $1 billion.182
ii. Tax Provisions for the Development of Energy: Via expending (rather than
capitalizing) costs associated with exploration and development.
iii. Financing Provisions: The investment tax credit (rescinded in 1986) was the
most popular of these provisions. Private activity bonds and industrial
development bonds now serve to provide low cost capital for capital intensive
endeavors.
iv. Other Tax Considerations: Pollution control equipment expenditures are
subject to a five year (not a seven year) amortization schedule, thereby
providing a tax benefit for dirtier industries.
The same report also examined federal programs which impact the mining industries.
Historically, among the most vital programs to this industry has been the below-cost leasing
program.
The extraction of hardrock minerals is governed by the Mining Law of 1872.
Essentially, federal lands are relinquished as the government leases the lands below cost.
Provisions of this law allow a miner or company to stake a claim on federal lands which
contain potentially valuable minerals. Once the claim is staked, the miner need only spend
$100 per year on exploration and development to retain the claim. The miner is entitled to
any revenues extracted from the claim. Revenues for any other extracted commodity require
the claimant to pay royalties to the government. The Mining Law of 1872 makes this
unnecessary.
-------
165
Moreover, the Mining Law's patent provision allows the claim holder to transfer
property rights (surface and sub-surface) to private ownership for between $2.50 and $5.50
per acre. Between 1872 and 1989, 3.2 million acres (nearly the size of Connecticut) have
been sold under this provision.m Over time, the scope of the Mining Law has been
narrowed. Today, several "fuel minerals" (oil, gas and coal) and "common variety
minerals" (including sand, gravel stone and cinders) are excluded. Additionally, several
million acres are now protected against mining. Nevertheless, the low cost of mining federal
lands creates a market inefficiency with regard to virgin metals. This.inefficiency virtually
eliminates one of the most crucial components of social costs: the public value of land and
the cost of resource depletion. Relative to recycled or reclaimed metals, the Mining Law of
1872 serves to lower the cost basis of raw materials.
Subsidies create market inefficiencies for several reasons. First, they support
extraction and refining industries and businesses that are known to generate large volumes of
waste and consume large volumes of water and energy: actions that hold the greatest
potential to result in environmental degradation. By subsidizing these industries, the federal
government prevents the market from properly valuing the social and private costs of these
industries. Subsidies create a second inefficiency: they work against conservation goals by
reducing the relative competitiveness of secondary (recycled) materials vis-a-vis virgin
materials. Subsidies create other inefficiencies like excessive consumption of virgin materials
and excessive waste.
In general, federal subsidies like those described above were intended to spur
economic development. The impacts on the environment, on waste management and on
recycling markets and industries were an unintended adverse side effect. Removing or
reducing these subsidies could have dramatic positive and negative consequences. The range
of responses could span a fairly large continuum and include:
a. No change in recycling rates;
b. Substitution of foreign materials in place of domestic raw materials (and a
subsequent increase in the balance of trade deficit);
c. Substitution of recycled materials in place of domestic raw materials;
d. Substitution of other subsidized materials in place of domestic raw materials;
e. Reduced consumption.
Regardless of the response, the effect of a reduction or elimination of subsidies could
reverberate throughout the economy. Thus, it is important for the policy-maker to make
every effort to anticipate reactions hi all sectors. In certain instances, where responses can
not be anticipated, resolving the imbalance posed by preferential subsidies might be better
answered by extending similar subsidies to recycling industries. In other instances, the
existing subsidies could be phased out over a five or ten year period.
-------
166
8.2.2.5 Evaluation Criteria: Questions for the Policy-maker
Economic incentives are not a panacea for waste policy. Clearly, there are
circumstances where they hold the potential to be more effective and efficient than traditional
command and control mechanisms. Sometimes, however, the command and control
approach better protects human health and the environment. In order for the policy-maker to
better assess which paradigm is likely to be more effective, we suggest that a good point of
departure is presented by the answers to the questions below:
a. What is the problem that the policy is supposed to address?
b. Is the environmental problem the result of some externality?
c. How significant is the resulting environmental problem?
d. What jurisdiction can most effectively address the problem?
e. Is an incentive-based approach feasible?
f. Will an incentive-based approach help to maximize net social benefits?
g. Which particular incentive-based policy be effective?
h. What are the risk/benefit tradeoffs?
i. Will this encourage pollution prevention?
j. What distortions are likely to occur (e.g., fraud, illegal dumping)?
Clearly, this forces the policy-maker to look at the spectrum of regulatory and non-
regulatory alternatives on a case-by-case basis. This has, historically, been perhaps the
greatest challenge to waste policy in the United States: overcoming the minor differences in
industries, products and processes that yield dramatic distinctions in risk, economics and the
effectiveness of regulation.
8.2.2.6 Conclusion
There are philosophical barriers that must be overcome before economic incentives
become more widely accepted. Author Charles Davis suggests that there are four
philosophical barriers to the acceptance of economic incentives as a tool for regulating
hazardous waste: administrative resistance to change; existing gaps and/or deficiencies in
policy design; media attention focused on the perceived dangers of hazardous wastes and the
presence or absence of selected policy and institutional characteristics on the state level.184
In the four years since the printing of that article, the Agency has made progress in
overcoming these barriers. The new Administration is looking for new and better ways to
achieve environmental goals. EPA is now working more closely with industry,
environmentalists, state and local government. Today, economic incentives are playing a
greater part than ever before in the protection of human health and the environment. They
will continue to provide an effective alternative to command and control in the future.
-------
167
Chapter 9 Findings
Based on information collected and analyzed in completion of this report, EPA finds
the following with respect to metal recovery of hazardous waste and its relationship to RCRA
Subtitle C regulation:
1. RCRA Subtitle C regulation includes both incentives and disincentives to metal
recovery of hazardous waste. Overall, RCRA Subtitle C regulation has been a
substantial contributing factor to the increase in metal recovery of hazardous waste
over 1980 levels. Currently, EPA estimates that between 2.6 and 2.8 million tons of
hazardous waste are managed for metal recovery. In 1980, the GAO reported that
fewer than 15,000 tons of metal were being recovered from industrial sludges, by-
products and spent materials. Increases in world metal demand in the mid-1980 were
also a major contributing factor. Major RCRA Subtitle C incentives include Land
Disposal Restriction treatment standards and general requirements for Subtitle C
management. These requirements encourage metal recovery by raising treatment and
disposal costs thereby influencing generators to look for alternative forms of
management such as metal recovery.
2. RCRA Subtitle C regulation is also apparently constraming metal recovery from
reaching its potential in the United States. Compliance costs and liability concerns
with RCRA Subtitle C regulation may limit waste generators selection of metal
recovery as an option. These costs and concerns also limit the ability of metal
recovery operations to expand their capacity and invest hi new projects. Major
RCRA Subtitle C disincentives to metal recovery include the derived-from rule,
storage permit requirements, facility-wide corrective action and hazardous waste
shipping costs. These requirements are the most costly and cumbersome for metal
recovery operations to comply with.
3. RCRA Subtitle C regulation may inhibit innovative metal recovery technologies. The
Molten Metal Technology case study in this report indicates that several RCRA
Subtitle C provisions including research, demonstration and development permits and
mass limits on regulatory exemptions for treatability studies may not be adequate for
encouraging innovative metal recovery to develop at a faster rate. The case study
also shows that innovative technologies may face a more difficult burden than
established technologies in overcoming regulatory impediments to operation.
4. Notwithstanding the disincentives posed by RCRA Subtitle C regulation, damage
incidents (including Superfund sites) involving metal recovery operations indicate that
mismanagement of these materials can pose a significant risk to human health and the
environment. Therefore, proposals to modify RCRA Subtitle C statutory or
regulatory authority must assess the potential environmental/economic benefits against
the potential for increased risk to human health and the environment. EPA has
created the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force to assess these types of proposals.
