September 25, 1989
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 262
Mining Wast© Exclusion and Definition of
Designated Facility; Proposed Rule--,
-------
39298 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 /Monday, September 25, 1989/ Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261, and 262
ISWH-FRi. 3642-8; EPA/OSW-FR-89-025]
Mining Waste Exclusion and Definition
of Designated Facility
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: In today's notice, EPA
proposes to permanently remove seven
of the 20 conditionally retained mineral
processing wastes from the Bevill
exclusion. Wastes removed from the
exclusion will become subject to
hnardous waste regulations if they are
found to exhibit a hazardous
characteristic or are otherwise identified
or listed as hazardous. In compliance
wllh « Court order, the Agency will
finalize the scope of the Bevill exclusion
for the 20 mineral processing wastes by
January 15,1990. The seven wastes
proposed for removal from the Bevill
exclusion are: roast/leach ore residue
from primary chromite production,
process wnstewater from coal
gasification, furnace off-gas solids from
elemental phosphorus production,
process waatewater from hydrofluoric
acid production, process wastewater
from primary lead processing, sulfate
process waste acids from titanium
dioxide production, and sulfate process
waste solids from titanium dioxide
production. Wastes remaining within the
exclusion will be addressed hi a Report
to Congress and subsequent Regulatory
Determination by January 31,1991.
* In addition, today's notice contains a
Sroposnl to modify the RCRA subtitle C
efMUon of "designated facility" for
purposes of clarifying the requirements
for completing hazardous waste
shipment manifests for transporting
wastes from one state where they are
regulated as hazardous to another in
which they are not regulated as
hazardous.
Section 3Q01(bH3HA)(ii) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) excludes "solid waste from
the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals" from
regulation as hazardous waste under
subtitle C of RCRA, pending completion
of certain studies by EPA. In 1980, EPA
interpreted this exclusion (on a
temporary basis) to encompass "solid
waste from the exploration, mining,
milling, smelting, and refining of ores
and minerals" (45 FR 70619, November
19,1980).
EPA proposed the criteria by which
mineral processing wastes would be
evaluated for continued exclusion on
October 20,1988 (53 FR 41288) and
proposed revisions to the criteria on
April 17,1989 (54 FR 15316). On August
18 (see 54 FR 36592; September 1,1989),
EPA published the final criteria, and
took final action on the Bevill status of
all but 20 mineral processing waste
streams. The Agency conditionally
retained these 20 mineral processing
wastes within the exclusion from
subtitle C regulation provided by sectibn
3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) of RCRA pending
collection and analysis of additional
information.
DATES: EPA will accept public
comments on this proposal until
November 9,1989. The Agency will hold
a public hearing on October 27,1989
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless
concluded earlier.
ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the
public hearing should be submitted in
writing to the Public Hearings Officer,
Office of Solid Waste, (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
public hearing will be at the Washington
Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle NW.,
Washington, DC. The hearing will begin
at 9:00 a.m., with registration beginning
at 8:30 a.m. The hearing will end at 5:00
p.m., unless concluded earlier. Oral and
written statements may be submitted at
the public hearing. Persons who wish to
make oral presentations must restrict
these to 15 minutes, and are requested
to provide written comments for
inclusion in the official record.
Those wishing to submit public
comments for the record must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to the following address:
RCRA Docket Information Center (OS-
305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Place the docket #F-89-
MW2P-FFFFF on your comments.
The OSW docket is located in room
M2427 at EPA headquarters. The docket
is open from 9:00 to 4:00 Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. Members of the public must
make an appointment to review docket
materials. Call (202) 475-9327 for
appointments. Copies cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-
9346 or (202) 382-3000, or for technical
information contact Dan Derkics or Bob
Hall, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 382-3608, or (202) 475-
8814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. History
B. Overview of Today's Proposed Rule
C. Future Activities
II. The Bevill Exclusion Definitions and
Criteria
A. Definition of Mineral Processing and
Beneficiation
B. The High Volume Criterion
C. The Low Hazard Criterion
III. Overview of Twenty Conditionally
Retained Mineral Processing Wastes
A. Roast/leach ore residue from primary
chromite production
B. Gasifier ash from coal gasification
C. Process wastewater from coal
gasification
D. Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primary copper
processing
E. Slag tailings from primary copper
processing
F. Furnace off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorus production
G. Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid
production
H. Process wastewater from hydrofluoric
acid production
I. Air pollution control dust/sludge from
iron blast furnaces
J. Iron blast furnace slag
K. Process wastewater from primary lead
production
L, Air pollution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production
M. Process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process
N. Process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production
O. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace air pollution control dust/sludge
from carbon steel production
P. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace slag from carbon steel
production
Q. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production
R. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production
S. Chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetrachloride production
T. Slag from primary zinc processing
IV. Application of Bevill Exclusion Criteria
A. High Volume Criterion
B. Low Hazard Criterion
C. Consolidation of Results
V. Proposed Bevill Status of Twenty
Conditionally Retained Mineral
Processing Wastes
A. Wastes Proposed for Retention within
the Exclusion
B. Wastes Proposed for Removal from the
Exclusion
VI. Regulatory Implementation and Effective
Dates of the Final Rule
A. Section 3010 Notification
B. Definition of Designated Facility
C. Compliance Dates
VII. Effect on State Authorizations
VIII. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
A. Approach
B. Aggregate and Sector Compliance Costs
C. Economic Impacts
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
-------
25V 1989 / Proposed Rules
39299
A. Definition of Affected Small Entities
B. Results
X. List of Subjects 'in 40 CFR 260; 261, and 262
I. introduction
A. History ;
Section 30Ql{b}(3)(AJ(ii) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) excludes "solid waste from
the extraction, beneficiatiori, and
processing of ores and minerals" from
regulation as hazardous waste under
subtitle G of RCRA, pending completion
ofjrertain studies by EPA.. In 1980, EPA
1-" "
1. Roast/leach ore. residue from
primary chromite production.
2. Gasifier ash from coal gasification.
3. Process wastewater from coal
gasification.
4. Calcium suffate wastewater
treatment plant sludge from primary
copper processing.
5. Slag tailings from primary copper
processing.
6. Furnace off-gas solids from
,elemental phosphorus production.
7. Eliiorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production.
considered to be hazardous to a state
where the waste is not regulated as
hazardous. This situation can arise
when EPA lists or identifies a new
waste as hazardous under its pre-
HSWA authority, as is proposed in
today's notice implementing the final
Bevill criteria for mineral processing
wastes. EPA believes that the regulatory
language should be clarified regarding
these interstate waste shipments.
B. Overview of Today's Proposed Rule
^^ITiKSSdS
milhng, smelting, and refining of ores
and minerals" (45 FR 76619r November
19,1980).
EPA proposed the criteria by wMcn
mineral processing wastes would be
evaluated for continued exclusion on
October 20; 1988 [53 FR 41288) and
proposed revisions to the criteria on
April 17, 1989 (54 FR 15318). On
September 1,1989 (see 54 FR 36592) '
EPA provided the final Bevill exclusion
criteria. (See section II of this preamble
for a complete presentation of the
definitions of mineral processing and
beneficiation Wastes and the high
volume and low hazard criteria.)
The September rulemaking also
finalized the Bevill status of nine
mineral processing waste streams that
had been proposed either for retention
within or removal from the exclusion in
the April 1989 notice. EPA temporarily
retained for study in the July 1990 Report
to Congress five wastes within the Bevill
exclusion: • ,
1. Slag from primary copper
processing.
2. Slag from primary lead processing.
d. Ked and brown muds from bauxite
processing.
4. Phosphogypsum from phosphoric
acid production.
5. Slag from elemental phosphorus
production.
EPA permanently removed the
remaining four wastes from the Bevill
exclusion:
1. Acid plant and scrubber blowdown
from primary copper processing -
2. Acid plan£ blowdown from primarv
lead processing.
3. Furnace scrubber blowdown from
elemental phosphorus production.
4, Air pollution control scrubber
.blowdown from primary tin processing
In addition, the Agency modified the
list of mineral processing wastes
proposed for conditional retention in
April 1989. In the September 1989
rulemaking, the Agency conditionally
retained 20 mineral processing wastes
within the Bevffl exclusion:
roiltloriQ 3cif^ nrnrn*r»Hnvi
A • ij ^*" J.-*i«U.UGt3On»
- Air portion- control dust/sludge
from iron blast furnaces. 9
10. Iron blast furnace slag
11. Process wastewater from-primary
lead production, y
12. Air pollution control dust/sludge
from lightweight aggregate production.
13. Process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process. f
14. Process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production.
15. Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace air pollution control
dust/sludge from carbon steel
production.
16. Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production.
,17. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production.
18. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production.
19. Chloride process waste solids from
9n ^ te,trachlori
-------
39300
Federal Rogister / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25. 1989 / Proposed Rules
processing wastes from the Bevill
exclusion, and to temporarily retain 13
mineral processing wastes within the
exclusion fin addition to the five already
retained in the September 1 rule),
pending preparation of a Report to
Congress and the subsequent Regulatory
Determination. The seven mineral
processing wastes proposed for removal
from the Bevill exclusion are:
1, Roast/leach ore residue from
primary chromlte production.
2. Process waslewater from coal
gasification.
8, Furnace off-gas solids from
elemental phosphorus production.
4, Process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production.
5. Process wastewater from primary
lead processing,
6. Sulfate process waste acids irom
titanium dioxide production.
7. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production.
The 13 mineral processing wastes
proposed for temporary retention within
the Bevill exclusion are:
1 Giisifierash from coal gasification.
2, Calcium sulfate wastewater
treatment plant sludge from primary
^SlagTaifings from primary copper
PTFf uorogypsum from hydrofluoric
add production. .
8. Air pollution control dust/sludge
from Iron blast furnaces.
& Iron blast furnace slag.
7, Air pollution control dust/sludge
fcun lightweight aggregate production.
& Process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process. ,
0 Process wastewater irom
phosphoric acid production.
10, Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace air pollution control
" " " j from carbon steel
waste. This regulatory change would
only apply where a hazardous waste in
one state is shipped to a facility in a
second state that has not yet regulated
the waste as hazardous. (In fact, EPA
currently interprets the definition of
"designated facility" in this manner.)
EPA solicits public comment on the
data used to make the proposed Bevill
mineral processing waste exclusion
decisions outlined below, and on the
proposed modification to the definition
of "designated facility." The Agency will
^o^n^ta^TS^aSalr^ffm^^*"1
processing wastes criteria. These
criteria were made final in the
September 1 rule, and were developed
following and in response to comments
A. Definition of Mineral Processing and
Beneficiation
For purposes of this rule, mineral
processing wastes are generated by
operations downstream of beneficiation
(as defined by the September 1,1989
rule) and originate from a mineral
processing operation as defined by the
following elements:
(1) Excluded Bevill wastes must be
solid wastes as defined by EPA.
(2) Excluded solid wastes must be
uniquely associated with mineral
production. ,
11. Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
or process waste solids from
titanium telrachloride production.
13, Slag from primary zinc processing.
The Agency will take final action on the
S» .of *c Bevill exclusion for mineral
processing wastes by January 15, 1990.
