Un ited States Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection and Emergency Response EPA/530-SW-89-062
A9encV Washington, DC 20460 August 1989
Off ice of Solid Waste " ~~
v°/EPA Environmental
Fact Sheet
FINAL RULE TO ELIMINATE MOST
MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES
FROM THE BEVILL AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND
In 1980, Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to temporarily exclude wastes from the extraction,
beneflciation (e.g., crushing and sizing), and processing of ores and
minerals from hazardous waste regulation. Known as the Bevill
Amendment, this exclusion was temporary until EPA completed a
Report to Congress and made a regulatory determination on these
wastes.
In 1985. EPA proposed to narrow its 1980 interpretation of the Bevill
Amendment for mineral processing wastes. However, EPA later
withdrew this proposal because it believed the proposal was technically
inadequate. This withdrawal led to a lawsuit by the Environmental
Defense Fund and the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, who
claimed that the Bevill exclusion should include only so-called "special
wastes" (i.e., only mineral processing wastes that are both "high-
volume" and "low-hazard" wastes). In July 1988, the court determined
that six smelting wastes were clearly hazardous and ordered EPA to list
them as hazardous. EPA did so on August 31, 1988.
-------
-2-
On October 20. 1988, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) to narrow the scope of the Bevill Amendment for mineral proc-
essing wastes. Although the proposal included specific criteria for defin-
ing "high-volume" special wastes, EPA believed at that time that inade-
quate testing criteria and data were available to propose specific criteria
for defining "low-hazard." Therefore, a low-hazard criterion was not in-
cluded in the proposal.
As a result of a further court decision, EPA substantially revised the
October 20, 1988, NPRM in an April 17, 1989, proposal. The major
change involved the addition of a low-hazard criterion in response to
public comments. The low-hazard criterion was based on a pH test and
a mobility and toxicity test to determine the concentration of certain haz-
ardous metals leaching out of the waste. The high-volume criterion was
also amended to remove the reference to total industry-wide waste gen-
eration rates. Based on these criteria, EPA proposed to retain six wastes
within the Bevill exclusion, permanently remove three wastes, and condi-
tionally retain 33 wastes pending the submission and evaluation of "haz-
ard" data.
ACTION
This final rule promulgates "high-volume" and "low-hazard" criteria for
determining which mineral processing wastes will keep their exempt
status under the Bevill exclusion. Wastes must meet both "high-volume
and "low-hazard" criteria to remain special wastes. Any waste that loses
the exemption must be managed as a Subtitle C hazardous waste if it
meets the hazardous waste characteristics or is later listed as a hazard-
ous waste. The rule also defines "processing wastes," as opposed to
beneficiation wastes, which are subject to regulation as solid waste un-
der Subtitle D.
This rule significantly changes the criteria proposed in the April 17,
1989, proposed rulemaking. The high-volume criterion now has two
components: one for solids and one for liquids. Under the final defini-
tion, waste solids (including sludges) are now considered high-volume
wastes if generated at an average annual rate of more than 45,000 metric
tons (MD per facility, based on 1983-1988 data.
-------
-3-
Uquid wastes are now considered high-volume if generated at an average
annual rate of more than 1,000,000 MT per facility, based on 1983-1988
data. The April 17, 1989, NPRM discussed the possibility of a separate
liquid waste threshold, but did not explicitly propose such an approach
The result of its adoption in the final rule is that a number of mineral
processing wastes proposed for continued or conditional exclusion in
April 1989 will be withdrawn from the Bevill exclusion and regulated as
hazardous wastes.
Wastes that meet the high-volume criterion must also meet the low-
hazard criterion in order to remain within the Bevill exclusion. Low-
hazard wastes must meet a pH test and a toxicity and mobility test using
the new EPA Method 1312 (to simulate leaching by "acid rain" in the en-
vironment). Wastes that leach contaminant concentrations greater than
100 x Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for certain metals, or that
fail the pH test at two or more facilities, will fail the low-hazard criterion
and will no longer be excluded from Subtitle C regulations, unless a pre-
ponderance of evidence (specifically, data submitted from industry) cor.
vinces EPA that its testing results are anomalous.
Application of this rule to mineral processing wastes has the following
impacts: 6
o 25 mineral processing waste streams will be retained within
the Bevill exclusion:
- 5 of these remain permanently within the Bevill exclusion
because EPA has adequate data to determine that they also
meet the high-hazard and low-hazard criteria.