-------
168
5. Recovery of metals from metal-bearing hazardous waste has the potential to
ameliorate the current U.S. balance of trade deficit. It may also become an important
source of supply of strategic metals, particularly chromium.
6. Available data shows that metal recovery of hazardous waste should continue to
increase in the 1990's as landfill capacity decreases and alternative forms of
management are increasingly need to support the U.S. hazardous waste management
system.
-------
169
NOTES
1. PPA §6603(5), 42 U.S.C. §13102(5).
2. Source Reduction Opportunities in the Plating Industry, Terry Foecke, Minnesota technical Assistance
Program (MnTAP), Presented at the 1989 Symposium on Metal Waste Management Alternatives: Minimizing,
Recycling, and Treating Hazardous Metal Wastes.
3. For a more detailed discussion of metal recovery technologies that are available for hazardous wastes,
please consult PEI Associates, Inc. Cincinnati, OH, "Overview of Metals Recovery Technologies for
Hazardous Wastes", Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, NTIS # PB91-176792,
December 1990. Also see James W. Patterson, "Metals Separation and Recovery" in Metal Speciation,
Separation and Recovery. (Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1987), pp.63-93 and ICF Inc., "Profiles of Metal
Recovery Technologies For Mineral Processing Wastes And Other Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes"
prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Waste Treatment Branch, Draft
August 31, 1992.
4. American Society of Metals, Metals Handbook, Desk Edition, (Metals Park, OH: American Society
of Metals, 1985), p. 1-30. Winning (a type of extractive metallurgy) refers to recovering metal from an ore
or chemical compound. In contrast, refining refers to the purification of crude or impure metals. Both
winning and refining are types of process metallurgy, the science of separating metals from their ores and
purifying metals.
5. ICF, p.i.
6. ASM, p. 21-8.
7. ASM, p. 1-21.
8. ICF, p.ii.
9. Recall from Chapter 1 that the term "related secondary materials" refers to metal-bearing secondary
materials such as sludges and by-products that exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste but are
nonetheless not within the definition of solid waste when reclaimed. These materials would be regulated as
hazardous wastes if discarded in manner other than reclamation.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, National
Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1989 data). February 1993.
11. Between January and April 1993, EPA received information from five trade associations representing
generators of metal-bearing hazardous wastes and metal reclaimers of these wastes. The trade associations
included the National Association of Metal Finishers, the Steel Manufacturers Association, the American Iron
and Steel Institute, the Metal Recovery Coalition, and the Association of Battery Recyclers.
12. Each source of data has limitations on its utility for this study. First, the BRS data are now over
three years old. A number of new metal recovery operations have become commercial or expanded capacity.
Second, certain metal-bearing secondary materials such as sludges or by-products of an industrial process
which exhibit a characteristic for toxicity, reactivity, corrosivity or ignitability are not solid wastes and
therefore hazardous wastes when reclaimed (40 CFR §261.2(c)(3)). Therefore, these materials would
ordinarily be exempt from BRS reporting requirements (40 CFR §262.41). These same materials would be
hazardous waste under the federal rules if land disposed or applied to the land. Based on the information
-------
170
reviewed in completion of this study, it is probable the BRS data underestimates the total quantity of metal-
bearing hazardous wastes being managed for metal recovery and the United States. Although more current
than the BRS data, the trade association information submitted to the EPA was completed in a limited time
frame and represents only a portion of the regulated community subject to RCRA regulation.
13. Note: EPA has proposed a rule, (Part 273, Special Collection System, for encouraging the efficient
collection and transport of nickel-cadmium batteries. 58 FR 8102, February 11, 1993. Although the proposed
rule does not specify management in metal recovery operation, land disposal restriction treatment standards
specify that these batteries must be managed for reclamation prior to land disposal 40 CFR §268.42. EPA
believes that the proposed Part 273 regulations would increase the recovery rate for nickel-cadmium batteries.
14. National Research Council, Environmental Epidemiology: Public Health and Hazardous Wastes.
(Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991).
15. NRC identified substances that were present at more than 100 Superfund sites and are either animal
or human carcinogens and also classified as group 1 substances of the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR)/EPA list of the 100 most hazardous substances, National Research Council, p 104.
16. Ibid., p.106.
17. Ibid., p. 105.
18. EPA, RCRA Implementation Study Update: The Definition of Solid Waste, July 1992. Appendices C
and D. (hereafter RIS update).
19. Robert A. Goyer, M.D., Chapter 19 "Toxic Effects of Metals" in Mary O. Amdur, Ph.D., John Doull,
Ph.D, M.D., Curtis D. Klaassen, Ph. D. eds, Casarett and DoulFs Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons.
4th ed,. (United States of America: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1993. Lars Friberg, Gunnar F. Nordberg, Velimir B.
Vouk, Handbook on The Toxicology of Metals, Vols. 1 & 2, (Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: Elsevier
Science Publishers, 1986); Pradyot Patnaik, A Comprehensive Guide to the Hazardous Properties of Chemical
Substances. (New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992); John Harte, Cheryl Holdren, Richard
Schneider, Christine Shirley, Toxics A to Z: A guide to everyday pollution hazards. (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1991).
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 1991
Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. EPA 745-R-93-003, May 1993.
21. Ibid.. p.I9.
22, Note that precious metals recovery is subject to a reduced set of requirements. Persons recovering
precious metals must comply with RCRA §3010 notification requirements and must maintain records to
document that they are not accumulating materials speculatively (as defined in 40 CFR §261.l(c)). In
addition, generators, transporters and TSDs must comply with manifest requirements. Precious metals include
economically significant amounts of gold, silver, platinum, palladium, iridium, osmium, rhodium, ruthenium,
or any combination of these.
23. The term "land disposal" means placement in or on the land except in a corrective action management unit,
and includes, but is not limited to, placement in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, land treatment-
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, or concrete vault or bunker
intended for disposal.
-------
171
24. Limited exceptions exist. See 40 CFR §268.1, §268.5, and §268.6.
25. Because the metal-bearing wastes are generally listed sludges that will be reclaimed, they are defined as
solid wastes under 40 CFR §261.2. Given that these solid wastes are listed hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
§261.31 and §261.32, they are subject'to all applicable RCRA regulations. Such hazardous wastes include
F006-F009 (electroplating), F010-F012 (metal heat treating), and F019 (sludges from aluminum coating). They
also include K-listed wastes from iron and steel plants, secondary lead smelters, and inorganic pigment
production.
26. 40 CFR §261.3(c).
27. 54 FR 41176; 8/19/91.
28. Rotary kilns, flame reactors, electric furnaces, plasma arc furnaces, slag reactors, rotary hearth
furnace/electric furnace combinations, or industrial furnaces. In addition, the rule imposes testing and
notification requirements.
29. 40 CFR §261.4(d)(l). Note that recent litigation may affect both the derived-from rule and the
applicability of the LDR requirements. See, Shell Oil Co. v. EPA. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, No. 80-1532 et al. (12/6/91); and Chemical Waste Management. Inc. v. EPA. U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 90-1230 et al., (9/25/92).
30. 40 CFR §261.1(c)(7).
31. Tank storage facilities and some piles and surface impoundments that intend to clean close are not required
to provide post-closure financial assurance. (See 40 CFR §264.140(b)). Also, State and Federal facilities are
not subject to closure and post-closure financial assurance requirements (40 CFR §264.140(c) and §265.140(c)).
32. 40 CFR §266, Subpart H.
33. On-site furnaces, exempt under small quantity generator provisions, burning their own hazardous waste are
exempt from regulation under Parts 264/265 and 270 with respect to the storage of mixtures of hazardous waste
and fuel in tanks that feed directly to the furnace.
34. Ore or mineral furnaces subject to §261.4(b)(7) must process at least 50 percent by weight normal, non-
hazardous raw materials.
35. EPA has exempted selected mining wastes from the definition of hazardous waste including slags
from primary copper and lead production, as well as from iron blast furnaces and open hearth/basic oxygen
furnace carbon steel production. 40 CFR §261.4(b)(7).