In addition, the Agency is today
proposing a clarification to the
definition of "designated facility to
alleviate any confusion that the public
*** , . *« . i ___ _ __ .«!*,, -mair hnv
October. 1988 and April,
C. Future Activities
This rule proposes the final Bevill
exclusion status of 20 conditionally
retained mineral processing wastes,
based upon information collected by or
submitted to the Agency during recent
months. EPA will take final actioni onL_
the proposed wastes by January 15,1990.
At that time, the final boundaries of the
Bevill exclusion for mineral processing
wastes will be established.
EPA will conduct a detailed study of
all mineral processing wastes retained
within the final Bevill exclusion .
boundaries. EPA will summarize the
findings of these studies in a Report to
Congress to be submitted by July 31,
1990.
Six months, after submission of this
report, the Agency will publish a
Regulatory Determination stating
whether any of the studied wastes
merits regulation under subtitle C of
RCRA as hazardous wastes, or that such
regulation is unwarranted.
II. The Bevill Exclusion Definitions and
Criteria
On August 18,1989 (See 54 FR 36592;
September 1,1989), EPA finalized the
definitions of mineral processing and
beneficiation wastes and the high
volume and low hazard criteria that the
Agency used as the basis of the analysis
underlying today's proposed rule. This
section simply restates the criteria as
presented in the September 1,1989
alleviate any cumuoiu.i u».. — *--Ta" Federal Register. EPA wishes to
volume and hazard criteria are final,
and thus, the Agency does not solicit,
and will not respond to, comments on
them.
over us appuwiuuiijr. *""-,» - r--r-
would provide that if a waste is sent to
an authorized state where the waste is
nol regulated as hazardous, then the
designated facility must be a facility
allowed by the state to accept the
[Exeas^
originate from mineral processing""
operations that possess all of the
following attributes:
a. Follow beneficiation of an ore or
mineral (if applicable);
b. Serve to remove the desired
product from an ore or mineral, or from
a beneficiated ore or mineral, or
enhance the characteristics of ores or
minerals, or beneficiated ores or
minerals;
c. Use mineral-value feedstocks that
are comprised of less than 50 percent
scrap materials;
d. Produce either a final mineral
product or an intermediate to the final
product; and ,
e. Do not combine the product with
another material that is not an ore or ^
mineral, or beneficiated ore or mineral
(e.g., alloying), do not involve
fabrication or other manufacturing
activities, and do not involve further
processing of a marketable product of
mineral processing.
(4) Residuals from treatment of
excluded mineral processing wastes
must be historically or presently
generated and must meet the high
volume and low hazard criteria in order
to retain excluded status. .
Beneficiation operations include
crushing, grinding, washing, dissolution,
crystallization, filtration, sorting, sizing,
drying, sintering, pelletizing, briquettmg,
calcining to remove water and/or
carbon dioxide, roasting in preparation
for leaching (except where the roasting/
leaching sequence produces a final or
intermediate product that does not
undergo further beneficiation or
processing), gravity concentration,
magnetic separation, electrostatic
separation, flotation, ion exchange,
solvent extraction, electrowinning,
precipitation, amalgamation, and heap,
dump, vat, tank, and in situ leaching.
Processing operations generally
follow beneficiation and include
techniques that often destroy the ore or
mineral, such as smelting, electrolytic
refining, and acid attack or digestion.
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 54. No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989
^^**gaoaa'*:"!'"aBKB:ga£aB^tt^^fr'ii''lfSES^^ •-•••——— ' __ .__
Rules
38301
EPA wishes to emphasize that
operations following the initial
"processing" step in the production
sequence are also considered processing
operations, irrespective of whether they
involve only the techniques defined
above as beneficiation. In addition,
leaching operations that are not
followed by additional beneficiation/ :
processing operations are also defined
as processing operations. Therefore,
solid wastes arising from such
operations are considered mineral
processing wastes, rather than-
beneficiation wastes.
B. The High Volume Criterion "
High volume mineral processing
wastes are defined as [1) non-liquid
mineral processing wastes that were
generated at an average annual rate
greater than 45,000 metric tons per year
per facility during any year between
1983 and 1988, and (2} liquid mineral
_ processing wastes that were generated
at an average annual rate greater than
1,000,000 metric tons per year per
facility during any year between i983
and 1988.
For the purposes of today's proposed
rule, EPA used the volume criterion for
non-liquids to determine if bath, solid
(e.g., slag,phosphogypsumj and semi-
solid (e.g., wasfewater treatment sludge)
materials are high volume. EPA used the
volume criterion for liquids to determine
whether wastewaters and other aqueous
wastes are high volume. EPA employed
professional judgment in deciding which
criterion to apply to particular waste
streams.
c. The Low Hazard Criterion
1. The Toxicity and Mobility Test
A high volume mineral processing
waste is not low hazard and, therefore,
is not eligible for.the temporary
exclusion from subtitle C requirements"
provided by the Bevill Amendment
under the following conditions:
» Available data indicate that waste
extracts obtained using EPA Method
1312 and analyzed using established
SW-846 method's contain concentrations
of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium or silver that
exceed 10Q times the MCL for the
constituent at two or more, facilities that
'generate the waste, unless:
i. The waste is generated at five or
more facilities;, and
ii. Substantial additional relevant data
are available and the preponderance of
these additional data indicate that the
waste should be considered low hazard,
wheret
a. Relevant data are defined as data
that result from analysis of waste
extracts obtained by EPA Methods 1310,
1311, and 1312,. ASTM Test Method
D3987-81, or comparable procedures -
that the Agency has reason to believe
produce reliable and representative
data; and
. b. To be considered substantial, the
additional data must characterize the
waste at 3 plants (other than the plants
where Method 1312 results exceed 100
times the MCLs) or at least half of the
facilities that generate the waste (other
than the plants where Method 1312
results exceed ItJO times the MCEs),
whichever number of plants is larger.
• Constituent concentrations
measured in waste sample extracts
obtained using Method 1312 are used to
determine facility-level values as
follows: ' ' .
i. If data for only one sample of the
waste are available, then these data
determine the facility-level constituent
, concentrations; and
ii. If data on two OF more samples are
available, then the lower bound of the
80 percent confidence interval of the
mean of the data * serves as the facility-
level constituent concentrations, where
the confidence interval is calculated for
each waste for each constituent using all
results (from all plants generating the
waste) available from testing of the
waste using Method 1312.
. 2. The pH Test
A high volume 'mineral processing
waste is not low hazard and, therefore,
is not eligible for the temporary "
exclusion from subtitle C requirements
provided by the BeviH Amendment
under the following circumstances:
e Fewer than five facilities generate
the waste and the pH (determined as
required by 40 CFR 261.22) is less than
one fl.O) or greater than 13.5 at two or
more facilities that generate the waste,
or if five or more facilities generate the
waste and the pH is less than one (1.0J
or greater than 13.5 at 50 percent or
more of the facilities that generate the
waste.
•- pH values measured for waste
samples are used to determine facility-
level values for individual candidate
low hazard wastes as follows:
i. If a datum for only one sample from
a facility is available, this datum
determines the facility-level pH; and
1 The 80 percent confidence interval is
recommended (guidance) in Chapter 0 on sampling
in SW-848 as the confidence interval to be used for
evaluating whether wastes pasa or fail regulatory
thresholds. Because the low hazard criterion is
being used as a screening, teat to remove, wastes
that are clearly not low hazard from the Bevill
exclusion, EPA fa using the /onrer bound of the 80
percent confidence interval So compare with the
relevant standards.
ii. If data on two samples from a
facility are available, the lower value
determines the facility-level pH,- and
iii. If data on more than two samples
from a facility are available, the median
value defines the facility-level pH.
III. Oveiview of Twenty Conditionally
Retained Mineral Processing Wastes
This section provides brief
descriptions of each, of the conditionally
retained mineral processing wastes. The
purpose of this discussion is to identify
the facilities and processing operations
that generate the waste streams, and,
where applicable, the component parts
comprising particular waste streams.
EPA has previously conditionally
retained these wastes within the Bevill
exclusion, and today is proposing either
to retain them within or withdraw them
from the exclusion, based upon the final
high volume and low hazard criteria
discussed above. Accordingly, the
Agency is not seeking public comment
upon these waste descriptions, but only
upon the volume and hazard data
underlying these proposed Bevill
exclusion decisions. To clarify the scope
of this and previous notices, in today's
proposal the Agency generally refers to
specific wastes arising from
"processing" or "production"
operations, as opposed to the more
specific terminology (e.g., smelting,
refining) used in the previous proposed
and final rules. Thus, for example,
copper or lead slags are generated by
primary "processing," rather than by
primary "smelting" or "smelting/
refining."
A. Roast/Leach Ore Residue from
Primary Chromite Production
The primary chromite industry
processes chromite ore to produce
sodium chromate and dichromate, the
latter of which is the starting point for
most chromium chemicals used in
electroplating, chromium metal,
pigments, dyes, inks, photography,
leather and wood preserving. The
hydrometallurgicai process involves
roasting, leaching, neutralization with
sulfuric. acid, and filtering; insoluble
dregs remain {i.e., the chromite ore
roast/leach residue) that are expected to
contain traces of soluble chromium. Two
companies operate one facility each that
generates chromite ore roast/leach
residue.
B. GasifierAsh from coal Gasification
Coal gasification is the process of
converting low grade coal and lignite to
synthetic natural gas of pipeline quality.
The only commercial coal gasification
plant in full operation, in the United
-------
39302
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
Slates is the Dakota Gasification
Company's Great Plains Coal
Gasification Plant, located at Beulah,
Mercer County, North Dakota. This
plant employs the Lurgi High Pressure
Coal Gasification Technology.
Run-of-mino lignite coal is crushed
Slid fed to each gnsifier; steam and
oxygen are introduced at the bottom of
each gasifier to effect the coal
gasification reactions. Ash discharged
from, the gtslfiers is quenched and
slutead by a water jet down a sloped
«li%eway to one of two wet wells and
then pumped to one of two dewatering
bins. Water From the dewatering bins is
recycled within the system and the
dewatercd^osi/ierosA, with a moisture
content of approximately 15 percent, is
discharged and trucked back to the mine
for disposal.
C, Process Wastavfater front Coal
CaslJicaUon
Following the processing steps
described above, the hot crude product
gm leaving the gasifiers is cleaned of tar
and dust by cooling in quench vessels,
steam generators, and coolers (See "B.
Gasifier Ash from Coal Gasification"
above for introduction and discussion of
previous steps). The gas stream, which
consists of methane, ethane, hydrogen,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide,
cnrbon dioxide, and nitrogen, is then
purified of hydrogen sulfide and carbon
dioxide. The purified gas is methanated
lo convert all the carbon monoxide and
a portion of the carbon dioxide by
reaction with hydrogen to produce
methane. After the methanation step,
the product gas is compressed and dried
for delivery to the pipeline.
The remaining gas liquor stream is
referred to by the operator of this
facility as "stripped gas liquor or
wastewatcr." The reported management
practice is to include this process
wastewator as part of the makeup water
delivered to the cooling tower.
