Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 103 /Friday. May 28, 1999 /Proposed Rules
28949
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Paniculate matter.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.
Dated: May 18, 1999.
William Rice,"
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 99-13660 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 ami
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-6351-4]
RIN-2050-AE54
Potential Revisions to the Land
Disposal Restrictions Mercury
Treatment Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. -
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) is considering
publication of a proposed rule to revise
the 40 CFR part 268 Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards
applicable to mercury-bearing wastes.
This ANPRM is intended to give
advance notice of EPA's comprehensive
reevaluation of the treatment standards
for mercury-bearing hazardous wastes as
well as various options, issues, and data
needs related to potential mercury
treatment standard revisions. The
Agency requests additional data and
comments on these issues and options.
DATES: Written and electronic comments
in response to this ANPRM must be
received on or before July 27, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Commenters should submit
an original and two copies of their
comments referencing Docket No. F-
1999-MTSP-FFFFF to: the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters (5305W), 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Courier
deliveries of comments should be
submitted to the RIC at the address
listed below. Comments may also be
submitted electronically through the
Internet to:
RCRA-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Comments in electronic format should
also be identified by the docket number
F-1999-MTSP-FFFFF. Submit
electronic comments as an ASCII file
and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. If possible,
EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
would also like to receive an additional
copy of the comments on disk in
WordPerfect 6.1 file format.
Commenters should not submit
electronically any confidential business
information (CBI). An original and two
copies of the CBI must be submitted
under separate cover to: Regina Magbie,
RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
The Agency will consider the public
comments during development of any
proposed rule related to this action. The
Agency urges commenters submitting
data in support of their views to include
with the data evidence that appropriate
quality assurance/quality control' (QA/
QC) procedures were followed in
generating the data. Data that the
Agency cannot verify through QA/QC
documentation may be given less
consideration or disregarded in
developing regulatory options for
proposal and final rules.
Public comments and supporting
materials are available for viewing in
the RIC, located at Crystal Gateway One,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First
Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. To review docket materials,
the public must make an appointment
by calling 703-603-9230. The public
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from
any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.
The docket index and notice are
available electronically. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information on accessing it.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the RCRA
Hotline at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-
553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-
3323.
For information on specific aspects of
this document, contact Rita Chow,
Office of Solid Waste-(5302W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
703-308-6158, e-mail address:
chow.rita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The
docket index and the notice are
available on the Internet. From the
World Wide Web (WWW), type http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. For the text of
the notice, choose: Year/Month/Day.
The document may also be obtained
1 For guidance, see Final Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Procedures and Methodology; USEPA, October 23,
1991.
using File Transfer Protocol (FTP) at:
ftp:epa.gov.
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Glossary of Acronyms
APCD—Air Pollution Control Device
ATON—Aid-to-Navigation
ATTIC—Alternative Technology
Treatment Information Center
BDAT—Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
BIF—Boiler and Industrial Furnace
BRS—Biennial Reporting System
DOE—Department'of Energy
IMERC—Incineration of Wastes
Containing Organics and Mercury
(Specified Treatment Method)
LDR—Land Disposal Restrictions
MACT—Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
NESHAP—National Emissions Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHWCS—National Hazardous waste
Constituent Survey
PBT—Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and
Toxic
PCB—Polychlorinated Biphenyls
POTW—Publically Owned Treatment
Works
PSD—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permit
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RMERC—Roasting or Retorting of
Mercury-Bearing Hazardous Wastes
(Specified Treatment Method)
RREL—Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
S/S—Solidification/stabilization
SPC—Sulfur Polymer Cement
TCLP—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
TOC—Total Organic Carbon
TRI—Toxic Release Inventory
VISITT—Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technology
WMNP—Waste Minimization National
Plan
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Agency's Concern for Mercury
B. Key Issues Addressed in the ANPRM
II. Background
A. Mercury in the Environment
B. The Resource Conservation Recovery
Act
C. Mercury Treatment Standards
HI. Mercury Hazardous Waste Generation and
Management
A. Industries Generating Mercury-Bearing
Wastes
B. Generation of Mercury-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes
IV. Current RCRA Regulations Governing
Treatment of Mercury-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes
A. RCRA Waste Code Classification and
Treatment
-------
28950
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
B. Existing LDR Regulations for Mercury-
Bearing Wastes
V. Mercury Treatment Technologies-Roasting
and Retorting of Mercury Wastes
A. Process and Regulation
B. Air Emissions from Roasting and
Retorting
C, Request for Comment
VI, Mercury Treatment Technologies-
Incineration of Mercury Wastes
A, Current Regulations
B, Characteristics of Mercury in
Incinerators and Current Emission
Control Systems
C, Amount of Mercury Emitted from
Incinerators and Other Hazardous Waste
Combustors
D, General Waste Characterization Data on
Mercury in Hazardous Waste Streams
E. EPA's Re-Evaluation of the IMERC
Standard
F. Additional Considerations Related to
Alternatives to Incineration
G, Request for Comment
VII, Regulatory Options Involving Source
Reduction
VIII. Mixed Wastes
IX, Discussion of Alternative Treatment
Technologies
A. Possible Alternative Technologies to
Retorting
B, Possible Alternative Technologies to
Incineration
C. Current Mercury Treatment Companies
D. Request for Comment
X, Possible Revisions to the Mercury LDRs
A. Purpose of ANPRM
B. Schedule
C. Impact on Small Businesses
D. Impact on State Programs
XI. Administrative Requirements
A, Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Executive Order 13045
I. Introduction
With this document, the Agency
marks the beginning of a comprehensive
review of existing RCRA waste
treatment regulations applicable to
mercury-bearing wastes and of our effort
to revise, if necessary and appropriate,
these regulations to improve treatment
and land disposal methods. We decided
to publish an ANPRM at this time
because we expect to benefit
significantly from early public input on
mercury waste generation and
treatment, including information on
alternative treatment technologies and
on source reduction opportunities. The
nature and extent of amendments to the
mercury treatment standards have not
yet been determined. Any potential
revisions will ultimately be based on the
comments we receive on this ANPRM,
as well as data obtained from other
sources (e.g., ongoing treatability
studies). As warranted, a proposal to
amend the current regulations will
appear in a future Federal Register
document.
A. Agency's Concern for Mercury
As evidenced by EPA's Mercury
Study Report to Congress2, mercury is
an element that the Agency has studied
quite extensively in recent years.
Moreover, a recent Agency Federal
Register notice identified mercury as
one of the "53 persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT)
chemicals and chemical categories
which may be found in hazardous
wastes regulated under RCRA" (63 FR
60332, November 9, 1998). In addition,
the EPA Action Plan for Mercury3 lists
this ANPRM as one of the twelve "most
significant actions that EPA is
undertaking to deal with the problem of
mercury exposure."
This ANPRM deals with a small
aspect of the overall mercury problem,
this being the treatment and disposal of
mercury-bearing hazardous wastes.
Nevertheless, the potential problems
that exist in this area are significant, as
mercury can both leach out of
hazardous wastes and also be emitted
from the various treatment processes.
B. Key Issues Addressed in the ANPRM
This ANPRM focuses on several key
issues with the current LDR mercury
treatment standards:
Incineration—We are interested in
pursuing further the issue of mercury air
emissions from incineration units. One
of the original premises behind the
current mercury treatment regulations
was that incineration would be a
pretreatment step to mercury recovery,
but this premise should be re-examined
at this point, given new information
about incineration of mercury wastes as
well as the upcoming Hazardous Waste
Combustion rule. Also, we currently
allow high mercury, low organic wastes
to be incinerated, but alternative
treatment technologies may be
preferable for these wastes. We want to
investigate the impacts of reducing the
number of waste types allowed or
required to be incinerated (e.g.,
potentially only allow high organic, low
mercury wastes, or organomercury
wastes).
Retorting—From comments on this
ANPRM, we hope to get a better idea of
the full environmental Impact of our
waste treatment standards. Our
treatment standards requiring recovery
of mercury via retorting are a case in
point. For example, air emissions and
the disposal of the residues from
2 "Mercury Study Report to Congress," Volumes
I-Vra. EPA-452/R-97-003, December 1997.
3 EPA Action Plan for Mercury (Attachment 1 to
"An Agency-wide Multi-media Strategy for Priority
PBT Pollutants") can be found at www.epa.gov/
opptlntr/pbt/pbtstrat.htm.
secondary production (i.e., recycling-
oriented processes) ought to be weighed
against the diminishing benefits of
recovery when such secondary
production exceeds demand for the
recycled product. In some cases, direct
treatment for disposal could have some
environmental advantages in certain
supply-demand situations that have not
previously been fully appreciated. We
also want to investigate whether
retorting (i.e., thermal recovery) is
currently required for wastes that are
either not amenable to or are
inappropriate for (e.g., mixed wastes)
this treatment. Finally, although several
factors suggest that retorting emissions
are not significant, we still want to
determine if there are data that support
this suggestion.
Source Reduction Options—EPA
developed the current treatment
regulations under statutory deadlines
that impeded the exploration of
potential source reduction technologies
that could reduce or eliminate the
generation of mercury-bearing wastes
from many sources. The ANPRM
contains a discussion of this
investigation and potential options that
might provide additional incentives for
decreasing the amount of mercury in
hazardous waste.
II. Background
A. Mercury in the Environment
Control of the environmental risks
posed by mercury is a complex problem
for a number of reasons. First, mercury
and its compounds are mobile in the
environment. Elemental mercury is
volatile under both ambient and
combustion temperatures and is
released into the environment mostly
through air emissions from commercial
and industrial sources. It can remain in
the atmosphere for up to one year, and
hence can be widely dispersed and
transported thousands of miles from the
source of the emissions. When in the
form of mercury salts, mercury air
emissions are deposited more locally.