36. DPRA Inc., Comparative Analysis of RCRA Treatment and Disposal Costs and Recycling Costs With
and Without Regulatory Modifications, Final Report, ( St. Paul, MN: DPRA Incorporated, March 1991)
Prepared for Regulatory Analysis Branch, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
37. Spent-lead acid batteries are actually subject to reduced RCRA regulatory requirements for collection
and transport under 40 CFR §266.80. Person reclaiming these materials are subject to full Subtitle C
regulation including storage permit requirements prior to reclamation.
38. Personal communication between Paul Borst, U.S.E.P.A./Office of Solid Waste and Lyle Salsbury,
National Steel Corp./Great Lakes Division, May 26, 1993.
-------
172
39. Disposal costs for untreated K061 were approximately $200 per ton. Shipping the same material to
Palmerton, PA for metal recovery was estimated at approximately $400 per ton including both shipping cost
and user fees. Metal recovery was considered at least as cost effective as treatment and disposal costs at a
Subtitle C facility.
40. Spent lead-acid batteries are typically sawed or shredded prior to being smelted to remove lead plates
and groups. LDR requirements prohibits the storage of a restricted waste (e.g., the shredded battery material)
through placement on the land (40 CFR §268.50). In 1992, EPA promulgated a final rale which allows
owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities to place restricted wastes in
containment buildings without considering the placement of the restricted waste to constitute land disposal
as defined in §3004(k) of RCRA (57 FR 37211, August 18, 1992). Containment building standards are stated
in Subpart DD of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
41. Under RCRA, hazardous wastes being reclaimed remain hazardous wastes until the reclamation
process is complete. 50 FR 633,634,655, January 4, 1985. Because the Agency recognized that some
secondary materials that are partially-reclaimed are more commodity-like than waste-like, it has promulgated a
variance from the definition of solid waste for materials that are partially-reclaimed. 40 CFR §260.30(c). The
appropriate regulatory agency will grant or deny this variance based upon a series of criteria promulgated by
EPA. 40 CFR §260.3 l(c).
42. This exclusion exempt materials that are returned to the original process from which they are
generated without first being reclaimed. The material must substitute for raw material feedstock and the
process must use raw materials as the principal feedstocks.
43. The concern is that producers of waste-derived products may become potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) under Superfund remedial actions if metal recovery residuals used to produce their products remain
hazardous waste because of the derived-from rule. CERCLA §107 defines covered persons for purposes of
liability as any person who arranged for the treatment or disposal of a hazardous substance. Because the
CERCLA definition of hazardous substance includes RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wastes, some people believe
that the risk of PRP liability is greater if materials are designated as a hazardous waste.
44. DPRA Inc., Comparative Analysis of RCRA Treatment and Disposal Costs and Recycling Costs With
and Without Regulatory Modifications. Final Report. ( St. Paul, MN: DPRA Incorporated, March 1991)
Prepared for Regulatory Analysis Branch, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
45. The DPRA analysis also included other wastes such as K048-52 petroleum wastes, F003-5 solvents,
and K088 spent aluminum potliners. However, because these wastes do not involve metal recovery, the
DPRA results for these wastes have not been included in this report.
46. Ibid., p.6
47. For example, the study assumes that electroplating rinsewaters may be evaporated in smaller facilities
and have the metal concentrate reused in the plating bath. Based on the Agency's experience, electroplating
rinsewaters typically commingle several types of metals from several different plating baths. This being the
case, one could not reuse metal concentrates in a single plating bath without contaminating the plating bath
with other metals. Evaporation might be used successfully if either the plating shop used only one kind of
metal or if rinsewaters were kept segregated with only one type of metal.
48. For low zinc (5 percent) K061, electric arc furnace dust, treatment and disposal is less expensive than
metal recovery at a large commercial metal recovery facility. This is true for recycling under current
regulations or with regulatory modifications.
-------
173
49. DPRA, p. 40.
50. See Chapter 3, p.20
51. DPRA, p.42
52. EPA is not commenting in this report on the extent of Subtitle C regulatory disincentives identified
by the regulated community in this section since the Agency has not had the opportunity to verify the claims
of the regulated community on the significance of the disincentives. In theory, any type of RCRA Subtitle C
regulatory compliance cost for metal reclaimers is a disincentive to the extent that it displaces capital that
could otherwise be used for investment for additional metal recovery capacity. The more relevant question is
not whether RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements are disincentives, but rather what is the extent of the
disincentives relative to incentives provided by the regulation.
53. Roy O. Ball, Gregory P. Verret, Philip L. Buckingham, Stephen Mahfood, "Economic Feasibility of a
State-Wide Hydrometallurgical Recovery Facility", Metal Speeiation. Separation and Recovery. James W.
Patterson and Roberto Passino Eds., (Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1986), pp. 690-711.
54. Leading Edge Reports, A Competitive Analysis of Hazardous Waste Management. (Cleveland
Heights, OH: Leading Edge Reports, 1990), p. 140.
55. ICF Inc., 1990 Survey of Selected Firms In The Hazardous Waste Management Industry: Final
Report, Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, July 1992
(Fairfax, VA: ICF Inc, July 1992), p.2-6
56. Ibid.. 2-24, 3-1.
57. Ibid., pi 2-27.
58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, . Environmental Investments: The Cost Of
A Clean Environment: A Summary. EPA-230-12-90-084 , December 1990, p.3-4. According to the
executive summary of this report, historic data are based on surveys conducted by the Department of
Commerce. Projected costs are extrapolations of spending trends and EPA estimates of the costs of new
regulations.
59. ICF. Inc., 1990 Commercial Survey.... p.2-33.
60. Ibid., p. 3-2.
61. Ibid., p. 5-2.
62. Part of U.S. Filter Recovery Service's success is that the firm is able to keep rinsewaters from
electroplating operations segregated so mat cross-contamination of metals does not occur. "This produces a
purer product than would occur if the rinsewaters were commingled and the processed to separate the metal
using conventional leaching and precipitation techniques.
63. Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, The Impacts of Lead Industry Economics and Hazardous Waste
Regulations On Lead-Acid Battery Recycling: Revision and Update. Prepared for Office of Policy Analysis,
September 1987, pp. 22-30.
64. John E. Tilton (ed.)World Metal Demand: Trends and Prospects. (Washington D.C.: Resources For
The Future, 1990), pp.1-11.
-------
174
65. Tilton, p.7.
66. National Research Council, Competitiveness of The U.S. Minerals and Metal Industry, (Washington
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990), pp. 11-13.
67. National Research Council, p. 19.
68. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbooks 1984 to 1989.
69. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Metal Prices In The United States Through 1991. 1991.
70. Price information is adjusted for inflation using 1987 dollars.
71. Putnam, Hayes, & Bartlett, pp. 1, 27.
72. Data in Table 52, were taken from data submitted to EPA by Weinberg, Bergeson and Neuman on
behalf of Battery Council International, May 25, 1993.
73. 1993 Data From Battery Council International.
74. Ibid., p.46.
75. See Section 5.1.1.4. supra.
76. Letter from Robert N. Steinwurtzel, Counsel to the Association of Battery Recyclers, to William K.
Reilly, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, March 10, 1992., p.4.
77. Note: alternative treatments that can achieve the same degree of performance may be submitted via
an application to the EPA administrator who may at his or her discretion approve the use of the alternative
treatment standard. 40 CFR §268.42(b).
78. N.R.C., p.16.
79. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
80. General Accounting Office, Industrial Wastes: An Unexplored Source of Valuable Minerals,
(Washington D.C.: GAO, May 15, 1980), p.51.
81. MSL P- 51.
82. Refer to the Inmetco case study below in Chapter 6.
83. Ibid., p.13.
84. Please note that this estimate has been developed from data of metals recovered between 1989 and
1993.
85. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 1991 Toxics Release
Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA 745-R-93-003, May 1993, pp. 60-63. TRI data are estimates of the
manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20-39) on quantities of toxic and hazardous chemicals released to the
environment. The data estimates release of materials that would be hazardous constituents of hazardous
waste. Thus, for example, the data includes release of lead or cadmium as opposed to quantities of materials
-------
175
that contain lead or cadmium. In contrast, Biennial Reporting Systems data that EPA uses to evaluate
hazardous waste management reports quantities of materials (wastes) that contain hazardous constituents.
While TRI data does not allow direct comparison with BRS or other hazardous waste data, it is a useful
proxy especially for estimating metal totals being reclaimed that may originate form related secondary
materials such as characteristic sludges and by-products being reclaimed that are not normally estimated in
BRS data.
86. Ibid, p.63,
87. The reader should note however that large quantities of industrial D wastes such as mining wastes are
not included in the TRI data base since they do not fall within the 20-39 SIC code manufacturing sector
range.
88. These include P015, beryllium dust; P087, osmium trioxide; P092 phenyl mercury acetate, U151
mercury.
89. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbooks 1984 to 1989.
90. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Metal Prices In The United States Through 1991. 1991.
91. Research Triangle Institute, Center For Economics Research, Characterization of Recycled Wastes by
SIC Code. Waste Source Code, Waste Description Code and Metals Present Prepared for Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1991, Chart 1-Characterization of
Recycled Wastes: Summary Data.
92. Please note that this data was analyzed from National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
conducted in 1987 for calendar year 1986. Data limitations preclude using this data set to conduct trend
analysis with the other EPA estimates of metal recovery of hazardous waste cited in this report.
93. For example, the National Association of Metal Finishers estimates that 15 to 20 percent of F006 was
recovered in 1992. There are no reported quantities of F006 being managed for metal recovery in 1989 BRS
data (although EPA is aware that some F006 recovery did occur at operations exempt from BRS reporting
requirements such as Cyprus Mines hi Arizona). Also, K061 recovery remains high in 1992 with 90 percent
(500,000 tons) recovered. In addition, the K061 market appears to becoming increasingly competitive with a
number of new firms entering the market such as Metal Recovery Technologies, Zia Technologies of Texas,
Classification International Limited (vitrifies K061 for use in glass frit) at a time when the price of zinc has
declined over the last three years.
94. For purposes of this report, a central recovery facility can be considered to be an off site metal
recovery operation that reclaims metals from hazardous waste. As mentioned later in this case study, U.S.
Filter representatives believe that a central recovery facility can be distinguished from other off site recovery
facilities by the degree of involvement in customer operations and greater likelihood of generator compliance.
95. From 1980 to 1986, private parties in Cleveland and New York City tried unsuccessfully to initiate
central recovery facilities despite the fact that each operation was believed to be economically viable. The
Cleveland initiative failed when the federally mandated compliance date for categorical pretreatment standards
of April 27, 1984 for plating facilities forced several major platers to install on-site pretreatment systems to
achieve faster compliance. As a result the market for the proposed central recovery facility, collapsed.
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, ILENR/RE-WR-86/12, Feasibility of a Central
Recovery Facility For The Metal Finishing Industry In Cook County, November 19.86, p.47.
The New York initiative suffered a similar setback when 20 plating firms backed out to avoid civil
-------
176
penalties for noncorapliance with federal pretreatment regulations. Hie time required to obtain a RCRA Part
B permit for the proposed central recovery facility contributed to this result by extending the time of
noncompliance for the plating firms. Ibid. p.50. The New York initiative to cite a central recovery facility
ultimately felled when remaining platers backed out after paying civil penalties for noncompliance with
federal pretreatment regulations. Personal communication between Paul Borst, EPA/Office of Solid Waste
and representatives of U.S. Filter Recovery Services Inc., Roseville, MN, February 12, 1993.
Personal communication between Paul Borst, EPA and David Norwine, VP Haward Corp, May 17, 1993.
96. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Ibid.; Roy O. Ball, Gregory P. Verret, Philip L.
Buckingham, Stephen Mahfood, "Economic Feasibility of a State-Wide Hydrometallurgical Recovery
Facility", Metal Speciation. Separation and Recovery. James W. Patterson and Roberto Passino Eds.,
(Chelsea, M: Lewis Publishers, 1986), pp. 690-711. The Illinois study concludes that a CRF would
probably not be cost-effective in Cook Co. because civil penalties would drive metal finishers to install on-
site pretreatment units and eliminate the market for CRF services. In contrast, Ball, et, al conclude that a
CRF in Missouri would not be cost-effective because treatment and disposal cost of plating sludges in a
hazardous waste landfill would be considerably cheaper than recovery at a CRF.
97. Personal communication between Paul Borst, EPA Office of Solid Waste and representatives of U.S.
Filter Recovery Services Inc., Roseville, MN, February 12, 1993.
98. On the other hand, EPA regulations favor pyrometallurgical metal recovery operations in two ways.
First, Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards that specify a recovery technology (40 CFR
§268.42) only specify pyrometallurgical technologies. So, if a metal-bearing hazardous waste such as high
category mercury waste or nickel-cadmium batteries was amenable to recovery hydrometallurgically, it would
still need to be recovered from a high temperature (pyrometallurgical) process to meet LDR treatment
standards prior to land disposal. Second, generic exclusion levels for residues generated from high
temperature metal recovery operations (HTMR) disposed hi Subtitle D facilities (e.g., a nonhazardous landfill)
by definition do not apply to residues from hydrometallurgical operations. These RCRA Subtitle C provisions
may favor pyrometallurgical recovery by creating markets and reducing compliance costs for metal-bearing
hazardous wastes. BDF permit requirements cut the other way favoring hydrometallurgical operations.
99. Ibid, note 1.
100. Jim Bishop and Mary Melody, "Inorganics treatment and recovery", Hazmat World, February 1993,
p.24.
101. Inco Limited Annual Report, 1991, p.26.
102. Inmetco- Best Demonstrated Available Technology Project, Volumes 1 and 2 (October 18, 1991).
103. EPA representatives from the Office of Solid Waste visited Inmetco's Ellwood City facility on
December 18, 1993. The company provided a paper to EPA, dated December 17, 1993, entitled "Some
Observations on Regulatory Costs Associated with Operation of a Metals Reclamation Facility Under the
Provision of Subtitle C of RCRA".
The company also submitted a separate response to EPA's Metal Reclamation Study Survey which
the Agency had distributed in January 1993 to the Metal Recovery Coalition and the Association of Battery
Recyclers to solicit the input of these trade associations. Letter From Richard H. Hanewald, President of
Inmetco to Paul Borst, EPA Office of Solid Waste dated February 17, 1993. Inmetco is a member of the
Metal Recovery Coalition.
-------
177
104. Paper submitted by Inmetco to EPA entitled "Proposed Structure for Regulating the Recycling of
Hazardous Secondary Materials Through Metals Recovery", dated January 28, 1993 and attached with a letter
from Richard H. Hanewald, President of Inmetco to James R. Berlow, EPA, Office of Solid Waste, dated
January 28, 1993.
105. Paper submitted to EPA by Inmetco dated January 28, 1993 and entitled "The Risks and Benefits of
Recycling Compared to the Risks and Benefits of Primary Manufacturing and the Use of Virgin Materials"
and attached with a letter from Richard H. Hanewald, President of Inmetco to James R. Berlow, EPA, Office
of Solid Waste, dated January 28, 1993.
106. Inmetco, "Some Observations on Regulatory Costs Associated with Operation of a Metals
Reclamation Facility Under the Provisions of Subtitle C of RCRA". December 17, 1992, p.6. Although it is
possible that some of this cost could be passed on to Inmetco's customers, stainless steel producers could
choose to export their waste or manage it in an alternative manner.