Df Calcium Sulfate Wastewater
Treatment Plant Sludge from Primary
Capper Processing
Facilities that process copper ore
cqneenlra to generate various aqueous
waste streams which are typically
Ipated; the effluent is often released,
and the sludge is either disposed of or
recycled to recover the mineral value.
Two types of wastewater treatment are
known to ba employed at present. These
two types, one using sodium hydroxide
and the other using calcium oxide or
hydroxide (lime), generate very different
proportions of sludge, because sodium
hydroxide typically precipitates very
little sludge. Treatment using lime as the
neutralizing agent generates a relatively
large quantity of sludge known as
calcium sulfate sludge. At least two
facilities are known to use lime and
generate calcium sulfate wastewater
treatment plant sludge. At least one
other facility is known to use sodium
hydroxide for wastewater treatment.
E. Slag Tailings from Primary Copper
Processing
The process of smelting copper ores to
fuse the metal value and separate the
bullion from the impurities generates
slag. Often this slag contains copper at a
higher percentage than the original ores.
Consequently, several copper processing
facilities reprocess this slag using
beneficiation-like activities (e.g.,
crashing, grinding, washing, and
flotation). As a result of this
reprocessing, or slag concentration, a
residue referred to as slag tailings from
primary copper processing is generated.
According to industry sources, this _,
material is presently managed along
with tailings from beneficiation
operations, which are claimed to be very
similar with respect to physical and
chemical characteristics. Two facilities
are believed to generate slag tailings
from primary copper processing. One
smelter and refinery presently uses a
Noranda slag concentrator; the other
smelter and refinery employs a mill
which crushes, grinds, and floats the
slag from the flash furnace, thereby
generating slag tailings.
F. Furnace Off-Gas Solids from
Elemental Phosphorus Production
Elemental phosphorus is produced in
five plants in Tennessee, Idaho, and
Montana. The plants are supplied by
nearby phosphate reserves which
constitute their principal feed source.
Phosphorus, obtained by reduction of
phosphate rock, is oxidized to produce
high purity phosphoric acid for specialty
uses and is^ converted into a variety of
phosphorus-containing chemicals and
metallic phosphides.
Sized phosphate rock, or sintered/
agglomerated phosphate rock fines are
charged to an electric arc furnace
together with coke as a reductant and
silica as a flux. The reduction generates
a calcium silicate slag and
ferrophosphorus, which are tapped, and
carbon monoxide off-gases, which
contain volatilized phosphorus. This
furnace off-gas materials stream is
typically processed to remove
impurities, which generates the furnace
offgas solids. Phosphorus is removed
from the gas stream by condensation in
the presence of recirculating water
above the melting point of phosphorus.
The recirculating water is neutralized,
and a purge of "mud" and soluble
impurities is removed and disposed;
these are separate and may be
distinguished from the furnace off-gas
solids. Furnace off-gas solids are
generally referred to as roaster residue,
evaporator residue, precipitator slurry,
or treater dust, depending on the method
of processing the off-gas to remove
impurities.
G. Fluorogypsum from Hydrofluoric
Acid Production
Hydrofluoric acid, produced at three
facilities in the United States, is used in
a variety of chemical processing and
manufacturing operations. In the
production process, acid-grade fluorspar
is reacted with sulfuric acid in a heated
retort to produce hydrogen fluoride gas.
This gas is purified by scrubbing, and
the hydrogen fluoride gas is condensed.
The chemical is marketed as anhydrous
hydrogen fluoride, a colorless fuming
liquid, or it may be absorbed in water to
form hydrofluoric acid, usually 70
percent hydrogen fluoride. The material
remaining in the retort furnace is
calcium sulfate, commonly known as
fluorogypsum. This waste stream is
stacked in gypsum stacks at one facility;
treated, impounded, dredged, and
landfilled at a second facility; and
stacked and sold at a third facility.
H. Process Wastewater from
Hydrofluoric Acid Production
The production of hydrofluoric acid
results in the generation of large •
quantities of process wastewater from
cooling, condensing, and fluorogypsum
transport (see "G. Fluorogypsum from
hydrofluoric acid production" above for
an introduction and process
description). Much of the wastewater is
typically recirculated to the system
although part of this waste may be
treated and discharged.
I. Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge
from Iron Blast Furnaces
Iron is a basic metal used in diverse •
industrial applications. Iron is a primary
material for most land vehicles and
mobile equipment, ships, and
machinery, almost all large structures,
tanks, pressure vessels, piping, and a
variety of cans and containers.
Iron is produced from ore either by
blast furnaces or by one of several
direct reduction processes. The modern
blast furnace consists of a refractory-
lined steel shaft in which the charge is
continuously added to the top through a
gas seal and preheated air is blown
through the tuyeres at the bosh near the
bottom, to be emitted as combustible
gas (top gas). Molten iron and slag are
intermittently tapped from the hearth at
-------
184 / Monday- September 25, 1989 /Proposed Rules
39303
the bottom. The top gases emitted from
the blast furnace must be treated before
release. Air pollution control (APC)
devices generate either APC dusts, in
cases where baghouses or electrostatic
precipitators are used, or APC sludges,
in cases where wet scrubbers are used.
/. Iron Blast Furnace Slag
Iron blast furnace slag, tapped from '-
blast furnaces, is removed and either
disposed or processed and sold (see "I.
Air pollution control dust/sludge from
iron blast furnaces" above for the iron
sector introduction and process
description).
K, Process Wastewater from Primary
Lead Production
Lead is ranked fifth in tonnage among
major metals, after iron, copper,
aluminum, and zinc. Major properties of
the metal include: low melting point,
ease of casting, high density, low
strength, ease of fabrication, acid •
resistance, and chemical stability.
Traditio'nal uses of lead include storage
batteries, and sheet lead or cable
sheathing. Consumption of lead has
markedly declined recently because of
the decline in the use of lead for
gasoline additives. Five lead facilities
were operating in 1988, consisting of one
smelter, one refinery, and three smelter/
refineries.
Lead processing includes smelting and
refining. Smelting involves several
successive processes that convert
prepared lead ore concentrate into
impure lead bullion ready for refining.
Sintered lead ore is introduced into a
blast furnace with coke, limestone, and
other fluxing materials. Next, lead
bullion is drossed. Finally, the drossed
lead bullion is decopperized. The initial •
step in the refining process is softening. .
.The softened lead bullion is then
desilvered to remove gold and silver.
Calcium and magnesium are then added
to remove bismuth. Finally, the lead
bullion is mixed with fluxes to remove
the remaining impurities..
Process wastewater is generated at
' many points in the smelting and refining
of lead, and, for purposes of this rule,
includes waters generated by slag or
speiss granulation, contact cooling, and
at some plants, neutralized acid plant
blowdown effluent. This waste stream
does not, however, include wastewaters
from upstream beneficiation operations
such as sintering. Industry sources have
indicated that solids are settled out and
the water is reused.
L. Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge
from Lightweight Aggregate Production
Lightweight aggregate is a building
material that is used in concrete in place
, of normal stone, and for other purposes.
Concrete made with lightweight
aggregate has about the same strength,
but weighs approximately one-third less
than normal concrete.
Lightweight aggregate is made by ,
heating certain types of clay, shale, and
slate in a rotary kiln to a temperature of
at least 1,950 °F, forcing the materials to
expand or "bloat". The rotary kilns that
are used at lightweight aggregate
facilities and the process itself are very
similar to those employed in the
production of cement and lime.
During production operations, large
volumes of gas leave the kiln, typically
containing particulate.matter which
must be removed using either.dry
collection techniques or wet scrubber's
[i.e., APC dust/sludge).
M. Process Wastewater From Primary
Magnesium Processing by the
Anhydrous Process
Magnesium, a light but relatively
strong metal, is used as a component of
transportation equipment, castings, and
wrought products. The largest use of ,
magnesium is in manufacturing -,
aluminum-base alloys which in tum.are
used in applications such as beverage
cans and auto parts.
There are three active magnesium
primary processing facilities in the
United States. Two of the facilities use
an electrolytic process, and one facility
uses a silicothermie process.
The anhydrous process uses calcium
chloride to remove impurities from the
brine. After removal of solid impurities,
the solution is concentrated and then
solidified as magnesium chloride . •
crystals in a spray dryer. A heated
reactor is used to remove impurities and
the resultant molten magnesium chloride
is sent to a electrolytic cell where
crystals are formed. The magnesium
crystals are recast into ingots. Process
wastewaters generated during the
anhydrous process are acidic (pH<2)
and are managed in evaporation ponds.
M Process Wastewater from Phosphoric
Acid Production
Commercial grade phosphoric acid
from wet processing is used primarily as
a feedstock for the production of
ammoniated fertilizers and in animal
feed, with a small portion going to
chemical processing operations. In the
wet method, the phosphate rock is
dissolved in phosphoric acid, to which '
sulfuric acid is added. The slurry from
this operation is sent to filters where the
solids are collected, washed, and sent to
phosphogypsum stacks. Process
wastewaters are generated at several
points in the wet process, including
phosphogypsum transport, phosphoric,:
acid concentration, and phosphoric acid
temperature control and cooling (e.g.,
barometric condensers and flash
coolers).
O. Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open
Hearth Furnace Air Pollution Control
Dust/Sludge From Carbon Steel
Production
. The steel industry is'composed of
three sectors. Large integrated steel
companies—with blast furnaces able to
produce iron and basic oxygen furnaces
further processing iron into steel-
account for approximately 80 percent of
the raw steel production. This sector
produces much of the iron ore, coal, and
limestone needed in its plants. The
capacity of these plants has been
reduced over the past few years.
Minimills, or market mills, typically use
electric furnaces and continuous casting
to produce a limited range of products
from scrap; specialty mills produce
relatively small quantities of high
quality, high value products. Neither of
these last two sector types produce
Bevill wastes because they do-not
typically use ores or minerals as their
primary feedstockfs). All contemporary
steelmaking processes convert iron,
scrap, or direct-reduced iron, or
mixtures of these, into steel by a refining
process that lowers the carbon and
silicon content and removes impurities,
mainly phosphorus and sulfur. The
excess oxygen is then neutralized by
. adding deoxidizing elements such as
manganese, silicon, or aluminum.
Exhaust gas from the open hearth and
basic oxygen furnaces is scrubbed to
remove gases and particulate matter.
The scrubbers may be dry collection
devices, resulting in air pollution control
dust or wet scrubbers, resulting in a
sludge (i.e., APC dust/sludge).
P. Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open
Hearth Furnace Slag from Carbon-Steel
Production
In the open hearth process—the
dominant steelmaking method in the
U.S. between 1908 and 1969—a
relatively shallow bath of metal is
heated by a flame that passes over the
bath from burners at one end of the
furnace while the hot gases resulting
from combustion are used at the other
end of the furnace to heat checker-brick
regenerators (see "O. Basic oxygen
furnace and open hearth furnace Air
Pollution Control Dust/Sludge from
carbon steel production" for additional
process details). Slag is generated
during the refining process and is
removed and sold or disposed. . ;
The most recently developed ' ' •
steelmaking. process is the basic oxygen
-------
39304 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday. September 25. 1989 / Proposed Rules
proctss. In this process, a jet of pure
oxygen Is Injected into the molten metal "
by a Innce of regulated height in a basic
refractory-lined converter. Excess
carbon, silicon, and other reactive
elements are oxidized during the
controlled blows, and fluxes are added
to form a slag which is removed and
processed and sold or disposed.