Second, multiple pathways exist for
exposure. The risks associated with
various exposure pathways depend
strongly on the chemical form (i.e.,
species) of mercury involved. After
deposition from the atmosphere,
mercury can be methylated (especially
in water bodies) to form the more toxic
and bioaccumulative methylmercury.
Exposure to levels of methylmercury
found in fish taken from polluted water
bodies has been associated with
neurological and developmental defects
in humans, with the developing fetus
most at risk. To reduce the risks of
exposure to methylmercury over time,
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28951
cost-effective strategies are needed both
domestically and internationally to
minimize the generation of mercury-
bearing hazardous wastes.
Some evidence suggests that, because
mercury is a persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT)
substance, small releases may contribute
to the build up of mercury in the
environment, especially the aquatic
environment, over time, which may
increase the potential for environmental
and human health impacts.
Consequently, EPA is looking at
whether we may need to change the
LDR mercury treatment standards.
B. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
One objective of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)—the major hazardous waste
statute—is to minimize the generation of
hazardous waste and the land disposal
of hazardous waste by encouraging
process substitution, materials recovery,
properly conducted recycling and reuse,
and treatment (see RCRA section 1003).
To further this objective, the Agency has
set as goals of its Waste Minimization
National Plan (WMNP) •» to:
• Reduce, as a nation, the presence of
the most persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic (PBT) chemicals in RCRA
hazardous wastes 10 percent by the year
2000, and at least 50 percent by the year
2005 (from a 1991 baseline);
• Promote source reduction (and
recycling where RCRA PBT chemicals
cannot be reduced at the source) over
treatment and disposal technologies;
and
• Avoid the transfer of RCRA PBT
chemicals across environmental media.
Consistent with the goals of RCRA
and the WMNP, the Agency seeks to
reduce the generation of hazardous
wastes containing mercury. When this is
not feasible, the Agency wants to look
carefully at other opportunities to
improve the recycling and treatment of
residual mercury-bearing waste to
further reduce air emissions, the
mobility of mercury species at the time
of disposal, and the potential for future
biological or chemical conversion to
other mobile and bioaccumulative
species of mercury.
4 Waste Minimization National Plan, USEPA,
1994. EPA530-R-94-045.
C. Mercury Treatment Standards
EPA established treatment standards
for mercury-bearing wastes as part of
two rulemaltirigs. The LDjR First Third
final rule (53 FR 31166', August 17,
1988) established standards for RCRA
hazardous waste code K071 (brine
purification muds from the mercury cell
process in chlorine production, where
separately prepurified brine is not
used), and the LDR Third Third final
rule (55 FR 22569, June 1, 1990)
established standards for five additional
RCRA mercury-bearing waste codes:
D009, characteristic mercury wastes; ,
K106, wastewater treatment sludge from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production; P065, mercury fulminate
wastes; P092, phenyl mercuric acetate
wastes; and Ul51, miscellaneous
mercury wastes.
For all of these wastes, EPA
established two treatment subcategories:
a high mercury subcategory, which
includes wastes with a total mercury
concentration greater than or equal to
260 mg/kg; and a low mercury
subcategory, which includes wastes
with a total mercury concentration less
than 260 mg/kg.
• High mercury wastes are required to
be roasted or retorted ("RMERC"), or
incinerated ("IMERC") if organics are
present. RMERC residues must then
meet a numerical treatment standard of
0.20 mg/L prior to land disposal, as
measured by the toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP). IMERC
residues must meet a numerical
treatment standard of 0.025 mg/L TCLP.
• Low mercury wastes are not subject
to a specific technology for treatment
but must meet a numerical treatment
standard of 0.025 mg/L TCLP.
III. Mercury Hazardous Waste
Generation and Management
A. Industries Generating Mercury-
Bearing Wastes
Industrial use of mercury in the U.S.
has been on the decline in recent years.
Also, mercury is no longer produced
from mercury ore in the United States,
as the last mercury ore mine closed in
1990. However, mercury is still
produced as a byproduct from the
mining of gold ores and from secondary
production. Nearly all of the mercury
used in the United States is derived
from secondary sources. Common
secondary sources include spent
batteries, chlor-alkali wastewater
sludges, mercury vapor and fluorescent
lamps, dental amalgams, electrical
apparatus, and measuring instruments.
The secondary producers typically use
high-temperature roasting and retorting
to recover mercury from the materials
and distillation to purify contaminated
liquid mercury metal.
Data on estimated industrial demand
for mercury show a general decline in
domestic mercury use since demand
peaked in 1964. Table 1 describes the
mercury production and consumption
in the U.S. for 1990-1997. In 1997, 346
metric tons of mercury were used in
industrial processes, 389 metric tons
were produced by secondary mercury
producers (i.e., producers recovering
mercury from waste products), 134
metric tons were exported, and 164
metric tons were imported. These
figures continued the trend since 1995
of secondary production exceeding
industrial consumption.5 Domestic
demand fell by more than 75% between
1988 (1503 metric tons) and 1997 (346
metric tons). Much of this decline can
be attributed to the elimination of
.mercury as a paint additive and the *
reduction of-mercury in batteries. Other
reasons for the reduction include the
military phase-out of mercury fulminate
as a primer in military explosives and
the decline in the number of chlor-alkali
facilities using the mercury cell method
of chlorine production. Use of mercury
by other source categories remained
essentially the same between 1988 and
1996.6 The data suggest that industrial
manufacturers who use mercury are
shifting away from its use except where
mercury is considered essential.
However, mercury consumption in the
categories of Electrical and Electronic
Uses and Instruments and Related
Products is still growing, and is
expected to continue to grow due to the
increase in the manufacture of
computers and other electrical
equipment.7
s Robert G. Reese, Jr. US Geological Survey,
Minerals Information, 1997.
6 Mercury Study Report to Congress. USEPA,
December 1997, Volume I: Executive Summary,
page 3-8.
7 The Status of Mercury in the United States. Draft
2, September 10, 1996, page A3-6.
-------
28952
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—MERCURY PRODUCTION AND USE STATISTICS
[Metric tons]
Mine Production:
— Principal product1
— Byproduct from gold mines
Secondary Production:
— Industrial ,
— Government2
Imports for Consumption
Exports
Shipments from National Defense Stockpile3
Industry Stocks, year-end4
Industrial Consumption (reported)
Price, average dollars per flask:
D.F. Goldsmith
Free market
1990
448
114
108
193
15
311
52
197
720
$249.22
NA
1991
58
165
215
56
786
103
313
554
$122.42
NA
1992
64
176
103
92
977
267
436
621
$201 .39
NA
1993
W
350
40
389
543
384
558
$186.51
NA
1994
W
446
129
316
86
469
483
$194.45
NA
1995
W
534
377
179
321
436
$247.40
NA
1996
W
446
340
45
446
372
$261 .65
NA
1997
W
389
164
134
203
346
NA
$159.52
1998E
W
400
200
150
200
400
NA
$180
Source: Robert G. Reese, Jr, US Geological Survey, Minerals Information, 1997, 1999.
E—Estimated. W—withheld for confidentiality. NA—Not available
1 Comprises only mercury produced at McDermitt Mine, as reported in Placer Dome Inc. Annual and 10-K reports. The mine was closed in No-
vember 1990.
2 Secondary mercury shipped from U.S. Department of Energy stocks.
3 Shipments from the government stockpile were suspended in 1995.
4 Stocks at consumers and dealers only. Mine stocks withheld to avoid disclosing proprietary data.
Table 2 presents estimates of mercury
emissions from the EPA Mercury Study
Report to Congress (USEPA. December
1997), and national emission estimates
for hazardous waste combustors for
^1990, 1994, and 1997. The Report to
"Congress identifies combustion sources,
Including utility and commercial/
industrial boilers, as the major source of
mercury emissions. Hazardous waste
combustion emissions and emissions
from secondary mercury production are
estimated to be less than five percent of
overall mercury emissions. In 1990 and
1994, mercury emissions from
hazardous waste combustion sources
totaled approximately 6.4 metric tons
per year, and for 1997, these emissions
decreased to approximately 6.0 metric
tons per year.8 Table 2 shows a further
breakdown of the mercury emissions
contribution from each hazardous waste
combustor category.
TABLE 2.—AVAILABLE MERCURY EMISSIONS DATA
[Metric Tons]
Area sources
Combustion sources
Manufacturing sources
Miscellaneous sources '.
Total Air emissions .-
-HW Cement Kilns
-HW Incinerators
— HW Lightweight Aggregate Kilns
Total HW Combustors (% of total emissions) '.
Secondary Hg Production'0' (% of total emissions)
1990<">
213
a
.9
13
6*
07
1994">)
.13
1252
14.4
.3
144
27
3.5
03
6.4
(4.4)
04
(0.3)
1997W
1 5
44
0 05
6 0
•Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) Requirements, USEPA, April 10, 1998; 63 FR
17338, Table 1.
b Mercury Study Report to Congress, USEPA, December 1997, Volume I: Executive Summary, page 3-6.
eNote to Laura McKelvey, USEPA, from Frank Behan, USEPA, dated July 1, 1998. This emissions inventory supports the rulemaking to revise
the technical standards for hazardous waste combustion facilities and will be included in a technical support document for that rule.
••Tola! HW Combustor emissions (6.4 metric tons) are a subcategory of the Combustion source emissions (125.2 metric tons) that appear in
ihe Mercury Study Report to Congress (see note "b above).
•Secondary Hg Production emissions (0.4 metric tons) are a subcategory of the Manufacturing source emissions (14.4 metric tons) that appear
In the Mercury Study Report to Congress (see note "b" above).