107. Personal communication between Paul Borst, EPA/Office of Solid Waste and Sigma Toth, PADER,
Meadville Region, March 25, 1993,
108. Infra Note 4., January 28, 1993 letter from Richard H. Hanewald to Jim Berlow. Inmetco believes
based on their current customers or publicly available information that most of these materials are currently
being landfilled or exported for reclamation or disposal.
109. A strategic material is defined by OTA as:
"[a material] for which the quantity required for essential civilian and military uses exceeds
the reasonably secure domestic and foreign supplies, and for which acceptable substitutes are
not available within a reasonable period of time"
Therefore, a strategic material is defined by both the critical nature of its use and the vulnerability of
its supply. Office of Technology Assessment, Strategic Materials: Technologies to Reduce U.S. Import
Vulnerability, 1985, p. 11. Chromium is one of four first tier strategic materials identified by OTA along with
manganese, cobalt and platinum group metals.
110. Inmetco, "Proposed Structure for Regulating the Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials
Through Metal Recovery", January 28, 1993.
111. Jeffrey D. Smith, "Molten Metal Technology, Technology Destroys Waste and Recovers Salable
Products", El Digest July 1991, p.8.
112. Molten Metal Technology, Prospectus, 1993, p. F-7.
113. Jim Bishop and Mary Melody, "Inorganics treatment and recovery", Hazrnat World, February 1993,
p.28.
114. David Stamps, "Molten Metal Technology, Soon-to-Open R&D Center Will Test Company's Claims
of Turning Hazardous Waste into Useful Materials", El Digest. November 1992, p. 13.
115. Smith, p.ll.
116. Stamps, p. 13.
117. Stamps, p.13.
-------
178
118. Stamps, p.13.
119. Letter from Eugene Berman, Vice-President For Regulatory Affairs, MMT to Paul A. Borst, EPA
Office of Solid Waste, February 17, 1993.
120. Personal communication between Paul Borst, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Eugene Berman, MMT,
Vice-President for Regulatory Affairs, January 26, 1993. See also, Stamps, p. 14.
121. This assumes that the CEP unit either is not subject to the Boiler and Industrial Furnace requirements
at 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart or that the unit is subject to Subpart H requirements and is conditionally exempt
as metal recovery operation burning solely for metal recovery.
122. September 23, 1992 letter from Ed Kunce, Deputy Commissioner, MADEP to Merrill S. Homan,
Director, Office of Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 on MMT. Personal
communication between Paul Borst, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Eugene Berman, Vice-President For
Regulatory Affairs, MMT, January 26, 1993.
123. Stamps, p. 14.
124. April 26, 1989 Memorandum from Sylvia K. Lowrance to Hazardous Waste Management Division
Directors on F006 Recycling. The attachment of this memorandum recognizes the economics of the recycling
process as a relevant factor although it looks more at the disparity of revenue derived from recovered
materials versus user fees rather than the value of recovered materials versus their cost of processing. EPA
does not consider this to be a test or requirement
125. April 26, 1989 Lowrance Memorandum, p.l.
126. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "The Nation's Hazardous Waste Management
Program at a Crossroads, The RCRA Implementation Study", EPA/530-SW-90-069, July 1990, p.l 11.
127. Final Rule on Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric Arc Furnace Dust, 56 FR 41164 (August 19,
1991).
128. The information presented in the Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. case study not
otherwise noted was obtained from personal conversations between Charlotte Mooney, EPA Office of Solid
Waste, and Bruce Conrad, Director of External Relations, Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc.
and from company personnel during a site visit at the Palmerton, Pennsylvania facility conducted by EPA
staff on May 7, 1993.
129. In comments on this case study and in the context of enforcement proceedings, HRD has argued that
their operations are not reclamation of hazardous waste and that the term reclamation should not be used to
describe the operations. HRD thus argues that they are not actually subject to RCRA at all. In this case
study the Agency uses the word recovery to describe HRD's operations, because recovery is a specific form
of reclamation and HRD's operations constitute recovery of metal from hazardous waste. See section 1.3 of
this study for a general discussion of these terms.
130. October 14, 1993 letter from William L Miller, Chief, Division of Policy Analysis, Bureau of Mines,
U.S. Department of the Interior to Paul Borst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
and personal communication between Paul Borst, U.S. EPA, and James F. Collins, Steel Manufacturers
Association, October 21, 1993.
131. Derby, James V., Recycling of Zinc-Bearing Materials, Zinc Corporation of America, undated, p. 5.
-------
179
132. Under the federal hazardous waste regulations, recycling units are exempt from RCRA permitting
unless they are boilers or industrial furnaces (40 CFR 261.6(c)(2)). Industrial furnaces conducting metal
recovery are also exempt from permitting (40 CFR 266.100(c)). However, units that store hazardous wastes
prior to recycling generally do require permits (40 CFR 261.6(c)(l)).
133. The information presented in this section was obtained from the following sources:
Derby, James V., Recycling of Zinc-Bearing Materials. Zinc Corporation of America, undated.
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., HRD Flame Reactor Flash Smelter. Eliminating
Waste and Landfill Liability Through High-Temperature Processing, marketing materials, undated.
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., HRD Metals Recovery Services. Eliminating
Wastes and Liability Through Recycling Technology, marketing materials, undated.
ICF Inc., Profiles of Metal Recovery Technologies for Mineral Processing Wastes and Other Metal-
Bearing Hazardous Wastes, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Draft,
August 31, 1992.
James, S.E. and Bounds, C.O., Recycling Lead and Cadmium. As Well As Zinc. From EAF Dust
Proceedings of Lead-Zinc '90, The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, 1990.
Smith, Jeffrey D., Horsehead Resources Development, EAF Recycling Stalwart Expands Within and
Beyond its Core Business. El Digest, Environmental Information Ltd., May 1991.
134. Letter from Metals Recovery Coalition to EPA, Office of Solid Waste., March 1, 1993.
135. Under 40 CFR 266.20(b), zinc-containing fertilizers using EAF dust that are produced for the general
public's use are not presently subject to RCRA regulation.
136. EPA has determined that use of EAF dust to produce "glass frit" that is used in roofing shingles,
abrasive blast, glass ceramic, and ceramic glazes is direct reuse of EAF dust as a product rather than
reclamation of a waste and thus is not subject to RCRA regulation.
137. EPA has promulgated "generic delisting" concentrations for slag from high temperature metal
recovery (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)). To meet the generic delisting criteria the slag must not exceed
concentrations specified for 13 constituents. Once these criteria are met, the slag may be managed in a
Subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) unit.
138. In addition, some wastes from primary metal production are excluded from hazardous waste
regulations based on the statutory "Bevill" exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)). The excluded wastes are
generated in high volumes and are of relatively low toxicity, and include, for example, slag from primary zinc
processing (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(xx)).
139. There is a case-by-case variance available by petitioning the EPA and demonstrating that a partially-
reclaimed material is more commodity-like than waste-like (40 CFR 260.30(c)). This variance has been used
infrequently.
140. The majority of the information in the East Perm Manufacturing Company, Inc. case study was
obtained from company marketing materials and from personal conversations between Charlotte Mooney,
EPA Office of Solid Waste, and Richard Leiby, Vice President of Metals Operations, East Perm
-------
180
Manufacturing Company, Inc.
141. Smith, Bucklin & Associates, Inc., 1990 National Recycling Rate Study, prepared for Battery Council
International, May 1992, p. 1.
142. Personal communication between Charlotte Mooney, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Ann Noll of the
Battery Council International.
143. Smith, Bucklin & Associates, Inc., 1991 National Recycling Rate Study, prepared for Battery Council
International, April 1993, p. 7.
144. 50 FR 6649, January 4, 1985, and 48 FR 14498 - 499.
145. It is difficult to tell, however, how much other variables may also be affecting the recycling rate of
do-it-yourselfers and conditionally exempt small quantity generators. These variables might include state laws
mandating recycling and banning landfilling, landfills' unwillingness to accept batteries (which are relatively
large and thus easy to identify), and people's natural disinclination to store batteries or manage them
improperly because the acid electrolyte makes the hazards posed by batteries relatively obvious.
146. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries, hi 1992, total U.S.
chromium usage was estimated at 288 thousand metric tons. Although it is not possible with current data
limitations to directly estimate the amount of chromium discarded in hazardous waste, 1991 Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) data indicates that the manufacturing sector discarded 21,000 tons of chromium through
releases to the land or transfers for disposal. This represents 7.3 percent of total chromium use in the United
States. Most of this discarded material included industrial wastewaters (chromium used as a corrosion
inhibitor) and chromium-bearing sludges and by-products of manufacturing. Many of these materials are
likely to be hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C.
147. Based on the difference between imports and exports of each commodity as reported in McClaskey,
Jacqueline A. and Smith, Stephen D., "Survey Methods and Statistical Summary of Nonfuel Minerals," U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1991.
148. GAO, Industrial Wastes: An Unexplored Source of Valuable Minerals, Washington D.C.: GAO,
1980), pp. 10-13.
149. See Shamsuddin, M. "Metal Recovery from Scrap and Waste," Journal of Metals, February, 1986;
and Brooks, Clyde S., "Metal Recovery from Industrial Wastes," Journal of Metals, July, 1986.
150. OTA, p.ll.
151. (1978-1982) U.S. Bureau of Mines, "Mineral Commodity Summaries", 1983 and 1984 (as reported in
OTA...1985), (1988-1992) U.S. Bureau of Mines, "Mineral Commodity Summaries", 1993.
152. Rutile, a mineral precursor to the production of Titanium, has been excluded because of insufficient
data.
153. Purchasing Vol: 107 Iss: 2 Date: Jul 20, 1989
154. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries. 1993.
-------
181
155. Gabler, R.C., Jr., "A Platinum-Group Metals Consumption and Recycling Flow Model," U.S. Bureau
of Mines, 1C 9303, 1991.
156. Comprehensive data are only available for the first tier metals and a few others, so this table is
limited to the first tier metals,
157. General Accounting Office, Industrial Wastes: An Unexplored Source of Valuable Minerals.
(Washington D.C.: GAO, May 15, 1980), pp. 33-34. The GAO mentioned three Japanese government
agencies providing such assistance: the Environmental Pollution Control Service Corporation (EPCSC), the
Japan Development Bank (JDB) and the Small Business Finance Corporation (SBFC). The EPCSC financed
pollution prevention and metal recovery projects and sells them on a long term, low interest basis. It also
extended loans to finance the installation of pollution prevention projects at various facilities. The JDB and
SBFC provided loans for pollution prevention and metal recovery projects for large and small businesses.
158. Support for this section was developed from the following sources. Bill Quan, "Waste Exchanges" in
Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal. Harry M. Freeman ed., (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1989), pp. 5-29 to 5-37.; Kenneth E. Noll, Charles N. Haas, Carol Schmidt,
Prasad Kodukula, Industrial Waste Management James Patterson ed., Chelsea MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc,
1985), pp. 61-63., GAO, supra, pp. 35-36.
159. See Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection, OECD, Paris, 1989.
160. Note that the discussions that follow and each of the economic hypotheses assume a profit
maximizing motive on the part of regulated entities.
161. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Incentives: Options for Environmental
Protection, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, March 1991, 2IP-2001; and, Tietenberg, Tom,
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Scott Foresman and Company, 1984 for a further discussion
of pollution charges.
162. Marshall, Will and Schram, Martin, Mandate for Change. The Progressive Policy Institute, Berkley
Books, January, 1993.
163. Such an approach would involve first setting the pollution charge below the incremental cost of
controlling pollution in order to encourage firms with relatively low control costs to reduce their generation of
waste.
164. Noll, et. al., supra. Note 138., p.56-60.
165. This assumes that those entities which generate the greatest amount of waste also generate the
greatest amount of taxable income.
166. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Incentives: Options for Environmental
Protection. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, March 1991, 2IP-2001; and, Tietenberg, Tom,
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Scott Foresman and Company, 1984 for a further discussion
of marketable permit systems.
167. There have been numerous interpretations of "bubble" by the courts and by EPA. In general, the
term is used when describing some unit of area which may encompass contiguous or non-contiguous stacks,
pipes or other outlets for the disposition of waste. The limits of a "bubble" may span all or part of a facility
or region.
-------
182
168, Regional efforts include, for example the Great Lakes Initiative.
169. See Anderson, Terry L. and Leal, Donald R. Free Market Environmentalism Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy, Westview Press, Inc., 1991, Chapter 10.
170. See Macauley, Molly K., Bowes, Michael D and Palmer, Karen L.s Using Economic Incentives to
Regulate Toxic Substances, Resources for the Future, 1992. Chapter 4.
171. Marshall and Schram. In order to develop a tradeable permit for recycling, the federal government
would set a minimum recycled content standard which entities would satisfy in one of two ways: either they
would meet the standard or they would, like other programs, acquire permits to satisfy the difference.
172. See Tietenberg, Thomas H. "Transferable Discharge Permits and the Control of Stationary Source Air
Pollution, from Land Economics, v.5 (1980) pp 391-416.
173. Tom Tietenberg, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. (U.S.A.: Harper Collins
Publishers, 1988).
174. Note that the ultimate allocation of permits will be driven by the market.
175. See Tietenberg (1980).
176. See Project 88 -Round II Incentives for Action: Designing Market-Based Environmental Strategies.
A public policy study sponsored by Senator Tim Wirth and Senator John Heinz, Washington D.C. May 1991,
Chapter 3.
177. Public costs are likely to approximate the costs of conventional command and control regulations.
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Incentives: Options for Environmental Protection,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, March 1991, 2IP-2001.
178. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Incentives: Options for Environmental
Protection. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, March 1991, 2IP-2G01; and, Project 88 - Round II
Incentives for Action: Designing Market-Based Environmental Strategies. A public policy study sponsored by
Senator Tim Worth and Senator John Heinz, Washington D.C. May 1991, Chapter 3. for a further discussion
of Deposit/Refund Systems.
179. See Tietenberg (1984) pages 164 and 174. Composition of demand is an incentive whereby
consumers have a tendency to switch to products made with cheaper, recycled raw materials. Deposit/refund
systems lower the costs of collection to recyclers thereby lowering the cost of processing. Theoretically, via a
deposit/refund system, recycled materials may present industry with a more efficient alternative than virgin
materials.
180. Also see Bohm, Peter. Deposit-Refund Systems: Theory and Application to Environmental.
Conservation and Consumer Policy (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for
the Future), 1981.
181. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Incentives: Options for Environmental
Protection, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, March 1991, 2IP-2001; and, Federal Disincentives to
Recycling, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Draft Report: November,
1991.
-------
183
182. As cited in the Federal Disincentives Report, U.S. EPA, and the Center for Economic Policy
Analysis, Economic Incentives and Disincentives for Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste, Draft, December,
1988. Prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment.
183. As cited in the Federal Disincentives Report: Alice Rivlin, Chair of the Governing Council of the
Wilderness Society and Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies Program of the Brookings Institute, Statement
before the Senate Budget Committee, March 15, 1989, p.9.
184. Davis, Charles, Approaches to the Regulation of Hazardous Wastes Environmental Law, Volume 18,
pp. 505-535.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
The following examples illustrate opportunities for source reduction in industries that generate metal-
bearing hazardous waste.
1. Change from Chromic Acid to Sulfuric Acid in an Aluminum Anodizing Operation (Material
Substitution, Process Modification)1
An armament manufacturer (General Dynamics) in Pomona, CA reduced the volume and metal
(chromium) content of an acid wastestream that presumably was classified as a hazardous waste.2 The plant
used chromic acid in the original aluminum anodizing process due to military contract
specifications....This process, in spite of its higher operating costs, is used by the aerospace industry,
the military, and military contractors.