- 20 of these are conditionally exempt because EPA did not
have adequate data; however, EPA will publish a proposed
hazard determination for these 20 waste streams in
September 1989 and resolve their status in a January 1990
final rulemaking. (The attachment identifies the specific
waste streams that fall in each category.)
-------
-4-
This rule also makes final the definition of "mineral processing." Few
changes were made to the long-standing EPA definition, with the excep-
tion of a broadening of the definition of "beneficiation" proposed in April
1989 to make it more consistent with the 1985 Report to Congress and
the 1986 Regulatory Determination.
Using these criteria and definitions, EPA will retain five mineral process-
ing wastes within the Bevill exclusion:
1. Slag from primary copper smelting,
2. Slag from primary lead smelting,
3. Red and brown muds from bauxite refining,
4. Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid production, and
5. Slag from elemental phosphorus production.
Those wastes that remain in the Bevill exclusion after January 1990 will
be addressed in EPAs July 1990 Report to Congress on mineral process-
ing wastes and in a subsequent regulatory determination in January
1991. The regulatory determination will define whether the Bevill exempt
wastes must be managed as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C, or as
Subtitle D solid wastes subject to special management standards.
After the effective dates of these rules, all other mineral processing
wastes will be permanently removed from the Bevill exclusion. In other
words, this reinterpretation and the subsequent Report to Congress and
regulatory determination represent the final stages of EPAs response to
the provisions of RCRA Section 8002(p). EPA plans no further studies or
regulatory determinations related to ore and mineral processing wastes
as a group.
-------
-5-
Operators of facilities tliat generate mineral processing wastes that p. .*
no longer under the Bevill exclusion will have to determine whether their
processing wastes exhibit one or more characteristics of hazardous
wastes. If so, they will have to comply with the technical and adminis-
trative requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA. These requirements will
become effective six months after promulgation of this final regulation in
those states not authorized to administer an EPA-approved hazardous
waste program.
In authorized states, these requirements will not be applicable until the
state revises its program to adopt equivalent requirements under state
law and receives authorization for these new requirements. Authorized
states are required to seek authorization of Federal program changes
promulgated between July 1 and June 30 of the following year within
fourteen months of the close of the "Cluster" period (see "Cluster Rule,"
51 £E 33712, September 22, 1986). Thus, an authorized state must
submit a program revision application for the January 1990 final rule,
for example, by September 1, 1991 (i.e., no later than 60 days after the
close of the "Cluster"). This deadline is extended by an additional year if
the state needs a statutory amendment in order to adopt a Federal pro-
gram change (Of course, the requirements will be applicable as a st^-.e
law if the state law is effective prior to authorization.)
CONTACT
For further information or to order a copy of the Federal Register notice,
please contact the RCRA hotline Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
7:30 p.m. EST. The national toll-free number is (800) 424-9346; for the
hearing impaired, it is TDD (800) 553-7672. In Washington, D.C., the
number is (202) 382-3000, or TDD (202) 475-9652.
-------
FIVE "SPECIAL WASTES" REMAINING WITHIN THE
BEVILL AMENDMENT
1. Slag from primary copper smelting;
2. Slag from primary lead smelting;
3. Red and brown muds from bauxite refining;
4. Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid production; and
5. Slag from elemental phosphorus production.
20 MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES CONDITIONALLY
RETAINED WITHIN THE BEVILL AMENDMENT
1. Roast/leach ore residue from primary chromite production;
2. Gasifier ash from coal gasification;
3. Process wastewater from coal gasification;
4. Slag tailings from primary copper smelting;
5. Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant sludge from primary
copper smelting/refining;
6. Furnace off-gas solids from elemental phosphorus production;
7. Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid production;
8. Process wastewater from hydrofluoric acid production;
9. Air pollution control dust/sludge from iron blast furnaces;
10. Iron blast furnace slag;
11. Process wastewater from primary lead production;
12. Air pollution control dust/sludge from lightweight aggregate
production;
13. Process wastewater from primary magnesium processing by the
anhydrous process;
14. Process wastewater from phosphoric acid production;
15. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production;
16. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace air pollution control
dust/sludge from carbon steel production;
17. Sulfate processing waste acids from titanium dioxide production;
18. Sulfate processing waste solids from titanium dioxide production;
19. Chloride processing waste solids from titanium tetrachloride
production; and
20. Slag from primary zinc smelting.
------- |