•When Interpreting any apparent data trends in
Table 2. you should note that differences in
emissions estimates are due to a combination of
factors Including actual data from performance in
the field, revisions to our estimation methodology,
and changes in the number of facilities operating
within each category. See documents noted as
sources for Table 2.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28953
B. Generation of Mercury-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes
The background document "Analysis
of Current Mercury Waste Generation
and Treatment" in the docket for today's
notice includes tables that break down
the generation of mercury-bearing
hazardous wastes by waste code, waste
form, and SIC Code based on the
National Biennial RCRA Hazardous
Waste Report (BRS) database.9 While
the BRS provides a general idea of how
much hazardous waste is generated, the
numbers can be misinterpreted. For
example, the BRS does not provide
mercury concentrations in the waste
streams. Therefore, we do not have a
good estimate for the total amount of
mercury that is treated by non-
combustion technologies in the United
States.
Another interpretive issue with BRS
data is that some waste quantities can be
overestimates of the actual amount of
waste produced. For example, some
waste streams may be given multiple
waste codes, one code being the specific
waste code (e.g., K071), and another
code being the general characteristic
code (e.g., D009). This leads to an
overestimate of the actual quantity
generated.
According to the 1995 BRS,
approximately 12.2 million metric tons
of mercury-bearing hazardous waste
(wastewater and nonwastewater) were
generated. This represents an increase
from the 1993 BRS estimate of 11.5
million metric tons. The National
Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey
(NHWCS), w,hich was designed to
correspond with 1993 BRS data,
estimated that almost 19 million metric
tons of mercury-bearing wastes were
managed. This NHWCS was created by
EPA's Office of Solid Waste in 1996 and
distributed to over 200 of the largest
generators and managers of hazardous
industrial process wastes in the U.S.
These facilities account for over 90
percent of the total waste quantity in the
hazardous waste universe as reported in
the 1993 BRS.
The NHWCS also included estimates
of the total amount of mercury managed
by treatment technologies. The three
technologies that were listed, and their
respective mercury quantities, were
"other treatment," 3257 metric tons;
"aqueous inorganic treatment," 33
metric tons; and "landfill," 30 metric
tons. In the "other treatment" category,
one facility (DOE/WRSC Savannah
River) accounts for approximately 98
percent of the total constituent quantity.
Without this facility, the.constituent
total for "other treatment" would be 5.6
tons. Since the survey was voluntary
and limited to the largest waste streams,
it is likely that it did not Include many
retorters and incinerators of mercury
(especially high subcategory mercury)
wastes.
Table 3 presents data from the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) database. The
TABLE 3.—TRI DATA
[Metric Tons]
TRI is an information source about toxic
chemicals that are being used,
manufactured, treated, transported, or
released into the environment. A facility
is required to submit a TRI report if it
(1) has ten or more full-time employees,
and (2) manufactures or processes over
25,000 pounds of the approximately,600
designated chemicals or 28 chemical
categories specified in the regulations,
or uses more than 10,000 pounds of any
designated chemical or category, and (3)
engages in certain manufacturing
operations in the industry groups
specified in the U.S. Government
Standard Industrial Classification Codes
(SIC) 20 through 39. Federal facilities
also are required to report following an
August 1995 Executive Order.
EPA emphasizes that the BRS and
NHWCS data presented above and the
emissions data in Table 3 are estimates
that may overestimate generation. The
Agency welcomes any information that
may help to construct a more accurate
picture of the current mercury waste
universe. This would include current
data on waste generation (types,
quantities, and mercury concentrations
in the wastes), current waste
management practices, problems and/or
constraints on treating or recovering
these wastes, as well as information on
any waste minimization activities that
may have been implemented to reduce
or eliminate waste generation.
TRI total production-related waste:
-Mercury
—Mercury compounds
-Mercury + Mercury compounds
TRI wastes to recycling:
-Mercury :
—Mercury compounds .
Mercury + Mercury compounds
TRI mercury + mercury compounds:
Fugitive air emissions
Stack emissions
Surface water discharges
Underground injection
On-site land releases
Off-site disposal t
On-site treatment
Transfers to energy recovery
Transfers to treatment
Transfers to POTWs
Other off-site transfers ;
TRI total not recycled:
—Mercury
-Mercury compounds
1993
528
.•57
020
£B07
DB2
157
NA
0
(79
0.007
0
147
ff
1994
4075
557
463.2
3900
426
4326
4.43
1 87
0 15
0.003
061
176
5.02
0
1.75
0.007
0
182
13.2
1995
4596
706
530.2
4437
568
5005
485
255
0 15
0003
046
944
2 86
023
759
0011
010
17 8
95.7
1996
390 1
36 1
4262
375 4
21 9
397 3
5 51
2 24
0 25
0 004
024
11 7
1 87
0 23
6 55
0007
o
10-7
15.0
9 BRS data can be found at www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/data/
-------
28954
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
"totals may not add due to rounding
TABLE 3.—TRI DATA—Continued
[Metric Tons]
-Marcurv + mercurv comoounds"
1993
24.4
1994
31.4
1995
113.5
1996
28.6
IV. Current RCRA Regulations
Governing Treatment of Mercury-
Bearing Hazardous Wastes
A. RCRA Waste Code Classification and
Treatment
EPA's hazardous waste classification
system identifies six categories of
mercury-bearing wastes, each of which
has a separate RCRA waste code.
The following is a detailed
description of the six mercury waste
codes:
D009 Wastes—Characteristic Mercury
Wastes. D009 wastes are extremely
variable in composition, and depend on
the industry and process that generate
the waste. Some of the more common
types of D009 wastes include
miscellaneous wastes from chlor-alkali
production facilities (especially cell
room trench sludge and activated
carbon for liquid or gas purification),
used fluorescent lamps, batteries,
switches, and thermometers. D009
wastes are also generated in the
production of organomercury
compounds for fungiclde/bactericide
and pharmaceutical uses, and during
organic chemicals manufacturing where
mercuric chloride catalyst is used.10
Mercury concentrations within D009
wastes may range from 0.20 mg/L TCLP
to greater than 75 percent of the total
waste composition. D009 wastes may
also contain organic compounds,
usually when mixed with solvent
wastes.
Although characterization data for
D009 wastes are limited, some
conclusions can be made regarding
potential treatment concerns. Wastes
with greater than 500 ppm 40 CFR part
261, appendix VTJI organics (such as
benzene) may be problematic for
commercial retorting facilities due to
the permitting requirements for boiler
and industrial furnaces (BIF) (40 CFR
266.100(c)). At least two facilities are
unable to handle wastes with these
levels of volatile organics due to the
additional permitting that would be
required. However, these two facilities
are capable of treating non-volatile
activated carbons.
K071 Wastes—Brine purification
muds from the mercury cell process in
chlorine production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used. K071
wastes are generated by the chlor-alkali
industry in the mercury cell process. In
this process, sodium chloride is
dissolved to form a saturated brine
solution. The brine solution is purified
by precipitation, using hydroxides,
carbonates, or sulfates. The precipitate
is dewatered to form K071 wastes, while
the purified brine continues in the
process. The depleted solution from the
mercury cell is ultimately recycled to
the initial step of the process.
Available analytical information for
K071 brine purification muds show that
these-wastes consist primarily of
inorganic solids and water. The normal
total mercury content of K071 wastes is
less than 100 parts per million (ppm)
and is normally characterized as
metallic mercury or soluble mercuric
chloride." Mercury from K071 wastes is
typically recovered using a wet process,
reflecting the BOAT for this waste.
K106 Wastes—Wastewater treatment
sludge from the mercury cell process in
chlorine production. Like K071 wastes,
K106 wastes are generated from chlorine
production using the mercury cell
process. Effluent from the mercury cell
includes spent brine, a portion of which
is recycled and a portion of which is
purged to wastewater treatment. Other
plant area wastewaters (e.g., stormwater,
washdown waters) are also typically
sent to this treatment system. The
wastewater treatment process generates
a sludge through precipitation and
filtering, which is K106 waste. Sulfides
(as either sodium sulfide, Na2S, and/or
sodium bisulfide, NaHS) have been
commonly used as a precipitation agent
for at least the last 10 years (1988 to
1998), according to data from the
Chlorine Institute. Sludges generated in
this manner are comprised, in part, of
mercuric sulfide. Other-(minor)
precipitation agents result in the
formation of mercury hydroxide or in
elemental mercury. However, sulfide
precipitation is preferable to hydroxide
precipitation using hydrazine because
mercury hydroxide is susceptible to
matrix dissolution over a wide range of
pH under oxidizing conditions.
Available analytical information for
K106 wastes indicates they are
primarily composed of water and
diatomaceous earth filter aid. This is
true for K106 wastes generated by both
sulfide treatment and hydrazine
treatment. K106 wastes from sulfide
precipitation contain approximately 4.4
percent mercury, as mercuric sulfide,
while K106 wastes from hydrazine
treatment contain approximately 0.5
percent mercury, as mercurous
hydroxide.12
The mercury concentration in K106
waste is consistently greater than 260
mg/kg and therefore retorting is a
required technology for this waste. K106
waste also contains significant levels of
sulfides/sulfates, sodium chloride, and
organics, although the mercury is likely
in an elemental or a sulfide form.
P065 Wastes—Mercury fulminate.
P065 wastes consist of discarded
mercury fulminate product, off-
specification mercury fulminate
product, and container or spill residues
thereof. No waste characterization data
were available for P065 listed wastes.
The quantity of P065 waste is expected
to have declined, as the military has
phased out its use in explosives.13
P092 Wastes—Phenylmercury acetate.
P092 wastes consist of discarded
phenylmercury acetate product, off-
specification phenylmercury acetate
product, and container or spill residues
thereof. There are very little data
available on the composition of P092
listed wastes. The primary constituent
of P092 listed wastes is phenylmercury
acetate; organic constituents (in
particular, benzene) are also expected to
be present.14 The use of phenylmercury
acetate as a preservative in latex paint
was phased out in 1991. Thus, the
quantity of P092 waste is expected to
decline dramatically as the stock of
mercury-bearing paint is depleted.15
1° U.S. EPA, Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background Document for
Mercury Wastes. Nov 1989. page 2-18.
11 U.S. EPA, BOAT Document for Mercury
Wastes, November 1989, page 2-11.