Q. Sulfat® Process Waste Acids from
Titanium Dioxide Production
Titanium dioxide is the major end
product manufactured from the
processing of titanium-bearing minerals,
principally ilmcnite and rntile. In
addition, synthetic rulile and titanium-
bearing slagi are used as a feedstock for
producing titanium dioxide pigment.
Environmental problems associated
with the sulfate process led to a closure
of several sulfate pigment plants and
conversion to chloride process
technology at other facilities; in the
United States most of the production
(nine of 11 plants) is by the chloride
process (though sulfate processes
generate half the world's production).
About SO percent of the total U.S.
consumption of TiO* is used hi paints,
while about 25 percent is used in paper
coating. Plastics markets have been
Increasingly important and constitute
about 18 percent of the U.S.
consumption.
The sulfate process is currently used
by two companies, each owning one
plant. The process uses ilmenite, treated
with strong sulfuric acid at temperatures
up to 180 *C, as a feedstock. The
resultant reaction produces hydrated
Iron sulfate and titanium oxysulfate
(TIOSO<). The sludge is removed, and
the liquid is evaporated in a vacuum.
After cooling, the crystallized hydrous
Iron sulfate is filtered, and the filtrate
concentrated to over 200 gm/1. Low-
lempcralure heating of the TiOSCh
solution results in hydrolysis to titanyl
hydroxide (TIO(OH)*) and sulfuric acid,
a major waste acid stream. The
precipitate is washed with water and
weak sulfuric acid, a second waste acid
stream, to remove trace elements
(particularly heavy metals) and calcined
to TfOt at 1,000 'C. The highly acidic
waste streams of the sulfate process and
residual solids are the primary waste
slnrtms from this process.
n, Su/fats Process Waste Solids from
Titanium Dioxide Production
Waste acids from the sulfate process
arc filtered, generating residual solids
tsce "Q. Sulfate processing waste acids
from titanium dioxide production" for
the Introduction and process
description),
S. Chloride Process Waste Solids from '
Titanium Tetrachloride Production
Titanium tetrachloride is the major
end product manufactured from the
processing of titanium-bearing minerals,
principally ilmenite and rutile. In
addition, synthetic rutile and titanium-
bearing slags are used as a feedstock for
producing titanium tetrachloride. Most
of the titanium tetrachloride is used to
produce titanium dioxide, the remainder
is used to produce titanium metal or
chemicals. One firm operates four
titanium tetrachloride plants, while
another operates three facilities, and
four others operate one each. Three of
the companies that own only one plant
principally produce titanium metal.
The chloride process involves
fluidized roasting and chlorination of
rutile, synthetic rutile, slag, or
beneficiated ilmenites at about 1,000 °C.
The product formed is a titanium
tetrachloride. This is a volatile chloride
and is collected. The nonvolatile
chlorides are disposed. Further
purification includes the separation of
volatile vanadium oxychloride by
mineral oil complexing and H2S
reduction. To form titanium dioxide, the
purified TiCU is oxidized with fuel and
ah1 at 985 °C, and the chlorine gas is
recycled. Waste solids are generated as
part of the acid stream from air pollution
control treatment of off-gases.
T. Slag from Primary Zinc Processing
Zinc is used in many industries for
several purposes. The construction
industry accounts for approximately 45
percent of zinc consumption, followed
by transportation, 20 percent;
machinery, 10 percent; electrical, 10
percent; and chemical and other
industries 15 percent. Slab zinc is
primarily used for galvanizing and
electrogalvanizing, as well as zinc-base
alloys, brass and bronze alloys, and
rolled zinc.
Zinc metal production uses either
electrolytic techniques or
pyrometallurgical techniques to produce
slab from unrefined ore. Only one
facility currently produces zinc using
pyrometallurgy. The pyrometallurgical
zinc smelting process uses a retort and
condensation operation. The zinc
concentrate is first roasted, then
sintered. The sinter product is retorted
in a furnace, which drives the zinc off in
gaseous form. The zinc is condensed
and refined. The material remaining in
the retort furnace is the primary zinc
processing slag. Part of this slag is re-
processed to recover mineral values,
while the remainder is disposed.
IV. Application of Bevill Exclusion
Criteria
EPA applied the Bevill exclusion
criteria to each of the 20 conditionally
retained mineral processing wastes in a
three-step process. First, the Agency
applied the high volume criteria to the
available waste generation data for the
*20 wastes. In the second step, the
Agency applied the low hazard criterion
to the available waste characteristics'
data for the wastes. Finally, the Agency
combined the results from the first two
steps to determine the proposed Bevill
status of the 20 conditionally retained
mineral processing wastes. Each step is
discussed separately below.
A. High Volume Criterion
1. Methodology
There were two major sources of
waste generation data for the 20
conditionally retained mineral
processing wastes: EPA's 1989 National
Survey of Solid Wastes from Mineral
Processing Facilities, and data
submitted in response to EPA's requests
for public comments published in recent
proposed mineral waste rulemakings. As
EPA explained in the September 1 final
rule, the Agency conditionally retained
all wastes which appeared to meet the
high volume criterion based upon
information submitted in public *
comments on the October and April
NPRMs. Since, however, the data in
these public comments was unsworn
and unverified, EPA committed to
evaluating the National Survey data for
this proposal to confirm the information
found in public comment. The National
Survey data were not available in time
for use in the September 1 final rule.,
EPA conducted the National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mineral Processing
Facilities during 1989 under the
, authority of RCRA §§.3001 and 3007.
These Sections give EPA the power to
require facilities to furnish information
about their generation and management
, of certain solid wastes (as defined in
CFR Part 261) for use in regulatory
development. This past spring, EPA
collected data from over 200 facilities,
focusing on 47 wastes generated or.
received by mineral processing facilities
that the Agency thought, at the time,
might be large volume wastes. The data
collected include general facility
information (e.g., ownership, location,
and mineral processing operations);
waste generation characteristics;
processing units, wastewater treatment
plants, surface impoundments, and other
residuals management units that receive
a candidate special waste;
environmental monitoring; and other
-------
September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
3S305
related information. The data only cover
waste generation and management
practices occurring in 1988,
The second source of data consists of
data voluntarily submitted to the
Agency by the mineral processing
industry in comments on recent
rulemakings. The 47 special wastes .
included in the survey reflected the
Agency's view of the universe of
potential Bevill wastes at the time of the
development of the survey instrument hi
the fall of 1988. Since that time, the- -
Agency has added several wastes to the
list of candidate special wastes, often in _
response to data submitted by the
mineral processing industry—-these
wastes, therefore, were not included in
the survey. In these cases, the Agency
relied on the industry-supplied data in
order to make its determination of Bevill
status. In addition, the Agency used the
industry-supplied data to supplement
the data obtained in the survey in order
to determine the highest average annual
generation rate between 1983 and 1988.
For each of the conditionally retained
wastes, EPA divided the total 1988
sector-wide waste generation quantity
obtained in the survey by the number of
facilities that generated the waste
during 1988. For wastes that did not
meet the high volume threshold for 1988,
EPA analyzed the responses to the
survey questionnaire in more detail, to
determine whether the 1988 data might
be anomalous (e.g., production and
waste generation rates were below
normal due to plant renovations or labor
strikes]. The Agency then reviewed the
information submitted in public
comment (the basis for many of the
proposed conditional exclusions] in an
attempt to reconcile any significant
discrepancies. In cases where
normalized waste generation data as
reported for 1988 are in reasonable
agreement with the information
submitted in public comment, the
Agency has accepted the waste
generation rates provided by
commenters and concluded that the
waste(s) in question pass the high
volume criterion. In cases where these
data are not in agreement, however,
EPA has tentatively concluded that the
. materials in question are not high
volume mineral processing wastes, and,
accordingly, has proposed to remove'
them from the Bevill exclusion in today's
notice. The data and calculations
underlying EPA's determinations of high
and low volume mineral processing
wastes are presented in a background
document that may be found in the
docket for this proposed rale.
Representatives of facilities that
generate wastes that have been
proposed for removal from Bevill on the
basis of volume that believe that the
data that they submitted for 1988 do not
reflect waste generation rates
throughout the period from 1983 to 1988
must submit information fully
documenting this claim by the close of
the public comment period for this
proposal November 9,1989.
Documentation should include a
description of the production process(es)
.generating the waste (a process flow
diagram is strongly recommended], the
specific pointfs] in the mineral
processing sequence that give rise to the
waste, the waste generation rate and
physical state (including percent solids),
and management practice information
(through final disposition of the material
in question].
2. Results of Applying the High Volume
Criterion
Table 1 summarizes the results of
applying the high volume criterion to the
available waste generation data for the
20 conditionally retained wastes. The
average waste generation data reported
in Table 1 do not, in all cases, reflect
information collected from all facilities
generating a particular waste, because
in responding to the National Survey,
many facility operators designated-their
waste generation rates Confidential
Business Information (CBI]. In no case,
however, would including CBI waste
generation data in this table influence
the results of EPA's application of the
high volume criterion, i.e., the CBI data
hi EPA's possession support the
determinations that the Agency has
made here regarding compliance with
the Bevill mineral processing wastes
high volume criterion.
Of the 14 non-liquid mineral
processing wastes, only two were not
generated at an average annual rate
greater than 45,000 metric tons per year,
during one or more years between 1983
and 1988. These two wastes, therefore,
fail the high volume criteria and do not
qualify for the Bevill exclusion:
1. Furnace off-gas solids from
elemental phosphorus production
2. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production
Of the six liquid-mineral processing
wastes, three were not generated at an
average annual rate greater than
1,000,000 metric tons per year, during at
least one year between 1983 and 1988.
These wastes, therefore, fail the high
volume criteria and do not qualify for
the Bevill exclusion:
1. Process wastewater from coal
gasification
2. Process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production
3. Process wastewater from primary
lead processing
In summary, 15 of the 20 conditionally
retained wastes satisfy the high volume
criterion. The Agency proposes to
remove the conditional Bevill status for
the five low volume wastes listed above.
TABLE 1.-RESULTS OF APPLYING THE HIGH VOLUME CRITERION TO TWENTY CONPITIONALLY RETA.NED MINERAL PROCESS.NG
WASTES*
Commodity sector
Chromite
Coal Gas
Copper
Copper...
Elemental Phosphorus
Hydrofluoric Acid „
Hydrofluoric Acid
Iron
Iron
Lead
Lightweight Aggregate
Magnesium
Phosphoric Acid .
r Conditionally retained waste
Roast/Leach Ore Residue
Gasifier Ash
Process Wastewater
Calcium Sulfate Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge
Slag Tailings...".
Furnace Off-gas Solids
Fludrogypsum ..
Process Wastewater
Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge .
Blast Furnace Slag ..I".".....".".
Process Wastewater "I:.™.~™
Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge ...".™""™"!Z!Z"™"!"
Anhydrous Process Wastewater......
Process Wastewater
Solid or
liquid
Solid
So'id
Liquid.....
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid...
Liquid
Solid
Solid.
Liquid.....
Solid....
Liquid...
Average per
facility
generation (mt/
yr)
W/H
244,940
, 598,030
1,179,341
1,028,684
4,885
266,564
n/a
88,263
742,198
785,562
134,065
2,464,822
56,359,141
Notes
A,B
B
C
A,B
C
A,C
C
C
B,C
B
A,C
B,C
B
B,C
No. of
facilities
reporting
2
,-j
1
2
2
5
2
0
24
25
5
. 6
"I
21
Passes high
volume
criterion
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes. „
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes/
Yes.
-------
39306 Federal Register/ Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday. September 25, 1989 /
TABLE 1.— RESULTS OF APPLYING THE HIGH VOLUME CRITERION TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING
WASTES* — Continued
• . Cwtxnwitty sack*
SiwJ
6t®$t
TtoRoium Dfo30
-------
/ Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules 39TO7
«g3BC»u»»gp^^ -—___-, , " __•? - **O»»J?W,/
90 percent of the regulatory level.
~" Because no Method 1312 constituent
concentrations exceed 100 times MCLs
for this waste, EPA concludes that it
passes the low hazard criterion.
e. Slag Tailings from Primary Copper
Processing. Two primary copper
smelters were included in the sampling
• study. From each facility, one sample of
slag tailings was collected and
analyzed. Most constitutents measured
were below detectable limits using the
SPLP method, but some detectable
levels were noted (e.g., for lead).
Because no Method 1312 constituent
concentrations exceed 100 times MCLs
for this waste, EPA concludes that it
passes the low hazard criterion.
f. Furnace Off-Gas Solids From
Elemental Phosphorus Production. Two
facilities were included in the sampling
study. One sample of off-gas solids from
each facility was collected and
analyzed. Most constituents were below
detectable limits using the SPLP method,
but some detectable levels were noted.
The SPLP procedure for cadmium
generated values from about 5 percent
up to 249 percent of the regulatory level
(100 times MCL). Lead analysis
concentrations ranged from about 10 to
20 percent of the regulatory level.
Because the lower 80th percentile
confidence limit for all constituent
concentrations was below 100 times
MCLs for this waste, EPA concludes that
it passes the low hazard criterion.
g. Fluorogypsum from Hydrofluoric
Acid Production. Three facilities were
included in the sampling study. One
sample of fluorogypsum from each
facility was collected and analyzed.
Most constituents were below
detectable limits. Barium was found at
below 1 percent of the regulatory level
(100 times the MCLs) in the SPLP
procedure. Cadmium levels ranged from
below detectable to 6 percent of the
regulatory levels in the three samples.
Chromium and lead levels were similar,
ranging from below detection up to
about 60 percent of the regulatory level.
Mercury was found in concentrations of
about 2 percent of the regulatory level in
the SPLP procedure. Because no Method
1312 constituent concentrations exceed
100 times MCLs for this waste, EPA
concludes that it passes the low hazard
criterion.
h. Process Wastewater From
Hydrofluoric Acid Production. Two _ ' -
facilities were included in the sampling
study. One sample of wastewater from
each facility was collected and
analyzed. Most constituents were below
detectable limits. Arsenic levels ranged
from 2 up to 20 percent of the regulatory
level (100 times the MCLs), while barium
levels were at or below 1 percent of the
regulatory level. Chromium
concentrations were from 20 to 56
percent of the regulatory level in both
^ procedures. Lead was found from 10 to
61 percent of the regulatory level for the.
SPLP procedure. Mercury levels were
below 1 percent of the regulatory level.
Because no Method 1312 constituent
concentrations exceed 100 times MCLs
for this waste, and because all pH
measurements of the waste were greater
than 1.0, EPA concludes that it passes
the low hazard criterion.
/. Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge
From Iron Blast Furnaces. Four facilities
were included in the sampling study.
One sample from each of three facilities,
and two samples from the remaining
facility were collected and analyzed, for
a total of five samples. Most
constituents were below detectable
limits for the SPLP method. Barium
levels ranged from below detection to .
about 1 percent of the regulatory level.
Cadmium aiid lead were not detected.
Mercury levels ranged from below
detection up to 1 percent of the
regulatory level. Because no Method
1312 constituent concentrations exceed
100 times MCLs for this waste, EPA
concludes that it passes the low hazard
criterion.
/ Iron Blast Furnace Slag. Four
facilities were included in the sampling
study. One sample of slag from each of
two facilities was collected and
analyzed, while two samples from the
third facility, and three samples from the
remaining facility, were collected and •
analyzed, for a total of seven samples.
Most constituents were below
detectable limits. Barium and mercury
levels ranged from below detection to
about 1 percent of the regulatory levels.
Because no Method 1312 constituent
concentrations exceed 100 times MCLs
for this waste, EPA concludes that it
passes the low hazard criterion.
k. Process Wastewater from Primary
Lead Processing. Three facilities were
included in the sampling study. From
each facility, one sample of wastewater
was collected and analyzed. Most •
constituents measured were below
detectable limits. Arsenic levels ranged
from two to 400 percent of the regulatory
level (100 times the MCLs). Barium
concentrations were below three
percent of the regulatory level when
detected. Cadmium levels ranged from
33 percent up to almost 700 percent of
the regulatory level. Lead ranged from
about five percent up to about 145
percent of the regulatory level. Mercury
concentrations were generally not
detectable, and did not exceed 1 percent
of the regulatory level otherwise.
Selenium levels ranged from below
detection up to about 13 percent of the
regulatory level. All field pH -
measurements were above 1.0. Because
the lower 80th percentile confidence
limit for a constituent exceeds
regulatory levels at two different
facilities (arsenic and cadmium,
respectively), i.e., two facilities fail the
low hazard criterion, EPA tentatively
concludes that this waste stream fails
the low hazard criterion.
L Air Pollution Control Sludge/Solids.
From Lightweight Aggregate Production.
Two facilities were included in the
sampling study; however, the data from
one facility are CBI and cannot be
reported. One sample of sludge was
collected and analyzed from the non-
. CBI facility. Again, all constituents
except barium were below detectable
limits using the SPLP method. Barium
levels for this facility were below 1
percent of the regulatory level,. Because
no Method 1312 constituent
concentrations exceed 100 times MCLs
for this waste, EPA concludes that it
• passes the low hazard criterion.
m. Process Wastewater From Primary
Magnesium Processing by the
Anhydrous Process. One primary
magnesium processing facility was
included in the sampling study. From
this facility, one sample, of wastewater
was collected and analyzed. Most
constituents were not above detectable
levels. Barium, chromium, and lead were
below detection. Mercury was detected
, in the sample, but at less than 1 percent
of the regulatory level. Because no
Method 1312 constituent concentrations
. exceed 100 times MCLs for this waste,
and because all field pH measurements
were above 1.0, EPA concludes that the
waste passes the low hazard criterion.
n. Process Wastewater From
Phosphoric Acid Production. Two
facilities were included in the sampling
study. Three samples of wastewater
from one facility, and four samples from
the other facility were collected and
analyzed, for a total of seven samples.
Most constituents were below
detectable limits. Arsenic levels ranged
from below detectable to about 38
percent of the regulatory level, while
barium concentrations ranged from
below detection up to about l.percent of
regulatory levels. Cadmium and
chromium concentrations ranged from
about 20 percent up to about 60 percent
of the regulatory levels. Lead values
ranged from below detection up to about
3 percent of the regulatory level.
" Mercury concentrations were below
detection limits. Because no Method
1312 constituent concentrations exceed
100 times MCLs for this waste, and
because all field pH measurements were
-------
9308
Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules-
above 1.0, EPA concludes that the waste
passes the low hazard criterion.
o, Basic Oxygon and Open Hearth
Furnace Air Pollution Control Dust/
Sludge From Carbon Steal Production.
Three futilities were Included in the
wtmpling study. One sample from each
of the first two facilities and two
samples from the third facility were
collected and analyzed, for a total of
four samples. Must constituents were
below detcqteble limits. When barium
«nd mercury levels were detectable,
Ihty remained below 1 percent of the
regulatory levels. Cadmium and lead
concentrations wore below detection.
Because no Method 1312 constituent
concentrations exceed 100 times MCLs
for this waste, EPA concludes that it
pusses the low hazard criterion,
fk Basic Oxygen and Open Hearth
Furnace Slag From Carbon Steel
Production* Three facilities were
included in the sampling study. One slag
sample from the first facility, two
samples from the second facility, and
thrw samples from the third facility
wcrt collected and analyzed, for a total
of six samples. Most constituents were
below detectable limits. Barium and
mercury concentrations ranged from
below detection to well below 1 percent
of the regulatory levels. Selenium was
below detection. Because no Method
1312 constituent concentrations exceed
100 times MCLs for this waste, EPA
concludes that it passes the low hazard
criterion.
q, Sulfate Process Waste Acids From
Titanium Dioxide Production. Two
facilities were included in the sampling
study. From each facility, one sample of
waste acids, was collected and analyzed.
Most constituents were below
detectable limits. Chromium levels,
however, were found to range from
about 700 percent to 1600 percent of the
regulatory level, i.e., exceeded the
regulatory level at both facilities.
Concentrations of selenium also exce'ed
the criterion at one facility. This waste,
as sampled, also had an extremely low
pH. Because of this uniformly Ipw pH
(< 1) and the relatively high metals
concentrations, EPA has tentatively
concluded that this waste fails the low
hazard criterion.
r. Sulfate Process Waste Solids From
Titanium Dioxide Production. Two
facilities were included in the sampling
study. From each facility, one sample of
waste solids was collected and
analyzed. Concentrations of all
constituents evaluated for the low
hazard criterion were below detectable ,
limits and regulatory levels. Because no
Method 1312 constituent concentrations
exceed 100 times the MCLs for this
waste, EPA concludes that it passes the
low hazard criterion.
s. Chloride Process Waste Solids
From Titanium Tetrachloride
Production. Three facilities were
included in the sampling study. From
eaph facility, one sample of waste solids
was collected and analyzed. Most
constituents measured were below
detectable limits. Barium levels ranged
from below detectable up to 2.5 percent
of the regulatory level (100 times the
MCLs). Chromium levels ranged from
below detection up to 2,000 percent of the
regulatory levels. Lead levels ranged
from below detection up to about 1,000
percent of the regulatory level. Even
when mercury levels were detectable in
the SPLP procedure, they did not exceed
1 percent of the regulatory level. Silver
levels were generally below detection
f9r both procedures, but did range up to
30 percent of the regulatory level in the
SPLP procedure. Importantly, the
constituent concentrations that
exceeded regulatory levels for this
waste all came from the same sample,
and only the lower 80th percent
confidence intervals for constituents
applied to this facility exceed regulatory
levels. Therefore, because only one
facility failed the low hazard criterion
while two facilities passed, EPA has
concluded that this waste stream passes
the low hazard criterion.
t. Slag From Primary Zinc Processing.