General Dynamic's motivation for converting to a sulfuric acid anodizing system was that its original
chromic acid system could not be modified cost-effectively to meet production requirements and
maintain compliance with current and anticipated air and water regulatory requirements. Besides the
chemical substitution to eliminate chromium releases, the addition of automated hoists and the on-
demand water bath rinse system helped to reduce wastewater treatment requirements....from
approximately 15-20 gallons per minute...to approximately 6-8 gallons per minute.3
Assuming that during the substitution, the metals present in the wastestream as a result of the anodizing
operation [if any] remained constant during the switch to sulfuric acid, then the company would have
achieved a reduction in chromium present in the wastestream through the technique of materials substitution.
2, Removal of Cyanide from Plating Operations (Material Substitution)
Prior to 1986, a California electronic instrument manufacturer (Hewlett Packard, or HP) used zinc
cyanide in its precision plating operations, and generated waste zinc cyanide when replacing the plating
baths.4 The company
"attempted to treat this waste in the wastewater treatment plant. However, this wastestream caused
significant operational difficulties for HP's treatment plant and the environmental manager chose to
send the waste off-site for treatment and disposal. Because the zinc cyanide caused similar problems
for the commercial treatment facility, this alternative was very expensive.
For these reasons, HP staff committed themselves to developing a plating process that did not use
cyanide. Since processing protocols require complex engineering to develop, HP had to overcome
the inertia of established protocols and dedicate staff resources to find an appropriate alternative zinc
compound that excluded cyanide.
The HP process engineers were successful in then- efforts. The new zinc compound is an effective
plating medium with a much longer lifespan. Although the plating bath is periodically replenished,
HP has not had to replace it since it implemented the process over a year ago. Moreover, HP
believes that waste from this plating solution could easily be treated in its wastewater treatment plant.
Therefore, the cost of off-site treatment/disposal has been eliminated. A total of 16,650 pounds of
waste were disposed in 1986 at a total cost of $6,862. The cost of off-site treatment/disposal has
increased to $0.82 per pound in 1987, creating an effective savings of $13,653..."5
A-l
-------
3. Process Modifications at a Circuit Board Manufacturing Plant6
Also documented at the General Dynamics Pomona Division printed circuit board manufacturing
plant are two process changes: eliminating process rinse tanks reduced rinsewaters from 60 gallons per minute
to 10 gallons per minute, and initiating a copper-recovery technique for the process waste streams which
consisted of ion exchange columns and "electrowinning" (generally, running electric current through a metal-
bearing solution to capture the metal ions in a usable form); these changes resulted in cost savings with a
payback period of 8.3 years.7 For the purposes of this study, EPA is assuming that the wastewater treatment
sludge that would have resulted from the higher rinsewater volume and from the copper that was recovered
was classified as a hazardous waste.
4. Product Reformulation of Sealers in Automotive Body Repair Firm
KD Auto Body in Washington State won the Governor's Award for Outstanding Achievement in
Pollution Prevention. One of the wastestreams that KD Auto Body reduced at the source was their sealers -
their "yellow-based sealers" contained high levels of lead and chromium; they instead began using "gray-
based sealers" which had lower lead and chromium concentrations, thus reducing their disposal costs.8
NOTES
1. Kathryn Barwick, et al. Economic Implications of Waste Reduction. Recycling. Treatment and
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: the Fourth Biennial Report, p. 24. California Department of Health Services,
Toxic Substances Control Division, Alternative Technology Section, 1988; Johnny Springer, Pollution
Prevention Case Studies Compendium, pp. 8 & 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-92/046, 1992.
2. Either the waste met a listing in 40 CFR 261.31, or the waste was hazardous because of corrosivity
(40 CFR 26152) and/or toxicity (40 CFR 261.24).
3. Springer, Johnny. Pollution Prevention Case Studies Compendium, p. 8. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH, EPA/60Q/R-92/046, 1992.
4. Which possibly would be classified as F007 under the federal hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR
261.31.
5, Barwick, pp. 17-18.
6. Springer, p.S.
7. It is unclear whether the process change described in this paragraph is the same process change
documented in the California Department of Health Services Economic Implications... report.
8. Turning Point Newsletter (Volume 3, No. 1, p.2), published by EPA Region 10 in Seattle, WA.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
-------
This Appendix provides more specific information regarding the hazards associated with selected
metals found in metal-bearing hazardous waste. These summaries were developed from sources cited in
Section 3.3.2.
Lead
Lead is a silver-gray metal that is used in the production of storage batteries, solder, ammunition,
ceramics and crystal glass, radiation shielding and other uses. Lead is an acute and chronic toxin. Acute
toxic symptoms include headaches, convulsion, tremors and coma. Chronic exposure symptoms include
affects to the central nervous system (restlessness, irritability, memory loss), kidney dysfunction, and changes
to the liver (resulting from inhalation of lead dusts). Permanent brain damage in children has been observed
from lead poisoning. Carcinogenicity in humans resulting from lead exposure has not been established.
Exposure routes for lead include food, air and water. These routes are believed to account for 60 percent, 30
percent and 10 percent of blood lead levels in humans respectively. Lead behaves like calcium in the human
body and bioaccumulates in the bones and teeth.
Blood lead levels (ug per 100 Ml) in people are reported in the following ranges: rural children, 7-
11; urban children, 9-33; adults, 15-22; children living near a smelter 35-68. The following health effects
have been observed at varying blood lead levels (ug per 100 mL) in humans: level of concern for fetal
effects, 10-15; blood enzyme changes, 15-20; IQ deficiencies in children, <25; clinical anemia, children, 40;
clinical anemia, adults, 80; reproductive effects in adults, 60; mental losses (writing and speech problems,
mental retardation), 50-60; irreversible brain damage, 100.
Cadmium
Cadmium is a silver or bluish-white metal that is malleable and resistant to corrosion. It is used for
the production of nickel-cadmium batteries, pigments, coating and painting, plastics and synthetic products,
and alloys. It is both an acute and chronic toxin. Acute cadmium toxicity has been linked with chemical
pneumonitis causing fatality. Additional symptoms of acute cadmium poisoning include nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. The oral LD50 (lethal dose required to kill 50 percent of the mass of specimens) of cadmium
for rats is 250 mg/kg.
Chronic exposures of cadmium are linked in humans to emphysema, chronic bronchitis, heart disease,
anemia, kidney and liver disease. Cadmium caused kidney disease is the most well studied of these effects
and is irreversible. Cadmium is classified as a probable human carcinogen and is linked with lung cancer in
occupational studies. Evidence linking cadmium exposure to prostate cancer is less certain. Airborne
cadmium may be attach to fly ash, dust, soil particles or sediments and stay in the atmosphere for a week or
more. Cadmium deposition becomes absorbed in soils and water bodies where it enters the food chain. Food
accounts for about 80 to 90 percent of the dose received by most people. Smoking is an additional source of
exposure.
Cadmium is a trace contaminant in fertilizers that is slowly building up in agricultural soils.
Literature reviewed in completion of this report states that might be one of the most important sources of
cadmium exposure in the future. One of the main end uses proposed for cadmium-bearing hazardous wastes
is either direct use as a fertilizer or reclamation for zinc to be used in a micronutrient in fertilizer.
Arsenic
Arsenic varies in form from a shiny gray metal to a white powder. It main uses are wood
preservatives, hardening metals such as copper and lead, a doping agent in solid-state products of silicon and
germanium. Arsenic salts are used in making herbicides, rodenticides, semiconductors and pyrotechnics.
-------
Arsenic is both a acute and chronic toxic as well as a carcinogen. Arsenic is much more toxic in the
inorganic form than the organic form. Ingestion of doses between 70 to 180 mg of arsenic may be fatal.