12 U.S. EPA, BOAT Document for Mercury
Wastes, November 1989. page 2-11.
13 Mercury Treatment and Storage Options
Summary Report, A.T. Kearney report for USEPA
Reg 5, May 1997, page 1.
14 U.S. EPA, BDAT Document for Mercury
Wastes, November 1989, page 2-17.
15 Mercury Treatment and Storage Options
Summary Report, A.T. Kearney report for USEPA
Reg 5, May 1997, page 1.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28955
U151 Wastes—Mercury. U151 wastes
consist of discarded elemental mercury
product, off-specification metallic
mercury product, and container or spill
residues thereof. The majority of U151
wastes reported as a single waste code
(i.e., not mixed with other listed or
characteristic wastes) in the EPA 1986
Generator Survey are ovei;50 percent
mercury. Trig-principal constituent of
U151 is metallic mercury.16
B. Existing LDR Regulations for
Mercury-Bearing Wastes
Table 4 summarizes the current LDR
requirements for these wastes.
TABLE 4.—LDR REGULATIONS FOR MERCURY-BEARING NONWASTEWATERS
Mercury Subcategory Description
LDR treatment requirements
Concentration in mg/l TCLP; or
Technology code
Applicable
waste
codes
Federal Register publication
High Mercury-Organic Subcategory (i.e., the waste has a total
mercury content greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg), con-
tains organics, and is not an incinerator residue.
Mercury fulminate waste regardless of total mercury content
and is not an incinerator or RMERC residue.
Phenylmercury acetate waste regardless of total mercury con-
tent and is not an incinerator or RMERC residue.
High Mercury-Inorganic Subcategory (i.e., the waste has a total
mercury content greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg), and is
inorganic, including residues from incineration; roasting and
retorting.
Low Mercury Subcategory (i.e., the waste has a total mercury
content less than 260 mg/kg), and that are residues from
RMERC only.
Low Mercury Subcategory (i.e., the waste has a total mercury
content less than 260 mg/kg), and are not residues from
RMERC.
Elemental mercury contaminated with radioactive materials ......
Hydraulic oil contaminated with Mercury Radioactive Materials
Subcategory.
Incineration (IMERC); OR
Roasting or Retorting
(RMERC).
IMERC
IMERC; OR RMERC .
RMERC
0.20 mg/l TCLP
0.025 mg/l TCLP
AMLGM
IMERC ..
D009
P092
P065
P092
D009
K106
U151
D009«»
K071
K106
P065
P092
U151
D009«»
K071
K106
P065
P092
D009
U151
D009
55 FR 22569,
(June 1. 1990).
55 FR 22569,
(June 1, 1990).
55 FR 22569,
(June 1, 1990).
55 FR 22569,
(June 1, 1990).
55 FR 22569,
(June 1, 1990).
D009 treatment standard re-
vised 63 FR 28568,
(May 26, 1998).
55 FR 22569,
(June 1, 1990).
D009 treatment standard re-
vised 63 FR 28568, (May 26,
1998).
•55 FR 22569,
(June 1, 1990).
55 FR 22569,
(Junel, 1990).
"D009 wastes with concentration-based standards, rather-than specified technology standards, must also meet §268.48 standards (LDR
Phase IV final rule, May 26, 1998).
V. Mercury Treatment Technologies-
Roasting and Retorting of Mercury
Wastes
A. Process and Regulation
Roasting or retorting _of mercury .
(RMERC) and subsequently condensing
the volatilized mercury for recovery is
currently required for D009, K106, and
U151 wastes in the high mercury-
inorganic Subcategory (i.e., 260 mg/kg
total mercury and above), and P065 and
P092 nonwastewaters that are
incinerator residues or residues from
roasting or retorting that still contain
greater than 260 mg/kg total mercury.
RMERC is also a treatment option for
D009 wastes in the high mercury-
organic Subcategory that are not
incinerator residues, and P092 wastes
that are not incinerator or RMERC
residues.
Most retort processes use a batch
vessel. The mercury-bearing waste is
sealed in the vessel and volatile gases,
such as mercury vapor, are released
when the vessel is heated (sometimes
under vacuum conditions). The mercury
vapor is condensed, collected, and
subsequently purified by successive
distillation. The BOAT Background
DocumentI7 also describes roasting,
where air is introduced to the hot waste
to oxidize mercury compounds and to
help transport mercury vapor to the
condenser.
All wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment residues derived from the
RMERC process must meet various
standards that ensure proper mercury
removal via RMERC. If treatment
residues are still in the high mercury
Subcategory (i.e., contain 260 mg/kg
total mercury or more), they must be
retreated. If the RMERC treatment
residues are in the low mercury
Subcategory (i.e., contain less than 260
mg/kg total mercury), they must meet a
standard of 0.20 mg/L TCLP mercury
prior to being land disposed. (Note: low
mercury Subcategory wastes that are not
residues of RMERC must meet a more
stringent standard of 0.025 mg/L TCLP
mercury.) Thus, current LDR regulations
mandate recovery (and therefore
recycling) of mercury waste that
contains greater than or equal to 260
mg/kg total mercury; impose regulatory
control over the emissions from roasting
and retorting and the disposal of
residues derived from the process; and
differentiate between the residues from
RMERC versus other treatment
processes to encourage recycling and
recovery. The Agency requests comment
on whether RMERC should include
types of recycling technologies other
than roasting or retorting, which also
would allow treatment residues from
those technologies to be eligible for the
0.20 mg/L standard.
'« U.S. EPA, BDAT Document for Mercury
Wastes, November 1989, page 2-17.
" Final BDAT Background Document for
Mercury-Containing Wastes D009, K106, P065,
P092, and U151. USEPA, May 1990, page 3-2.
-------
28956
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
B. Air Emissions from Roasting and
Retorting
Air emissions from a mercury
retorting or roasting unit (or facility)
also are regulated. The unit or facility
must be subject to one or more of the
following (40 CFR 268.42):
(a) A National Emissions Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
mercury;
(b) A Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) or Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
standard for mercury imposed pursuant
to a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit; or
(c) A state permit that establishes
emission limitations (within meaning of
section 302 of the Clean Air Act) for
mercury.
Secondary mercury production is
estimated to have accounted for
approximately 0.4 Metric tons of
mercury emissions in 1995.18 Air
emissions from retorting or roasting
units are generally scrubbed and passed
through carbon filters that efficiently
capture mercury vapor. When spent.
these filters are retorted or roasted along
with other wastes to recover the
mercury that has been trapped. The
units may also incorporate an
afterburner prior to any additional air
pollution control devices (APCDs) for
odor control.
(a) Chlor-alkali facilities
Of the 14 chlor-alkali facilities using
the mercury cell process, six conduct
onsite retorting or roasting. The
background document "Waste Specific
Evaluation of RMERC Treatment
Standard" presents air emissions data
for these six facilities from the TRI. and
for two other facilities that do not
conduct onsite mercury recovery. These
two facilities ship their wastes off-site to
other facilities owned by the same
parent company. The releases shown
represent all releases, including
retorting emissions, fugitive emissions
and emissions from hydrogen stream
purification.19 The airborne mercury
releases from all facilities with a retort
process unit range from 250 to 1,500
pounds for 1995. However, mercury
releases from facilities without a retort
process unit are comparable to the
releases from facilities with retorters,
indicating that retort emissions are
relatively small compared to total
facility emissions.
(b) Commercial Facilities
The background document "Waste
Specific Evaluation of RMERC
Treatment Standard" contains data on
mercury emissions to air, water, and
offsite recycling sites for the three
commercial roasting or retorting
facilities that submitted TRI reports. No
other emissions information is available
for other facilities.
Air emissions data for the three
facilities indicate that releases are low.
Stack emissions data were not obtained,
but verbal correspondence indicates that
measured emissions are also low. For
example, one facility measures for
mercury at the stack several times per
day. A State official believed that these
measurements are normally non-detects
and, if any mercury is detected, the
operation shuts down.20
Detailed air pollution control device
information is also available for several
facilities. Air pollution control at
several of the commercial roasting/
retorting facilities includes carbon
adsorption with no scrubbers.21 BRS
data indicate that at least one facility
uses carbon absorption and a scrubber.
Literature reviews and discussions with
technology vendors indicate that the use
of activated carbon beds can achieve
90% or more mercury removal, with
some greater than 99%.22
At one facility, all retorting and
ancillary operations (e.g., material
handling) are conducted indoors.23 This
facility has'emission controls for its
furnace operation and for the building
where the ancillary operations are
conducted. The furnace off gas is
cooled, then passed through activated
carbon and a gas afterburner. Vent gas
from the building passes through
activated carbon and is emitted to the
atmosphere. A second facility's furnace
emissions are cooled, passed through a
series of activated carbon absorption,
and emitted to the atmosphere.24 A
third company's retort process is
contained in a multicompartment
building and all of the operations are
conducted under negative pressure to
help control emissions. The facility also
uses sealed rooms for the preheating
and cooling of the mercury-bearing
wastes, and the rooms are equipped
'» Mercury Study Report to Congress, USEPA,
December 1997, Volume I: Executive Summary.
page 3-6.
"Telephone conversation, Illam Rosarlo. U.S.
EPA. and John Vlerow. SAIC. July 1998.
^Telephone Conversation between John Vierow,
SAIC, and Luis Pizarro, USEPA Region 3, June
1998.
21 Ibid.
22 Draft Technical Support Document for HWC
MACT Standards, USEPA, February 1996, F-96-
RCSP-S0047.
23 Bethlehem Apparatus, Waste Analysis and
Recycling Plan, 1996.
24 Telephone Conversation between John Vierow,
SAIC. and Luis Pizarro, USEPA Region 3, June
1998.
with their own carbon adsorption filters
to trap mercury vapor.25
The Agency requests additional data
on air emissions from roasting and
retorting units, including information
detailing the effectiveness of existing
after burner, carbon bed, and scrubber
controls.