The single facility from this sector
known to generate this waste was
included in the sampling study. From
this facility, one sample of slag was
collected and analyzed. Only one
constituent (barium) was found at
•detectable levels, but its concentration
was below 1 percent of the regulatory
level. Because no Method 1312
constituent concentrations exceed 100
times MCLs for this waste, EPA
concludes that it passes the low hazard
criterion.
3. Summary of Results
Table 2 summarizes the results of
applying the low hazard criterion to the
available waste generation data for the
20 conditionally retained wastes. The
sampling data indicate that all but three
of these wastes satisfy the low hazard
criterion. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to remove the following wastes from the
conditional Bevill exemption, pending a
final rulemaking by January 15,1990:
1. Roast/leach ore residue from
primary chromite production
2. Process wastewater from primary
lead processing
3. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production
TABLE 2,—RESULTS OF APPLYING THE Low HAZARD CRITERION TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING
WASTES
Conwno*y sector
Chromet
Coat Gar -_.„...,.„,.„..,.,.„.„,„,.„„„,
Obpoor
CtarnOAttl QbOfOhOf IIS
MwditifhKMic acki
tfwfc'tikKHie lad 'f
feoo, ,. ™», „. .. „«, .„«
ttttd
tuhtivttrfit »o««K!ata
WtoMiiSm ^^^^
, Conditional retained waste
Roast leach ore residue ,. .... ....
Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludge.
Slag Tailings
Ftuofogypsum ........,„ ,„....„ ...»,. .......
Procoss wastewater...... . ... „* ,
Air pollution control dust/sludge.,.....,,
Baste oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace
air pollution control dust/sludge.
No of fac.
believed to
generate
waste
f . «
: 2
1
i
2
2
5
3
3
30
30
5
28
1
28
27
No of fac.
sampled by
EPA
',," '. 2
1
" ' 1
1 '" 2
2
•2
2
2
4
4
3
2
1
2
3
No of fac,
submitting
method
1312 data
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Passes low
hazard criterion
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes :
Yes
No
Yes :
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reason for
failure
Cr
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
As, Cd, Pb ,
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 /-Monday,''September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
39309
TABLE 2.—RESULTS OF APPLYING THE Low HAZARD CRITERION TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING
WASTES—Continued
Commodity sector
Steel
Titanium dioxide
Titanium dioxide ;
Titanium tetrachloride.'.
Zinc ;;
Total number of wastes
meeting low hazard cri-
terion.
Total number of wastes
failing low hazard crite-
rion.
Conditional retained waste
Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace
slag.,
Sulfate process waste acids
Sulfate process waste acids
Chloride process waste solid :
Slag
No of fac.
believed to
generate
waste
27
2
2
9
•j
No of fac.
sampled by
EPA
3
2
2
3
, No of fac. •-
submitting
method
1312data
Q
"o
o
* ' . 0
Passes low
hazard criterion
Yes
Yes
Yes
17
3
Reason for
failure
C. Consolidation of Results
In order for a mineral processing
waste to qualify for continued retention
in the Bevill exclusion, it must meet both
the high volume and the low hazard
criteria. Combining the results from the
volume and hazard assessments yields
the proposed list of temporarily
• excluded mineral processes wastes,
which are presented and discussed in
section V, below.
V. Proposed Bevill Status of Twenty
Conditionally Retained Mineral
Processing Wastes
A, Wastes Proposed for Retention
within the Exclusion
Based on applying the Bevill exclusion
criteria to the available data for each of
the 20 conditionally retained wastes,
EPA proposes to retain 13 mineral
processing wastes within the exclusion,
and remove the remaining seven. The
proposed status of each of the 20 wastes
and the basis for EPA's proposed Bevill
exclusion decisions are presented in
Table 3. The list of temporarily excluded
Bevill mineral processing wastes in the
proposed regulatory language below (40
CFR 261.4(b)(7) [i)-(xviii)) includes 18
wastes: the five retained in the
September 1 final rule and the 13
proposed for retention today.
B. Wastes Proposed for Removal from
the Exclusion
EPA proposes to permanently remove
the remaining seven wastes from the
Bevill exclusion:
1. Roast/leach ore residue from
primary chromite production
2. Process wastewater from coal
gasification
3. Furnice off-gas solids from
elemental phosphorus production
4. Process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production
5. Process wastewater from primary
lead processing
6. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production
7. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production
EPA will make final Bevill exclusion
decisions on these wastes by January 15,
1990. The Agency solicits public
comment on the data used in today's
proposed rule. The Agency will not,
however, respond to comments that
concern the content of the actual
criteria; these criteria are now in final
form.
TABLE 3.—RESULTS OF APPLYING BOTH BEVILL CRITERIA TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES
Commodity sector
Chromite
Coal Gas
Coal gas ".
Copper
Copper
Elemental phosphorus
Hydrofluoric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
Iron....
Iron
Lead
Lightweight aggregate
Magnesium .'.
Phosphoric acid ...;.
Steel -
Steel
Titanium dioxide
Titanium dioxide....
Titanium tetrachloride
Zinc : ....
Total number of wastes retained
within Bevill exclusion.
Conditionally retained waste _
Roast/Leach ore residue
Gasifier ash
Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant sludge
Slag tailings...
Furnace off-gas solids
Fluorogypsum
Process wastewater
Air pollution control dust/sludge
Anhydrous process wastewater
Process wastewater
Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace 'air
pollution control dust/sludge.
Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace slag
Sulfate process waste acids
Chloride process waste solids
Slag
No. of fao.
believed to
generate
waste
2
1
1
2
2
5
3
3
30
30
5
28
1
28
27
27-
2
2
9
1
Passes high
volume
criterion
Yes
Yes
No....
Yes
Yes.
No.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes....
Yes.. ;..
Yes
Yes ,.
Yes
Yes
No
Yes ;.
Yes
Passes low
hazard criterion
NO :
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes.,..H
Yes .'.
No
Yes....:
Yes
Yes. I...
Retained within
Bevill exclusion
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes .
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
13
-------
•9J10
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
TABIE 3.—RESULTS OF APPLYING BOTH BEVILL CRITERIA TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES-
Continued
Commodity aedor
ToUl numbor of wastes with-
drtwn toil) Bw,H exclusion.
Conditionally retained waste
No. of fao.
believed to
generate •
waste
Passes high
volume
criterion
Passes low
hazard criterion
Retained within
Bevill exclusion
7
VI, Regulatory Implementation and
Effective Dates of the Final Rule
In accordance wilh the March 14,1989
order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C, Circuit, EPA intends to finalize
this proposed rule by January 15,1900.
(See En viroiimental Defense Fund v.
EPAt 852 F.2d 1318 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). As
of the effective date of the final rule (i.e.,
six months after the final rule appears in
the Federal Register), all mineral
processing wastes that have been
conditionally excluded from regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA since 1980,
except the thirteen wastes described
above in Section V, may be subject to
Subtitle C requirements in those states
that do not have authorization to
administer their own hazardous wastes
program in Heu of EPA. Generators,
transporters, and treatment, storage, and
disposal (TSD) facilities in authorized
states wilt be subject to RCRA
requirements imposed as a result of the
final rale only after the state revises its
program to adopt equivalent
requirements and EPA authorizes the
revision.
The requirements imposed as a result
of removing the temporary exclusion
include; determining whether the solid
waste(s) exhibit hazardous
characteristics (40 CFR 282.11) and, for
those wastes that are hazardous;
obtaining an EPA identification number
for managing hazardous wastes (40 CFR
282,34): complying with recordkeeping
and reporting requirements (40 CFR
282,40-282.43); and obtaining interim
status and seeking a permit (or
modifying interim status, including
permit applications or modifying a
permit, as appropriate) (40 CFR Part
270),
A, Section 3010 Notification
Not later than 90 days after
publication of the final rule, all persons
who generate, transport, treat, store, or
dispose of wastes that are removed from
temporary exclusion by that rule and
fire characteristically hazardous under
40 CFR part 281 subpart C will be
required to notify either EPA or an
authorized state of these activities
pursuant to section 3010 of RCRA.
Notification instructions are set forth in
45 FR 12746. Persons who previously
have notified EPA or an authorized state
of their activities pursuant to Section
3010 of RCRA, i.e., persons who
previously have notified EPA or an
authorized state that they generate,
transport, treat, store or dispose of
hazardous waste and have received an
identification number (see 40 CFR
262.12, 263.11 and 265.1) need not re-
notify.2 Persons without EPA
identification numbers are prohibited
from transporting, offering for transport,
treating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous wastes.
The Agency views the section 3010
notification requirements to be
necessary in this case because it
believes that many persons that manage
the wastes coming into subtitle C
regulation today have not previously
notified EPA and received an EPA
identification number.
B. Definition of Designated Facility
The Agency has received a number of
inquiries regarding waste shipments
from a state where a waste is subject to
hazardous waste regulations to a state
where the waste is not yet regulated as
hazardous. This situation can arise
when EPA lists or identifies a new
waste as hazardous under its pre-
HSWA authority. In such a case, the
waste is subject to RCRA hazardous
waste regulations only in those states
that do not have interim or final
authorization to operate the RCRA
program. In a state authorized by EPA to
operate a hazardous waste program in
lieu of the Federal program under the
authority of section 3006 of RCRA, the
waste would not be subject to RCRA
requirements until the state revises its
program to classify the waste as
hazardous and received authorization
for these requirements. This set of
circumstances results from the fact that
RCRA allows states a specified time to
adopt new regulations in order to
minimize disruptions to the
implementation of authorized state
2 Under the Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of
1980, (Pub. L. 96-462) EPA was given the option of
waiving the notification requirement under section
3010 of RCRA following revision of the section 3001
regulations, at the discretion of the Administrator.
programs. In contrast, this situation does
not occur when the wastes are newly
listed or identified pursuant to the
HSWA authorities since Congress
specified that HSWA provisions are to
be implemented by EPA in all states
until such time as states are authorized
to implement the new regulations.
There are two recent EPA rulemakings
that listed or identified additional
wastes pursuant to pre-HSWA
authority. (1) Six Metal Smelting
Wastes, 53 FR 35412, September 13,
1988, and (2) Bevill Mining Waste
Exclusion final rule 54 FR 36592,
September 1,1989. In addition, today's
proposed rule on the 20 conditionally
exempt Bevill wastes could lead to a
final rule that brings additional wastes
into RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction. These
three rulemakings will result in the
scenario described above.
Generators of hazardous waste have
asked the Agency whether they can ship
the waste to a facility in a state where it
is not regulated as hazardous and, if so,
how they should manifest their waste.
EPA's generator regulations require a
generator of hazardous waste to
"designate on the manifest one facility
which is permitted to handle the waste
'described on the manifest." (See 40 CFR
260.20). The regulations clearly state
that the facility designated on the
manifest is the "designated facility" as
defined in § 260.10. (See the direct
reference in the definition of
"designated facility" to the manifest ,
requirement in § 262.20.)