Acute arsenic toxicity causes severe gastrointestinal damage causing shock, coma and death. Several hundred
deaths from arsenic poisoning in food have been reported, but none in the United States. Chronic exposure to
arsenic may lead to noncancerous lesions, peripheral nerve effects.
Arsenic is classified by both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Cancer
Assessment Group of EPA in the highest category of carcinogens. Arsenic is associated with a higher
incidence of lung cancer through inhalation and liver, blood, skin and lung cancer through ingestion.
Confirming the carcinogenicity of arsenic in animal experiments has been difficult.
Exposure to arsenic is occurs mainly through food (70 percent), however most of this is in the
organic, inert form of the metal. Drinking water and air contribute smaller total amounts but a much higher
proportion of the toxic inorganic form. High risk groups for arsenic exposure include children, smelter
workers, farm workers and carpenters who work with wood preservatives.
Chromium
Chromium is a grayish, hard, lustrous metal. It is used in the production of steel alloys, metal
plating, wood preservatives.
Chromium occurs in three forms in three forms: metal, trivalent (chromium III) and hexavalent
(chromium VI). Hazards caused by chromium to human health and the environment come primarily from the
hexavalent form. Hexavalent chromium is rapidly transformed in nature by organic matter to the trivalent
form. Some of the literature reviewed reports that significant quantities of hexavalent chromium in nature are
most likely to be the result from human sources. In addition to being the most toxic, hexavalent chromium is
much more mobile in groundwater than trivalent chromium.
Acute chromium toxicity is rare. Only six cases have been reported since 1935, but most were fatal.
Chronic chromium toxicity results in perforated and ulcerated nasal septa, inflammation of the nasal passages,
nose bleeds, and skin ulcers and dermatitis. Chromium VI is believe to cause lung cancer. EPA classifies
hexavalent chromium as Class A carcinogen indicating there is sufficient evidence to show it causes cancer- in
humans. Hexavalent chromium is also very toxic to plants and aquatic life. Water quality standards to
protect aquatic life have been promulgated by EPA.
Steel production, fossil fuel combustion and chemical production account for most of chromium
released to the air. Electroplating operations, textile manufacturing and leather tanneries are the main source
of water release. Chromium chemical plants and chromite ore refineries are the largest source of chromium-
bearing solid wastes (not necessarily subject to Subtitle C regulation).
Mercury
Mercury is a silvery-white metal that is liquid at room temperature. Mercury is used for electrical
uses (thermostats, mercury switches), the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda, dental amalgam,
thermometers, batteries and light bulbs.
Mercury is a neurotoxin. Inorganic mercury such as metal mercury is less toxic than methylmercury.
Symptoms of mild mercury exposure include memory loss, tremors, insomnia and a loss of appetite. At
higher levels, mental disorders and motor disturbances and kidney damage result. High short term exposure
leads to lung damage and death. High risk populations include workers exposed to mercury vapors
(especially women), pregnant women, young children and people who consume large quantities of seafood
products. Risk of cancer in humans from mercury has not been established.
B-2
-------
Mercury evaporates readily once it is exposed to air. This problematic because of the risk of
inhalation of mercury vapors and absorbed into the bloodstream. Mercury is also an ecotoxin to aquatic
species including, fish, invertebrates and algae.
Nickel
Nickel is a white-silver lustrous hard metal used in the production of steel alloys, nickel-cadmium
battery production, electroplating, petroleum catalysts, and household products. Inhalation of nickel dust may
cause cancer of the lung, nasal passages and possibly the larynx, primarily through occupational exposure.
Acute nickel toxicity is limited to exposure that is several thousand times the average daily does or linked
with nickel carbonyl (a highly toxic nickel compound limited mainly to nickel refineries since it easily
degrades to less toxic forms in the environment).
High risk groups for nickel include workers in nickel refining, stainless steel makers, welders,
electroplaters, battery makers, jewelers, spray painters, paintmakers and varnish makers. It has been reported
that 250,000 worked are exposed to nickel on the job. Although generally nickel has not been identified as
causing a problem in the environment, it has been reported to biomagnify in aquatic flora and fauna.
Selenium
Selenium varies hi physical form from a dark red to bluish-black amorphous solid to a dark red or
grey crystal Selenium is used in the manufacture of colored glass, photocells, semiconductors and rubber
manufacture.
Although selenium is both an acute and chronic toxin, recorded cases of selenium poisoning in
humans are rare. Acute selenium poisoning in Venezuela caused illness in natives ingesting selenium-rich
nuts. Symptoms included vomiting, nausea and diarrhea. All patients recovered. Chronic selenium
poisoning in China reports villagers had loss of hair and fingernails, disorders of the skin, nervous system and
teeth. There are no recorded cases of selenium poisoning in the United States.
Selenium is an ecotoxin. There are reports of selenium rich irrigation water hi California killing and
causing birth defects in ducks and other waterfowl in the Kesterson Wildlife Preserve. Selenium intoxication
of farm animals from grazing on plants grown in selenium rich soils has been recorded.
Zinc
Zinc metal is a bluish-white with a luster. It is mainly used as an alloy with copper and tin to make
brass and bronze and as a galvanizing agent in metal plating. Although acute exposure through ingestion to
zinc can cause nausea in humans, there is little risk of buildup over chronic exposures because the body
efficiently excretes the metal. In contrast to ingestion, workers who inhale zinc oxide fumes may develop
symptoms known as "metal fume fever". Short term effects include rapid breathing and chest pain usually
lasting 2 to 3 days. Long term effects from such exposure are not known. Zinc is not associated with cancer
in humans.
Zinc is an ecotoxin. Depressed plant growth, impaired aquatic life and waterfowl, and fish kills are
associated with zinc releases from smelters and mine runoff. Zinc is also an essential mineral for human
health and a micronutrient for plant and animal life. Zinc is used in micronutrient fertilizer formulations for
agricultural commodities.
B-3
-------
Barium
Barium is a silvery-white to a yellowish-white shiny, malleable metal. It is used in electric tubes and
as a carrier for radium. Barium salts are used in paints, ceramics, lubricating oils, analytical work. Barium
sulfate is the most common form of the metal in nature. Barium chloride is the most toxic form of the metal.
Barium is an acute toxin. Fatal doses in human are about 1 to 15 grams depending upon the
compound. Barium ion is toxic to muscle. Absorption of barium causes sustained and prolonged contractions
of muscles including the heart. Muscular weakness and paralysis of the limbs follow. No relationship
between barium and cancer in humans has been established.
Beryllium
Beryllium is a gray metal. It is used for developing a copper alloy which goes into instruments,
aircraft parts, and other components. Some beryllium is used in ceramics for high heat conductivity. Small
quantities of pure beryllium metal are used in missile and rocket parts, aircraft, heat shields and nuclear
weapons.
Beryllium is both an acute and chronic toxin; it mainly affects the lungs. Acute beryllium poisoning
in humans causes pneumonitis, a chemically induced inflammation of the respiratory tract. Chronic beryllium
exposure in humans cause berylliosis, an inflammatory lesion of the lungs. After a 25 year latency period,
victims can develop fibrosis of the lungs, emphysema and death. Beryllium is known to cause cancer in
animals. Although evidence is insufficient to establish the beryllium causes cancer in humans, it is suspected
of causing lung cancer in humans. EPA classifies beryllium as a probable human carcinogen. Exposure
routes of beryllium in humans are estimated at 70 percent drinking water, 30 percent from food with very
little from air or dust.
Thallium
Thallium is a bluish-white, soft, fusible metal. Thallium is used in superconductor formulations,
Pharmaceuticals, photoelectric cells and low grade thermometers. Thallium salts are used as rodent poisons.
Thallium is a by-product of sane, copper and lead smelting. Thallium is highly toxic. Fatal doses of thallium
in humans is about 500 mg. Chronic toxicity can cause liver and kidney damage. Patnaik reports that
ingestion of thallium salts in children has caused neurological abnormalities, mental retardation and
psychoses.
NOTES
B-4
------- |