C. Request for Comment
The Agency specifically requests
comment on the following:
1. What Wastes Are Not Amenable to
RMERC?
Mercury recovery facilities are exempt
from the boiler and industrial furnace
requirements of 40 CFR part 266,
subpart H provided they meet certain
requirements, such as the rejection of
wastes with greater than 500 ppmw of
certain organic constituents (i.e., organic
compounds on 40 CFR part 261,
appendix VIII). However, these units
may process wastes containing various
plastics, which may require the thermal
destruction of odor causing emissions
resulting from the pyrolysis (i.e.,
thermal decomposition) of these
plastics. See appendix XIII of part 266.
Other problem wastes for mercury
recycling include:
• Wastes containing organic forms of
mercury (e.g.', mercury fulminate,
phenylmercury acetate). Independent of
regulatory restrictions, some facilities
do not accept any organomercury
compounds because the compound does
not decompose into elemental mercury.
Instead, the compound is carried
through the retort and distillation
system and results in an impurity in the
final mercury product.26
• Wastes with a high water content.
Large quantities of generated steam
interfere with the mercury condensation
process. To solve this problem, one
facility precipitates or concentrates
liquid solutions prior to retorting.
• Wastes containing mercuric
chloride, polyvinyl chloride, and
halogens. Mercury chloride and other
salts carry over during the retorting and
condensation process, forming
impurities.27 Additionally, in the
presence of steam, halogens will form
acids, which corrode equipment. One
facility pre-treats corrosive solutions
using ion-exchange to overcome this
problem. Another company uses
chemical conversion to mercuric oxide
prior to retorting to remove halides
before processing.
25 Mercury Refining Company, Facility
Information Packet.
28 Frederick J. Manley, USPCI Lab Pack Manager,
letter to EPA, July, 2, 1992.
"Ibid
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28957
• Wastes containing volatile metals.
Some retorting facilities restrict certain
metals, including lithium, arsenic, and
thallium. It is not known why these self-
imposed restrictions exist.
• Radioactive wastes. For regulatory
and safety reasons, most facilities reject
radioactive wastes. Only one facility has
been identified that accepts radioactive
mercury-bearing wastes.
• Mercury nitrate/nitrite solutions.
This material typically results in an
ignitable solution, which appears to
raise permit concerns for facilities28
• Wastes containing mercuric sulfide.
These wastes are difficult to retort.
Additives are required to scavenge
elemental sulfur produced before it can
recombine with the mercury.
The Agency requests further
information detailing the problems that
occur when treating wastes in retorting
units, including the forms of mercury
wastes that are not technically amenable
to retorting and/or are not accepted at
retorting facilities.
2. Should Non-Thermal Recycling
Technologies Be Allowed for High
Mercury Wastes and, if so, Should They
Continue To Be Subject to a More
Stringent Residual Standard?
Since the RMERC regulations were
promulgated, additional recycling
technologies have been developed. One
such technology is Universal Dynamic's
REMERC process. While this process
accomplishes mercury recycling in a
closed system that limits air emissions,
the residues are currently subject to the
more stringent 0.025 mg/L TCLP
mercury standard for non-RMERC
residues. The Agency requests comment
and data to determine whether non-
RMERC recycling processes, if properly
designed and operated, should continue
to be under more stringent regulation
because these processes may result in
less mercury recovery than roasting and
retorting processes, increased mercury
content of residuals, higher air
emissions, or a less stable final waste
form. If these alternative recycling
technologies are determined to be viable
and are demonstrated to be properly
designed and operated, the residuals
could be subject to the current RMERC
residual standard of 0.20 mg/L, or to a
new treatment standard that the
alternative technology has been
demonstrated to achieve. Alternatively,
the current regulations could be
expanded to include recycling
technologies other than RMERC as
potential options for treating high
mercury subcategory wastes.
3. Should the Mercury Concentration
Requirement for RMERC (260 mg/kg or
above) Be Adjusted?
The Agerifiy requests data to support
the potential adjustment of the 260 mg/
kg total mercury distinction between the
high and low mercury subcategories.
The Agency requests data on difficult to
treat wastes, particularly ones that have
required one or more processings to
achieve a total mercury concentration of
less than 260 mg/kg, and on initial total
mercury content and total mercury
content after each treatment, together
with the associated analytical quality,
assurance measurements and operation
and design parameters of the unit. The
Agency reminds commenters submitting
data in support of their views to include
with the data evidence that appropriate
quality assurance/quality control29
(QA/QC) procedures were followed in
generating the data. Data that the
Agency cannot verify through QA/QC
documentation may be given less
consideration or disregarded in
developing regulatory options for
proposed and final rules. Also, it is
important that commenters demonstrate
their processes were optimized and
under stable operation during the test
period. The Agency also requests
information from retorting facilities
concerning the minimum, maximum,
and average concentration levels of
mercury wastes accepted at these
facilities.
4. Should the Agency Allow Alternative
(Non-Recycling) Treatment Options to
RMERC for High Mercury Wastes?
The Agency requests comment on
whether treatment options besides
recovery should be permissible for high
mercury subcategory wastes. Recycling
mercury in industrial processes and
using recycled mercury as a raw
material for commercial products are
potential sources of mercury releases
into the environment. Because mercury
releases to the environment have had
adverse impacts on both human health
and the environment, federal
regulations have concentrated on
controlling and, in some cases, phasing
out mercury use in industry. At least in
part, a result of these findings and
actions has been a decline in the use of
mercury in U.S. industry over the years.
Therefore, the Agency seeks
information on technologies that will
treat high mercury wastes into a safe
environmental form so that all mercury
28 Ibid
29 For guidance, see Final Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Procedures and Methodology: USEPA. October 23,
1991.
release pathways into the environment
are minimized. The Agency requests
comment on whether alternative land
disposal treatment technologies to
recovery (e.g., sulfide conversion and
stabilization with sulfur-polymer
cement) for high mercury wastes should
be made an option and requests data on
mercury releases from wastes treated by
these technologies. Data and
information should also be included on
the technology's ability to treat wastes
containing organics, and the maximum
organic level that the technology can
handle.
One waste form that deserves
particular mention is waste containing
mercuric sulfide. These wastes are
difficult to retort efficiently, and
additives are required to react with or
otherwise bind the elemental sulfur to
prevent its recombination with the
elemental mercury being recovered. As
an alternative, precipitation of mercury
using sulfide is a technology commonly
applied in wastewater treatment. The
Agency requests comment and data on
whether such wastes should be either
exempt from the RMERC requirement,
subject to numerical standards, or
subject to another technology standard.
5. Can Emissions From Secondary
Mercury Production Be Further
Reduced?
While the roasting/retorting processes
effectively recycle mercury and have air
emission controls, an estimated 0.4
Metric tons/yr of air emissions from
secondary mercury production still
exists. The Agency requests comment
on the feasibility of more efficient
controls during secondary mercury
production and on the use of enclosed
treatment processes.
6. Should EPA Consider Revising the
Debris Standards To Require That High
Mercury Subcategory Wastes That Also
Meet the Definition of Debris Be
Retorted?
The debris standards for hazardous
wastes are listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR
268.45. EPA requests comment on
potential revision of these standards to
require the roasting or retorting of
hazardous debris if the mercury
concentration is greater than or equal to
260 mg/kg total mercury. EPA dealt
with a specific case of mercury debris in
early 1997 involving Aid-to-Navigation
(ATON) batteries, and the most
appropriate treatment and disposal
method. At that time, EPA stated that it
is more appropriate to apply the debris
standards than the non-debris standards
for mercury wastes, the latter of which
would require RMERC (if the wastes
contain 260 mg/kg or more total
-------
28958
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
mercury). However, in subsequent
discussions with members of the
recycling industry, the Agency was
informed that retorting is indeed
feasible on these types of wastes. We are
seeking comments on whether the
debris standard should be revised to
require RMERC if the waste is in the
high mercury subcategory. Commenters
are encouraged to also include the
possible ramifications of such a
revision.
VI. Mercury Treatment Technologies—
Incineration of Mercury Wastes
A. Current Regulations
Three categories of waste streams
must or can be incinerated under the •
current LDR treatment standards. These
three are: D009 high mercury-organic
subcategory; P092 wastes regardless of
total mercury content that are not
incinerator residues or are not residues
from RMERC; and P065 wastes
regardless of the total mercury content
that are not incinerator or RMERC
residues. The current regulations
specify that incineration (IMERC) must
be performed in units operated in
accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 264,
subpart O and 40 CFR part 265, subpart
O.30 All wastewater and nonwastewater
residues derived from this treatment
process must then comply with the
corresponding treatment standards per
waste code, with consideration of any
applicable subcategories.
B. Characteristics of Mercury in
Incinerators and Current Emission
Control Systems
Mercury is slightly volatile at ambient
temperatures but is quite volatile at
temperatures common to thermal
treatment devices. It boils at
approximately 356 degrees Celsius and
typically escapes with other stack gases
from incineration. With respect to
mercury behavior in combustion
systems and existing control techniques,
mercury is volatilized and converted to
elemental mercury in the high
temperature regions of furnaces. As the
flue gas is cooled, elemental mercury is
oxidized to ionic forms. Elemental
mercury, mercuric chloride, and
mercuric oxide are all in the vapor
phase at flue gas cleaning temperatures
and special methods must be used for
their capture. Each of these forms of
mercury can be adsorbed onto porous
solids such as fly ash, powdered
activated carbon, and calcium based
acid gas sorbents for subsequent
collection in a particulate matter control
device. Only one hazardous waste
incinerator (WTI, Inc., East Liverpool,
Ohio) currently has this type of APCD
installed. Control of mercury in
municipal waste combustors has been
based on injection of powdered
activated carbon upstream of an
electrostatic precipitator or fabric filter,
and many municipal units have this
type of system installed.