A designated facility as currently
defined in 40 CFR 260.10 must either (1)
have an EPA permit (or interim status)
in accordance with Parts 270 and 124, (2)
have a permit from a State authorized in
accordance with part 271, or (3) be a
recycling facility that is regulated under
§ 261.6(c)(2) or subpart F of part 266, and
must also be designated on the manifest
by the generator pursuant to § 262.20. It
has become apparent that when
promulgated in 1980, the definition of
"designated facility" did not
contemplate the above situation which
has potentially broad impacts on the
, RCRA program. EPA's current
interpretation of this manifest
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 184 /Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposect Rules
"39311
requirement is that the authorized state
determines which facilities are allowed
to accept the waste. However, since
questions on this issue have arisen, the
Agency is using this opportunity to seek
public; comment and, based on these ;.-
comments, to promulgate clearer
regulatory language.
The Agency has decided to propose a
clarification of the definition of
"designated facility" to alleviate any
confusion that the public and the
regulated community may have over its
applicability. Today's proposal would
provide that if a waste is sent to an
authorized State where the waste is not
considered hazardous, then the
designated facility must be a facility
allowed, by the State, to accept the
waste. This regulatory change would
only apply to the situation where a
hazardous waste in one state is shipped
to a second state that has not yet been
authorized to regulate the waste as
hazardous. The effect of the proposed
rule change would be to clarify the
Agency's position that the management
standards of the receiving state are the
standards applicable to the treatment,
storage, or disposal of the waste.
It should be further emphasized that
the effect of this new provision would
be limited to a temporary period of time
following an EPA regulatory action that
newly identifies a hazardous waste
pursuant to pre-HSWA authority. All
authorized states are required to adopt
EPA's new waste listings and
identifications by specified deadlines
(generally one to two years after the
applicable "cluster" deadline for state
authorization). Once a state has
obtained authorization for the new
waste listings, all RCRA waste
management standards will apply. The
phase-in period allowed for state
adoption of Federal program changes is
a basic premise of pre-HSWA state
authorization. Commenters should also
be aware that since state programs are
allowed to include provisions which go
'beyond the Federal program, any
existing state requirements would
continue to be applicable and
enforceable by the state during this
interim period.
Without a mechanism to allow
phasing-in of RCRA standards, new
Federal program requirements—
particularly new waste listings or
identifications—could result in
unworkable situations. Generators in
unauthorized states may not be able to
find a facility that is eligible to take their
newly listed or identified wastes. This
could occur if there are no facilities
within the state that qualified for interim
status or received a permit modification
for the new waste. Alternatively, if the-
generator has an existing arrangement
to send its waste to a facility in an
authorized state, the receiving facility
would Jiave no opportunity to gain
interim status until its state adopts the
waste stream as hazardous. EPA
believes that the phase-in of the RCRA
program that has been established for
state assumption of the new Federal
requirements is essential for a workable^-
national hazardous waste management
system.-
The Agency solicits comments on this
proposed clarification of the definition
of "designated facility." In particular,
EPA would like to know if generators
and waste management facilities have
encountered problems with their waste
shipments to authorized states as
discussed above.
The Agency also solicits comments on
alternative approaches to this problem.
One option would be to require the
receiving facility to be permitted,
licensed, registered, or otherwise subject
to a prior approval program by a state to
manage municipal or industrial solid
waste. This would be similar to the
existing requirement for small quantity
generator-waste in § 261.5(g)(3).
However, this option may present some
of the same drawbacks as the existing
"designated facility" definition in that it
might not be clear-what constitutes an
adequate state-prior approval scheme.
This proposed clarification will not
alter the requirement that a generator
offer his Waste only to transporters who
have EPA identification numbers. (See
40 CFR 262.12(c)). Thus, if a newly listed
waste is transferred between
transporters in a state where the waste
is not yet hazardous, both transporters
should be identified on the manifest.
The initial transporter would still be
required to keep the copy of the
manifest on file.
In order to ensure that the waste
reaches the designated facility, EPA is
proposing to require that the generator
arrange that the designated facility
owner or operator sign and return the
manifest to the generator, and that out-
of-state transporters sign and foward
the manifest to the designated facility.
The return of the manifest to the
generator will "close the loop" on the
disposition of the generated waste and
allow the generator to attempt to resolve
any discrepancies in the manifest, as
required by 40 CFR 262.42. This new
requirement parallels the requirements
in 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71. However,
as opposed to those sections, which
require the receiving facility to return
the manifest, the proposed § 262.23(e)
puts the burden on the generator to
ensure the return of the manifest when
the waste is sent to a facility in a state
not yet authorized to treat the waste as
hazardous. EPA believes that this
approach is appropriate, since the
facility receiving the waste and any out-
of-state transporters may not be subject
to subtitle C regulation, if they do not
otherwise handle any RCRA hazardous
wastes. It should be noted that with this
approach the designated facility and
out-of-state transporters would not be
required to obtain EPA identification
numbers since the waste is not
hazardous in their state. (Of course,
once the state becomes authorized to
treat the particular waste as hazardous,
the facility would need a RCRA subtitle
C permit (or interim status) to continue
managing the waste and all transporters
would need EPA identification
numbers.)
, The Agency intends to review the
comments on today's proposed changes
to the "designated facility" definition,
and will promulgate a final rule with the
associated mining waste final rule. EPA
believes that it is important to clarify
the existing regulation so that the
parties affected by non-HSWA waste
identifications and listings know the
status of these wastes and the
management standards that apply to
them if they cross state borders. A minor
technical correction is also included in
the proposed language of "designated
facility" to clarify that an interim status
facility in an authorized state may be a
designated facility. EPA believes that it
is universally understood that these
interim status, facilities can accept
hazardous waste shipments, and this
was the original intent of the provision.
Therefore, in the first sentence of the
proposal a parenthetical clause is added
with the words "or interim status".
C. Compliance Dates
\. Interim Status and Permit
Modifications in Unauthorized States
Facilities that currently treat, store, or
dispose of wastes that have been
removed from temporary Bevill
exclusion and are characteristically
hazardous under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart C, but have not received a
permit pursuant to section 3005 of RCRA
and are not operating pursuant to
interim status, may be eligible for
interim status (see section
3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) of RCRA, as amended).
In order to operate pursuant to interim
status, such facilities must submit a
Section 3010 notice pursuant to 40 CFR
270.70(a) within 90 days of publication
of the final rule, and must submit a Part
A permit application within six months
-------
39312
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
of publication of tha final rule. Under
section 3005{e)(3), land disposal
facilities qualifying for interim status
under section 3005(e}(l)(A)(5i) must also
submit a Part B application and certify
that the fuclllty is fa compliance with all
applicable ground water monitoring and
financial responsibility requirements
within 18 months of publication of the
final rule. If tha facility fails to do so,
interim status will terminate on that
date.
Completion of final permit application
will require individual facilities to
ttevttlop and compile information on
their on-sfte waste management
operations Including, but not limited to
Ina following activities: ground-water
monitoring (If wa&te management on
land is involved); manifest systems,
racordkocping, and reporting? closure,
and possibly, post-closure requirements;
and financial responsibility
requirements. The permit applications
may also require development of
engineering plans to upgrade existing
facilities. In addition, many of these
facilities will, in the future, be subject to
land disposal restrictions (LDR)
standards. As explained on September
1, EPA considers wastes which would
be brought under subtitle C regulation
by today's proposal to be "newly
identified** wastes for purposes of
establishing LDR standards under
section 3004(g)(4) of RCRA. (54 FR
M024). Under EPA regulations, LDR
standards must require treatment of the
affected wastes to a level or by a
method that reflects the use of Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) before the wastes can be
disposed on the land. Thus, one future
implication of today's proposed rule
fund the eventual final rule) will be the
ban on land disposal of these wastes
unless they are appropriately treated
prior to such disposal. EPA will further
address LDR standards for non-Bevill
mineral processing wastes within the
context of the upcoming "Third Third"
proposal.
All existing hazardous waste
management facilities (as defined in 40
CFR 270.2) that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes covered by today's
proposed rule, and that are currently
operating pursuant to interim status
under section 3005(e) of RCRA, must file
with EPA an amended part A permit
application within six months of the
publication of the final rule, in
accordance with § 270.72{a).
Under current regulations, a
hazardous waste management facility
that has received a permit pursuant to
Section 3005 may not treat, store, or
dispose of the wastes removed from
temporary exclusion by today's
proposed rule and which are
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C when the final
rule becomes effective until a permit
modification allowing such activity has
occurred in accordance with § 270.42.
Consequently, owners and operators of
such facilities will want to file any
necessary applications with EPA well
before the effective date of the final rule.
EPA has recently amended its permit
modification procedures for newly listed
or identified wastes. (See 40 CFR
270.42(g).) For more details on the permit
modification procedures, see 53 FR
37912, September 28,1988.
2. Interim Status and Permit
Modifications in Authorized States
Until the state is authorized to
regulate the wastes excluded from •
temporary exclusion by today's
proposed rule and which are hazardous
under 40 CFR part 261, part C, no permit
requirments apply and facilities lacking
a permit need not seek interim status.
Any facility treating, storing, or
disposing of these wastes on the
effective date of authorization of the
state to regulate these wastes under
RCRA may qualify for interim status
under applicable state law. Note that in,
order to be no less stringent than the
Federal program, the state "in
existence" date for determining interim
status eligibility may not be later than
the effective date of EPA's authorization
of the state to regulate these wastes.
These facilities must provide the
required 3010 notification within 90 days
of publication of the final Federal rule as
described above and must also provide
the state's equivalent of a part A permit
application as required by authorized
state law.
Finally, RCRA section 3005(e) (interim
status) or any authorized state analog
will apply to waste management
facilities qualifying for state interim
status. For those facilities managing
wastes under an existing state RCRA
permit, state permit modification
procedures will apply.
VII. Effect on State Authorizations
This proposed rule will not be
effective in RCRA authorized states
until the state program amendments are
effective, because its requirements are
not being Imposed pursuant to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Thus, this removal
from temporary exclusion will be
applicable six months after publication
of the final rule only in those few states
that do not have final authorization to
operate their own hazardous waste
programs in lieu of the Federal program.
In authorized slates, the reinterpretation
of the regulation of non-excluded
processing wastes will not be applicable
until the state revises its program to
adopt equivalent requirements under
state law and receives authorization for
these new requirements. (Of course, the
requirements will be applicable as state
law if the state law is effective prior to
authorization).
Assuming that EPA makes final the
scope of the Bevill exclusion by January
15,1990, as planned, states that have
final authorization would be required
(40 CFR 271.21{e)) to revise their
programs to adopt equivalent standards
regulating non-Bevill mineral processing
wastes that exhibit hazardous
characteristics as hazardous by July 1,
1991 if only regulatory changes are
necessary, or by July 1,1992 if statutory
changes are necessary. These deadlines
can be extended by up to six months
(i.e., until January 1,1992 and January 1,
1993, respectively) in exceptional cases
(40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA
approves the revision, the state
requirements become RCRA Subtitle C
requirements in that state. States are not
authorized to regulate any wastes
subject to today's proposal until EPA
approves their regulations. Of course,
states with existing standards that
address these wastes may continue to
administer and enforce their regulations
as a matter of state law.