Mercury compounds also can be
captured effectively using activated
carbon or other sorbents. Fixed bed,
fluidized bed, and duct injection
arrangements have all been
demonstrated to perform at 90% or '
more mercury removal efficiency, with
some as high as 99% or greater. Systems
without carbon injection, i.e., wet
scrubbing systems designed for acid
gases like hydrochloric acid, have much
poorer mercury capture efficiency
ranging from 0 to 40%. The highest
control levels for activated carbon
systems are achieved by optimizing the
carbon type and the critical operating
parameters of the control system. For
example, for activated carbon injection,
these parameters would include carbon
feedrate, injection location, and
temperature.31
C. Amount of Mercury Emitted from
Incinerators and Other Hazardous
Waste Combustors
As part of our current MACT
rulemaking to upgrade emission
standards for hazardous waste
incinerators and hazardous waste-
burning cement kilns and lightweight
aggregate kilns (collectively known as
hazardous waste combustors), the
Agency developed a 'database containing
detailed information on hazardous
waste emissions, including mercury.
The database also includes information
on the quantity of mercury in each
feedstream fed to the combustion unit.
These feedstreams include, if
applicable, the hazardous waste, coal
and other conventional fuels, and raw
materials.
Table 2, which is presented earlier in
this preamble, shows national emission
estimates for hazardous waste
combustors for 1990. 1994 and 1997. In
1990, mercury emissions from these
sources totaled approximately 6.4
metric tons per year. Table 2 shows a
further breakdown of the mercury
emissions contribution from each
hazardous waste combustor category.
For 1994, national emissions from
hazardous waste combustors were
estimated to be approximately 6.4
metric tons per year. These sources are
estimated to contribute approximately
4.4 percent of the total anthropogenic,
or man-made, emissions of mercury in
the U.S. For 1997, mercury emissions
from hazardous waste combustors total
approximately 6.0 metric tons per year.
In general, mercury emissions from
hazardous waste combustors have
decreased slightly between 1990 and
1997.32
D. General Waste Characterization Data
on Mercury in Hazardous Waste
Streams
Treatment capacity determinations for
the LDR program are generally made
based upon the broader Biennial Report
System database, which covers all types
of hazardous waste activities. If we were
to amend our LDR treatment standards
in any respect, we would also consult
this database. The 1995 Biennial Report
indicates that for mercury-bearing
wastes, 86,400 tons were incinerated
and 380,000 tons were reused as fuel
(i.e., sent to cement kilns and light
weight aggregate kilns). However, the
BRS system itself does not distinguish
between the high and low mercury
subcategories, nor does it show what
concentration of mercury is present in
these waste streams.
D009 wastes are extremely variable in
composition, and their characteristics
depend on the industry and process that
generate the waste. Mercury
concentrations in D009 wastes can range
from 0.2 ppm to greater than 75 percent
of the total waste composition.
Although characterization data for D009
wastes are limited, some conclusions
can be made regarding potential
treatability issues. According to the
1995 BRS, the three largest volumes of
D009 waste by waste form were reported
as "halogenated/nonhalogenated solvent
mixture" (21,700 tons), "other
halogenated solids" (8,400 tons), and
"concentrated sol vent-water solution"
(4,700 tons). These waste form
descriptions suggest that the mercury is
not the primary contaminant in the
wastes. Finally, because concentration
data are not provided in the BRS, D009
wastes could be comprised of both high
and low mercury subcategory wastes.
Certain D009 waste streams may be
incinerated for reasons other than the
LDR IMERC treatment requirement. For
example, BRS waste streams containing
M40 CFR 264 subpart 0 and 265 subpart O are
the regulations Tor hazardous waste Incinerators.
31 Draft Technical Support Document for HWC
MACT Standards, USEPA, February 1996, F-96-
RCSP-S0047.
32 When interpreting any apparent data trends in
Table 2, you should note that differences in
emissions estimates are due to a combination of
factors including actual data from performance in
the field, revisions to our estimation methodology,
and changes in the number of facilities operating
within each category. See documents noted as
sources for Table 2.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28959
hazardous materials, particularly
dioxins and PCBs, as well as certain
ignitables and reactives require
incineration treatment. Incineration and
other types of combustion are the only
common treatment methods that
completely destroy dioxins and PCBs.
Therefore, many of the waste streams
reported to the 1995 BRS may have to
be processed using incineration
regardless of the mercury content. Many
waste streams contain D009 mercury
organic-bearing wastes from lab packs,
halogenated/nonhalogenated solvent
mixtures, certain halogenated solids,
oily sludges, and organic paints.
No waste characterization data were
found for P065 listed wastes. Two
facilities in the 1995 BRS reported
incineration of P065.
Very little data are available on the
composition of P092 listed wastes. The
primary constituent of P092 listed
wastes is phenylmercury acetate;
organic constituents (in, particular,
benzene) are also expected to be present
(USEPA 1989). Five facilities in the
1995 BRS reported incineration of P092.
E. EPA's Re-Evaluation of the MERC
Standard
As discussed earlier, the current LDR
regulations require or allow incineration
of three types of waste streams, most
notably D009 wastes that contain
mercury above 260 mg/kg and that also
contain some organics (i.e., the high
mercury organic subcategory). The two
original premises behind IMERC were
that: (1) incineration would destroy the
organic component or organomercury
complexes in the waste stream, and the
residues, if greater than 260 mg/kg total
mercury, would be retorted to recover
the mercury; and (2) applicable
regulatory controls would provide
adequate control of mercury air
emissions.
With respect to the premise that
mercury would be recovered from
incineration systems, either incinerator
bottom ash residues or emission control
residues (e.g., spent activated carbon,
scrubber sludges) could be sent to
mercury recovery units. Incinerator
bottom ash is likely to contain little
mercury, however, because mercury is
easily volatilized to the combustion gas.
In addition, incinerators generally are
not equipped with emission control
equipment that removes mercury from
combustion gas. In fact, the latest BRS
report shows no record of incinerator
residuals going to mercury recovery
units. As a practical matter, although
incineration destroys the organics, it
does not make the mercury particularly
amenable to recovery. It is therefore
difficult to regard incineration as
contributing to the recovery of mercury,
which was one of our original premises.
With respect to the second premise
that applicable regulatory controls
would provide adequate control of
mercury emissions from incineration,
neither the incinerator or BIF
regulations nor the LDR regulations
specifically require the use of emission
control devices that effectively capture
mercury (e.g., activated carbon). As
implemented in practice, the BIF
regulations and some incinerator
permits restrict mercury in the
hazardous waste feed. Because feed .
restrictions are not so stringent as to
eliminate mercury in the feedstream and
because the current regulations do not
require the use of emission control
devices that efficiently capture arid
remove mercury, it is still emitted to the
atmosphere.33
While the recently proposed (61 FR
17358, April 19, 1996) Hazardous Waste
Combustor Maximum Achievable
Control Technologies (MACT)
regulations will impose some emission
limitations on mercury emissions from
hazardous waste incinerators, cement
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns,
these regulations are unlikely to require
the capture and recovery of mercury
from the combustion emissions or other
combustion residuals. Thus, the
implementation focus at individual
combustion facilities is expected to
continue to be controlling feedrate
levels of mercury-bearing hazardous
waste into the combustion device. The
Agency is likely to determine under the
final MACT rule that requiring specific
APCDs on hazardous waste combustors
to capture mercury is not cost-effective.
Although feed restrictions can and do
reduce mercury emissions and to some
extent the associated risks, we are still
concerned with the environmental
loading of mercury. The MACT rule
does not take into account the long-
range transport of mercury emissions,
and uncertainties in the HWC MACT
risk assessment allow the Agency to
conclude only that risks from mercury
emissions within 20 kilometers are
likely to be small.34 The Agency wishes
to consider whether we can further
reduce the environmental loading by
amending the LDR regulations to reduce
the volume of mercury wastes that
33 Mercury emissions can also be controlled under
special conditions imposed through RCRA omnibus
authority. See § 270.32(b).
34 "Risk Assessment Support to the Development
of Technical Standards for Emissions from
Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes:
Background Information Document," February 20,
1996.
require IMERC and to promote the use
of alternative treatment methods.
Thus, the IMERC standard bears
further investigation to see whether,
given the heightened concern over all
sources of mercury emissions, even ones
at relatively low levels, alternative LDR
approaches may be appropriate to
ensure better protection of human
health and the environment. We note
that EPA must address any significant
remaining residual risks posed by
sources subject to the MACT
technology-based standards within eight
years after promulgation of the
Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT
standards. See section 112(f)(2). The
Agency is required to impose additional
controls if such controls are needed to
protect public health with an ample
margin of safety, or to prevent adverse
environmental effects. Our mercury
reevaluation in this proceeding is also
expected to assist EPA in any residual
risk evaluation.
F. Additional Considerations Related to
Alternatives to Incineration
A possible alternative to incineration
for some mercury-bearing wastes is the
physical separation of the mercury
containing and organic components of
the waste streams. Mercury retorters
report that mercury-bearing organic
wastes may be separated prior to
treatment, when the mercury is
associated with particulates in the
waste. After retorting of the particulates,
the retort condenser sludge is separated
and returned to the retorting process for
additional mercury recovery. The
residual organic phase with reduced
mercury content is then incinerated.
While such waste separations may be
feasible for organic wastes containing
inorganic mercury, such separations
would likely not work for
organomercury wastes. Thermal or other
destruction of the organomercury
compounds present appears to be
needed to convert the organomercury
compounds to a recoverable form, as
was originally envisioned in the IMERC
standard.
G. Request for Comment
The Agency has several potential
concerns with the IMERC standard.
Specifically, from the available
combustion database and the BRS data,
it appears that non-trivial volumes of
mercury-bearing waste are going to
combustion units. As discussed above,
because mercury is a volatile metal and
unless the combustion unit has an
APCD capable of capturing mercury
emissions (normally not the case),
potentially all of the mercury fed into
-------
28960
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
the unit will be vaporized and released
into the atmosphere.
The Agency specifically requests
comment on the following:
1. What Mercury Waste Streams Will
Continue to Warrant IMERC?
There may be wastes for which
incineration is the best available
treatment option, for example, wastes
with low mercury concentrations and
high levels of organics, mercury wastes
containing PCBs. and mercury wastes
containing or combined with reactive
and ignitable hazardous waste. In an
attempt to identify such wastes, the
Agency examined BRS data for wastes
that are D009 and also contain dioxins
or PCBs. A search of the 1995 BRS data
showed only one hazardous waste
incinerator that processed waste streams
containing both D009 wastes and dioxin
wastes. (EPA hazardous waste codes
F020-F023 and F026-F028). According
to the 1995 BRS, the facility processed
approximately 80 tons of wastes
containing dioxins from 27 separate
waste streams. Many of these wastes are
from soil and debris from facility
decommissioning. However, no
concentration data were available. Three
facilities process waste streams
containing both D009 wastes and PCB
wastes. These facilities processed
approximately 446 tons of wastes from
22 separate waste streams in 1995. Most
of the PCB wastes were organic solids
and sludges and again, no concentration
data were available. Waste streams
containing reactive and ignitable
hazardous wastes covered a wide
variety of waste stream codes. Many of
the Ignitable and reactive wastes were
flammable liquids, solvents, and
petroleum. In addition, it appears there
are other waste streams, such as oily
wastes, that require incineration.
However, inorganic mercury is
generally associated with solids in
highly organic wastes. These mercury-
bearing solids can be separated by
centrifuge prior to retorting. The Agency
requests information on mercury-
bearing wastes that may continue to
require incineration, and on wastes that
would be amenable to the separation of
mercury solids for recovery prior to
incineration of the remainder of the
waste. Specifically, the Agency requests
comment on the feasibility of requiring
the separation of mercury-bearing solids
from organic wastes and identification
of any wastes for which such
pretreatment would not be feasible.
2. What Alternative Technologies Are
Available To Treat Mercury Wastes
Containing Organics While Also
Minimizing Mercury Emissions?
Because mercury emissions from
incinerators may be costly to control,
alternative technologies are sought that
can either recycle the mercury in the
wastes, separate the mercury from the
organics prior to incineration of the
organics, or produce a stable residue for
disposal that reduces the risks attributed
to the organic and mercury constituents.
The Agency seeks waste
characterization and technology
performance data on alternative
technologies for the treatment of wastes
that are currently incinerated.
We also request information on the
impediments to using alternative
technologies, such as RMERC, to treat
mercury wastes containing organics
(RMERC is currently listed as an
alternative in the regulations), and
whether the organics can be destroyed
or captured. Would an alternative
technology such as an oxidation-
leaching-precipitation train be more
desirable? What are the concentration
limits of organics that could be treated
by these alternative technologies? If
these alternative technologies are shown
to effectively treat mercury wastes
containing organics, should the
incineration standard then be retained
only if the unit has appropriate APCDs
to capture the mercury and/or only if
the organics in the wastes are "hard to
treat?" The Agency specifically requests
comment and data supporting
commenter's views on these issues. The
Agency also requests information
regarding the current capacity of
alternative oxidation technologies.
VII. Regulatory Options Involving
Source Reduction
As discussed above, EPA's current
LDR regulations set both technology and
numerical based treatment standards
that require waste management facilities
to either retort, roast, or incinerate
hazardous wastes that contain greater
than 260 mg/kg of total mercury
(depending on the presence of organics;
see Table 4); or treat hazardous wastes
that contain less than 260 mg/kg of total
mercury to 0.025 mg/L TCLP prior to
land disposal.
Some companies have found ways to
reduce or eliminate the amount of
mercury in their waste by making
changes in their production processes
and plant management, including
changing raw materials, equipment,
process design, and maintenance
activities. In some cases, these changes
have taken several years to design, test
and install, while simultaneously
relying on costly treatment technology
to remain in compliance. For example,
chlor-alkali producers, which are the
largest manufacturing users of mercury
in the U.S., have historically relied on
a mercury cell process to manufacture
chlorine and caustic soda. Caustic soda
produced from this process may contain
mercury, which in turn may
contaminate other products and
generate mercury-bearing hazardous
wastes. By 1994, approximately one-half
of the chlor-alkali plants had changed to
a membrane cell production process,
which does not use mercury. The
membrane cell process has resulted in
better environmental results and lower
energy and waste management costs for
the facilities that use this technology.
EPA wishes to consider regulatory
options that produce superior
environmental results and cost-savings
for the regulated community beyond the
requirements of end-of-pipe technology
standards. EPA recognizes that once a
company invests in end-of-pipe
recovery or treatment technologies that
meet compliance requirements, there
may be little or no incentive to invest
more money in process changes that
would reduce or eliminate a particular
hazardous waste, particularly since
there would be no relief from waste
management costs while process
changes are being designed and tested.
In today's document, EPA is seeking
comment on potential regulatory
incentives that would encourage
companies to invest in manufacturing
process redesign, raw materials
substitution or other technologies that
would reduce the amount of mercury
found in hazardous waste. To make this
approach incentive-based, EPA is
seeking views and information on the
possibility of extending LDR
compliance dates for companies willing
to develop and/or install technologies
that could be used instead of, or in
combination with, end-of-pipe
technologies to reduce the generation of
mercury-bearing hazardous wastes.
One approach EPA is considering is a
two-part LDR standard. The first part of
this standard would be a traditional
standard, developed from data on the
best available treatment technologies.
The second and novel part of the
standard would be an alternative
standard that facilities could elect in
lieu of the first, more traditionally-based
standard. This alternative standard
would involve the installation of source
reduction-oriented process changes that
would either reduce the volume of
mercury waste produced or the
concentration of mercury in the wastes.
As an incentive for encouraging
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday. May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28961
companies to comply with the
alternative standard (particularly if the
mercury concentration level is lower
than the level for the first part of the
standard), EPA would extend the
generator exclusion from permitting
beyond the current 90 days, or provide
some other kind of incentive.
EPA is seeking comment on the
development of a two-part standard, like
the one discussed above, or another
standard that provides economic or
regulatory incentives to promote source
reduction of mercury in hazardous
wastes. EPA would also like comment
on whether extending the compliance
dates would foster reductions in wastes
beyond the limits achievable using end-
of-the pipe treatment technologies.
VIII. Mixed Wastes
Ongoing inventory of mercury-
contaminated wastes currently awaiting
disposal at Department of Energy (DOE)
facilities has identified 7,284 cubic
meters of such wastes: These wastes are
the legacy of past nuclear weapons
production for national defense. Table 5
presents an inventory of this waste.
TABLE 5.—MERCURY CONTAINING .
WASTES AT DOE FACILITIES
Category
Elemental
<260 mg/kg
>260 mg/kg
Unknown
Total
Inventory
(cubic
meters)
17
6000
325
942
7.284
Source: DOE Mercury Working Group,
1999.
Under current regulations, no separate
treatment category exists for high
mercury wastes that also contain
radioactive materials. Therefore, the
regulations direct that high mercury-
organic subcategory mixed wastes be
subjected to RMERC or IMERC and that
high mercury-inorganic subcategory
mixed wastes be subjected to RMERC.
At the time of promulgation, these
regulations intended that the mercury
be separated from the wastes and
recycled. However, with the cessation of
nuclear weapon production, there are
no longer any uses for mercury that is
still contaminated with radioactive
materials. Thus, current regulations may
result in the contamination (by
radiation) of additional equipment to
recover mercury that has no subsequent
use and for which the treatment
standard for disposal is again RMERC.
Department of Energy's (DOE) Mixed
Waste Focus Area-Mercury Working
Group, in conjunction,with EPA, has
initiated studies of theidirect treatability
of high mercury-inorganic subcategory
wastes for direct disposal;: Should these
tests demonstrate the successful
treatment of such wastes, EPA could, as
part of this or a separate LDR
rulemaking, create a separate
subcategory for these mercury-bearing
mixed wastes and potentially develop a
numerical treatment standard for the
subcategory. These treatability studies
include the evaluation of technologies
such as alternative oxidation
technologies, stabilization using
specialized amendments, amalgamation
technologies, sulfur polymer cement
stabilization, and mercury solubilization
and removal. Further information on
these technologies is located in the
docket to today's ANPRM. The Agency
expects that several of these studies will
be further along by the time of a
proposed rule (scheduled to follow this
ANPRM by approximately one year).
Any available data, from these tests will
be discussed in the proposed rule and
placed in the docket to that rule.
The Agency specifically requests
comments on eliminating the RMERC
standard for mixed mercury wastes, and
on allowing the use of alternative
technologies that are currently being
investigated by EPA and DOE, with the
residuals having to comply with a
numerical limit.
IX. Discussion of Alternative Treatment
Technologies
A. Possible Alternative Technologies to
Retorting
As discussed in the May 1990 Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) Background Document for
Mercury Containing Wastes, retorting is
not the only technology that has been
used in treating high mercury wastes.
Alternative treatment technologies are
categorized as either removal/recovery
technologies or immobilization
technologies. These alternatives are
presently used, or could potentially be
used for treating such wastes.
Alternative treatment technologies
presently exist, or have existed in the
past, for two reasons. First, the
alternative technology may be simply
another competing process to remove
mercury from, or fix mercury within, a
matrix. Second, the technology may
overcome restrictive waste
characteristics that cause difficulty
during retorting or roasting. For
example, several processes are actually
"pretreatment" processes to prepare the
waste for retorting. These processes
remove waste characteristics that
restrict treatment, such as water content.
and convert mercury compounds into
easier to treat forms.
Several technologies which may hold
some promise for the treatment of high
mercury wastes include the following:
Removal/Recovery Technologies
(1) Acid/chemical leaching (solids,
slurries, or aqueous wastes). The
mercury is converted to a more soluble
form and thus is removed from the
waste matrix.
(2) Carbon adsorption (aqueous
wastes or vapors). Mercury retort
facilities commonly use carbon
adsorption as a way of removing and
concentrating mercury removed from
stack gas or effluents.
(3) Ion exchange. Ions in the exchange
resin are substituted for mercury ions of
similar charge.
These technologies are described in
more detail in the background
document "Waste Specific Evaluation of
RMERC Treatment Standard."
Immobilization Technologies
(1) Solidification/stabilization (solids
or slurries). Solidification/
stabilization (S/S) processes are
nondestructive methods to immobilize
the hazardous constituents in a matrix
while decreasing the waste surface area
and permeability.35 Common S/S agents
include Type 1 Portland cement, lime,
and fly ash. The final product can be a
monolith of any practical size or a
granular material resembling soil.36
Sulfur polymer cement (SPC) is one
stabilization technology that can be
used to convert mercury compounds to
mercuric sulfide and encapsulate
simultaneously (U.S. DOE, 1998).
However, the encapsulation process
temperatures can volatilize mercury, so
the mercury vapor and oxide that forms
must be captured and recycled in the
process.
(2) Amalgamation. Amalgamation
typically involves the mixing of
elemental mercury with a powdered
granular metal (typically zinc), forming
a non-liquid, semi-solid matrix of
elemental mercury and the metal. Two
generic processes that are used for
amalgamating mercury in wastes are an
aqueous replacement (solution) process,
and a non aqueous process.37
The Agency requests more
information, including any data from
treatability studies and their
35 U.S. EPA, Technical Resource Document:
Solidification/Stabilization and its Application to
Waste Materials, EPA/530/R-93/012, June 1993.
«U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Solidification/
Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics, EPA/540/
S-92/015, February 1993.
37 U.S. EPA, Treatment Technology Background
Document, January 1991, pages 74-80.
-------
28962
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
applications to various waste matrices,
on these technologies.
B. Possible Alternative Technologies to
Incineration
This section discusses the treatment
technologies that are being studied to
treat high mercury wastes currently
requiring incineration. The goal of these
technologies is to achieve the same
degree of destruction of the organic
compounds as is achieved with
incineration, while maintaining control
over the residual mercury. Many
variables need to be considered,
Including the degree of organic
destruction required prior to further
mercury treatment, the degree of
mercury speciation control required by
the waste form, and other operating
procedures to ensure mercury extraction
from nonwastewaters and wastewaters.
Because the mercury cannot be
destroyed, various treatment process
steps are necessary to treat or recover
the mercury, depending on the mercury
species present in the waste, its
concentration, and the overall waste
form.
Currently, the only common process
capable of destroying organics is
oxidation, which can be done thermally
or chemically. It is usually combined
with other technologies to form a
treatment train. One such train is the
oxidation, leaching, and precipitation
train, which has been shown to be
effective in treating high mercury wastes
currently requiring incineration. Once
the organics are destroyed, leaching and
precipitation treat the inorganic
mercury forms, such as oxides and
hydroxides. The resulting waste is then
suitable for retorting or immobilization
prior to disposal. Note that this type of
treatment train cannot destroy dioxins,
furans, or PCBs.
The Agency also has limited
information on a number of developing
technologies including nonthermal (i.e.,
Delphi DETOX (Delphi Research), Direct
Chemical Oxidation (LLNL), Acid
Digestion (Savannah River)) and thermal
processes (such as steam reforming)
(ThermoChem Inc.), and Catalytic
Chemical Oxidation (LBNL)) under
development in support of the waste
treatment needs of the Department of
Energy facilities. One or more of these
technologies may soon be available and
used for mercury-bearing wastes,
followed by stabilization. EPA requests
further information on the
aforementioned technologies, as well as
any others that may be used in place of
1MERC.
C. Current Mercury Treatment
Companies
Several sources were researched to
identify facilities and companies that
provide alternative treatment for
mercury-bearing organic wastes. These
sources include BDAT capacity
background documents, the 1995
Biennial Reporting System (BRS),
Alternative Technology Treatment
Information Center (ATTIC) database,
Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT) database, technical background
documents, online web searches for .
company and treatment technology
profiles, and the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
database. Limited information is
available on vendors and facilities that
treat mercury-bearing organic wastes
using methods other than incineration
or retorting. BRS data indicate that there
are numerous facilities that treat
mercury-bearing organic wastes. The
BRS waste management code, the code
used to report the final treatment of the
waste, in a few cases indicated there is
acid leaching or oxidation used to treat
the mercury-bearing organic waste
stream. This may be because the final
treatment step is the only management
code reported, and does not indicate if
a multiple step process is used. The
predominant treatments reported in BRS
are stabilization/chemical fixation using
cementitious and/or pozzolanic
materials and phase separation. There
are several data gaps that require further
investigation on a process and waste
stream specific level. In addition, the
BRS data do not adequately describe the
organic content of the actual waste
stream being treated, especially where
multiple waste form codes are reported
together with the D009 code. A table
listing the mercury treatment facilities is
provided in the background document
"Analysis of Alternatives to Incineration
for Mercury Wastes Containing
Organics," which can be found in the
docket to today's ANPRM.
D. Request for Comment
The Agency seeks comments on the
viability and parameters of these
alternative technologies and any other
technologies not specifically mentioned
in this ANPRM. Specifically, the
Agency seeks the following information:
description of the process; types of
wastes capable of being treated; total,
leachable, and volatile mercury content
of the wastes and of the residues
following treatment; amount of mercury
air emissions from treatment; operating
conditions and parameters; data
showing the efficiency of the
technology; commercial availability of
the technologies and their available
capacity; limitations of the technologies;
cost information for these alternative
technologies; and other potential
benefits of using these alternative
technologies over the existing treatment
technologies. All data submitted should
have appropriate QA/QC documentation
to ensure their consideration by the
Agency. Data without QA/QC may be
disregarded.
X. Possible Revisions to the Mercury
LDRs
A. Purpose of ANPRM
The Agency plans to examine
potential revisions to the LDR mercury
treatment standards, including the
potential to encourage manufacturing
process changes (i.e., source reduction
changes) that further reduce the amount
of mercury entering hazardous waste
streams, as the next step in this
rulemaking process. The Agency
decided that this ANPRM is necessary
before proposal development because
the Agency would benefit from
additional mercury treatment data,
including information on source
reduction opportunities, as well as
industry information to consider in
amending the standards. The nature and
extent of these amendments have not
yet been determined. This ANPRM is
expected to be beneficial to the
regulating entities (including States), the
regulated community, and the public as
a means of public outreach and
opportunity for public comment early in
the rulemaking process. EPA encourages
all interested persons to submit
comments, and to identify any relevant
issues not addressed by this ANPRM.
The Agency also welcomes comments
regarding whether the LDR mercury
treatment standards should be revised.
The Agency encourages commenters to
submit examples or documentation to
support their positions. The input from
public comment will assist the Agency
in developing a proposed rule that
successfully addresses all appropriate
revisions to these standards. An Agency
decision to issue a proposed rule to
revise LDR mercury treatment standards
and the nature of those revisions will be
ultimately based on the comments
received on this ANPRM, as well as data
obtained from other sources (e.g.,
ongoing treatability studies).
B. Schedule
The Agency has general plans to
release a notice of proposed rulemaking
by early 2000. The final rule date will
depend on the amount of information
submitted and the issues raised.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 103/Friday, May 28, 1999/Proposed Rules
28963
C. Impact on Small Businesses
The Agency believes, at this point,
that the impact on small businesses will
not be significant. EPA requests
comment on the potential costs and
benefits to small businesses, should
revisions be made to the LDR mercury
treatment standards as described in this
ANPRM. Suggestions on ways the
Agency might mitigate any adverse
effects would also be welcome. .
D. Impact on State Programs
The Agency will be cognizant of the
impact of any proposed revisions to the
LDR mercury treatment standards on
State programs, and encourages
comments on this subject.
XI. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. This
ANPRM will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because it does not create any
new requirements. Therefore, EPA
provides the following certification
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act:
Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C.
605 (b), I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
However, there is the potential for
future actions related to this ANPRM to
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. ,
Therefore, the Agency will examine
whether the Regulatory Flexibility Act '
applies in the preparation of any future
rulemakings related to this ANPRM.
B. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental'health iSr safety effects of
the plannedirule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This ANPRM is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it is does not, at this
point, involve decisions intended to
mitigate environmental health or safety
risks. Of course, as the information in
response to this ANPRM is evaluated,
we will continue to examine whether
E.O. 13045 applies.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements
Dated: May 21, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-13659 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-7290]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are requested on the
proposed base (1% annual chance) flood
elevations and proposed base flood
elevation modifications for the
communities listed below. The base
flood elevations and modified base
flood elevations are the basis for the
floodplain management measures that
the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or
remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90) days following the second
publication of this proposed rule in a
newspaper of local circulation in each
community.
ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood
elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of
the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses
are listed in the following table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :
Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards
Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management •
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington,
DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, or (e-mail)
matt.miller@fema.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The
Federal Emergency Management Agency
proposes to make determinations of base
flood elevations and modified base
flood elevations for each community
listed below, in accordance with Section
110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
These proposed base flood and
modified base flood elevations, together
with the floodplain management criteria
required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the
minimum that are required. They
should not be construed to mean that
the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The
community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or
pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
These proposed elevations are used to
meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also
used to calculate the appropriate flood
insurance premium rates for new
buildings built after these elevations are
made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
National Environmental Policy Act
This proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44
CFR Part 10, Environmental
Consideration. No environmental
impact assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Associate Director for Mitigation
certifies that this proposed rule is
exempt from the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act because
proposed or modified base flood
elevations are required by the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4104, and are required to
establish and maintain community
eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory
flexibility analysis has been prepared.
-------
------- |