Currently unauthorized states that
submit an official application for final
authorization less than 12 months after
the effective date of the final rule may
be approved without including an
equivalent provision (i.e., to address
non-Bevill mineral processing wastes) in
the application. However, once
authorized, a state must revise its
program to include an equivalent
provision according to the requirements
and deadlines provided at 40 CFR
271.21(e).
VIII. Economic Impact Screening
Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order
12291
Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order
12291 (46 FR 13193) require that a
regulatory agency determine whether a
new regulation will be "major" and, if
so, that a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) be conducted. A major rule is
defined as a regulation that is likely to
result in one or more of the following
impacts:
(1) An annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more;
(2) A major increase hi costs or prices
for consumers, individuals, industries,
Federal, State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules 39313
tM»M^«l»B»E»M^»gM»i^»»MaBp»a«»»a.«mjuj»uLMrrrTT»»T»^»lfrwnl^»K1»n"MnnrrW«TW-T1ff»l^rfrm1 • ••MH II lllnllll ' I " i - . " .. ' - ? -~3g?rjai
(3) Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the :
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
When final, today's proposed rule will
complete the Agency's revised
interpretation of the Bevill Mining
Waste Exclusion for mineral processing
wastes, previously proposed under
Court-ordered deadline on April 17,1989
(54 FR 15345). The first part of this
reinterpretation, dealing with the vast •
majority of individual small volume
waste streams, was made final on
September 1,1989. The preamble to the
September rule presented the results of
the Agency's economic impact screening
analysis, covering scores of small
volume mineral processing wastes, and
examining cost impacts associated with
39 potentially hazardous small volume
wastes in detail. This analysis indicated
a total annual compliance cost for
subtitle C waste management of about
$54 million. As indicated in Section V of
this preamble, today's proposed rule
would remove seven additional
processing wastes from the Bevill
exclusion and subject them to coverage
under existing subtitle C regulations if
they exhibit hazardous characteristics.
Consistent with Executive Order
12291, the Agency has completed a
preliminary economic impact screening
analysis for the seven mineral
processing wastes proposed for removal
from the Bevill exclusion in today's
proposed rule. Results of thijs analysis
suggest that five of the seven waste
streams are likely to exhibit hazardous
characteristics at some or all of the
facilities that generate them, and that
nine minerals processing facilities in
five different commodity sectors are
likely to incur compliance costs if the
Bevill status of these wastes is
permanently removed. The Agency,
estimates that total annual compliance
costs will be on the order of $5 million,
and.would thus not indicate that today's
proposal is a "major rule" according to
the-first criterion of E.O.12291.
In addition, for reasons, set out below,
EPA does not predict a substantial
increase in costs or prices for consumers
or a significant effect on international
trade or employment in connection with
today's proposal. One or two individual
mineral processing facilities may
experience moderate compliance costs
which could affect their ability to ' '
compete in their respective commodity
sectors. On balance, the Agency does
not believe that today's proposed rule
constitutes a major rule as defined by
E.0.12291.
The following paragraphs of this
section present the Agency's economic
impact screening approach,
assumptions, and results in more detail.
A. Approach
The Agency's screening analysis was
based on a modification of the
procedure used to develop the cost and
economic impacts of the September 1,
1989 final rule, details of which are.
provided in the technical background
document for that rule.3 The major
differences between the two analyses
are that in this instance, EPA conducted
facility-specific, rather than sector-wide
analyses, and used newly available
waste characteristics, generation, and
management data collected through the
Agency's recent sampling effort and
industry survey. These new data
allowed EPA to characterize waste
streams and current and prospective
management trains much more
accurately for the seven wastes studied
for today's proposed rule.
Because many of these site-specific
data have been designated Confidential
Business Information (CBI) by company
respondents, EPA has not provided
information in this preamble or in the
supporting technical background
document * on facility-specific waste .
generation rates or management
practice assumptions, in order to
prevent unauthorized release of
company-specific information. For
presentation purposes, however, the
Agency has developed proxies for some
of the confidential information (e.g.,
commodity production rates) from
published sources,5 and has used and
reported this information in the analysis
presented below.
Waste characteristics for the seven
wastes were ascribed based on EPA
waste sampling data. In contras.t to the
criteria and test procedures used to
determine whether the wastes are "low
hazard" for purposes of today's
proposal, the approach used here
employed EP toxicity test results and
standard hazardous waste characteristic
tests (e.g., corrosivity limits of pH
between 2.0 and 12.5), because these are
the tests and regulatory levels that will
3 USEPA. Technical Background Document:
Development of the Cost, Economic, and Small
Business Impacts Arising from the Reinterpretation
of the Bevill Exclusion for Mineral Processing
Wastes. August 18,1989. ,
4 USEPA. Technical Background Document:
Development of the Cost and Economic Impacts of
Implementing the Bevill Mineral Processing Wastes
Criteria. September 15,1989. -
s 1988 Directory of Chemical Producers (SRI
' International), Chemical Marketing Reporter.
be used to determine whether wastes
will be regulated under Subtitle C after
removal from the Bevill exclusion.,
Although wastes were not sampled at
every facility generating each waste
type, EPA used the conservation
assumption that if a waste type
exhibited one or more hazardous
characteristics at one sample facility,
then it would exhibit the same
characteristics (i.e., pass or fail) at all
facilities generating the same waste,
unless there was specific sampling
evidence to the contrary. Therefore, EPA
may have overestimated costs and
impacts for some facilities and sectors
for which sampling was not
comprehensive for all facilities.
Of the seven waste streams reviewed,
the preliminary screening assessment
suggests that two—process wastewater
from coal gasification and sulfate
process waste solids from titanium
dioxide production—are not likely to
test hazardous under current
characteristic test procedures.
Accordingly, EPA has assumed in the
economic screening analysis that the
facilities generating these two wastes
will experience no compliance cost
impacts associated with potential
subtitle C regulation of these wastes.
The remaining five waste streams were
considered hazardous at all facilities, for
the characteristics specified, as follows:
• Chromite roast/leach ore residue—
EP toxic for chromium.
• Element phosphorus off-gas solids
(from wet collection)—EP toxic for
cadmium.
• Hydrofluoric acid process
wastewater—Corrosive.
• Primary lead process wastewater—
EP toxic for arsenic, cadmium, and lead,
corrosive.
•-Titanium dioxide sulfate process
waste acids—EP toxic for chromium,
corrosive.
These commodity sectors and wastes
were then further analyzed in terms of
current (baseline) management
practices.
As in the previous screening analysis
for the September rule, the Agency
developed baseline and subtitle C
' treatment scenarios for the wastes to be
withdrawn from the Bevill exclusion and
estimated the incremental costs incurred
by each sector in treating the wastes as
hazardous under RCRA. In contrast to
the previous analysis, however, EPA
simulated costs for baseline
management practices on a site-specific
basis using the actual data provided for
each of the 13 potentially affected
facilities in the five sectors studied.
Subtitle C management practices were
developed as before, using knowledge of
-------
89314 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday. September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
subtitle C requirements and best
engineering judgment
EPA determined that five of the 13
facilities analyzed on the basis of
company-provided data are currently
managing hazardous wastes in
compliance with current subtitle C
requirements, and thus might not incur
additional costs if this rule is
promulgated in its present form. For
example, if an affected facDity already
has one or more appropriate waste
management units with approved
subtitle C permits and sufficient
capacity to manage a newly non-Bevill
characteristic waste, then the regulatory
compliance costs associated with
removing the waste from the Bevill
exclusion would be a small fraction of
what they would be otherwise, and
would consist primarily of incremental
operating and maintenance fas opposed
to capital construction and closure)
coats. The data used to establish these
bnicline waste management
assumptions were obtained from
responses to EPA's 1987-88 National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities (TSDR Survey], The methods
used to organize and manipulate these
data are described in a technical
background document to the September
1 final rule.*
Other information sources also
indicate that compliance costs
associated with this rule will be lower
than would be predicted using standard
waste management assumptions. Data
from the National Survey of Solid
Wastes from Mineral Processing
Facilities indicate that current practice
for managing many of the wastes
{particularly the wastewaters) proposed
» U3BPA, JSflS. DmtcfiMat of the High Volume
Cti'forfeit p>r MiMtol Frocettfag Wastes. Special
W«*te» Branch, Of8c« of Solid WaiCe. August 18,
KM9.
for removal in today's NPRM includes
treatment in a wastewater treatment
plant, direct discharge via NPDES
permit provisions, and/or recycling to
the process generating the waste in
question. EPA has reviewed this
information, and used it to develop
baseline and subtitle C compliance
scenarios for this analysis. As a result,
estimated compliance costs at several of
the facilities affected by today's
proposal are zero, i.e., removal of the
waste from Bevill will impose no
operational or economic impacts.
B. Aggregate and Sector Compliance
Costs
The impact screening analysis
projects that nine facilities in five
different mineral processing commodity
sectors will be affected directly by
today's proposed rule. Another four
facilities, one each in the chromite and
titanium dioxide sectors, and two in the
lead sector, are believed to be
unaffected by virtue of already
incorporating Subtitle C (or equivalent
NPDES wastewater treatment) practices
in their current waste management
systems. In aggregate, the total impact of
today's rule is estimated to be about $5.2
million per year.
EPA cost estimates for individual
facilities are presented by sector in
Table 4. Two sectors, titanium dioxide
and chromite, are expected to
experience aggregate sector impacts in
excess of $1 million annually. Within
each of these two sectors, all of the cost
impacts are predicted to fall on one of
the two facilities, with the other
producer's waste management costs
being unaffected by removal from the
Bevill exclusion. The hydrofluoric acid
manufacturers (Allied Signal and
Pennwalt) would experience cost
increases of about $500,000 and $200,000,
respectively. The primary lead
producers, Asarco and Doe Run, would
experience compliance cost impacts of
$41,000 and $235,000, respectively.
Estimated cost impacts for individual
primary lead facilities range from zero
to $201,000 annually, depending on
current management practices and
plant-specific waste characteristics. The
two (of five) elemental phosphorus
plants that are expected to experience
impacts have total estimated
incremental costs of $179,000 annually,
with the vast majority ($173,000)
imposed on the facility owned by
Occidental Chemical Corporation.
At four facilities, estimated
compliance costs are zero, i.e., removal
of the facility's candidate special waste
from the Bevill exclusion, will impose no
cost or economic impacts. This is
primarily due to the current
management practices being employed
at these four facilities. The unaffected
TiO2 facility (Kemira) is a fully
permitted RCRA subtitle C management
facility; examination of data from EPA's
TSDR survey reveals that the permits
and waste management units necessary
to handle the newly non-Bevill waste as
a regulated hazardous waste are already
in place. At the unaffected chromite
facility (American Chrome and
Chemical), EPA survey and sampling •
data indicate that the waste goes
directly to a wastewater treatment
system (exempt from subtitle C), which
renders the waste material (both solids
and effluent) non-hazardous. Therefore,
the facility can continue to manage the
waste under current practice,
irrespective of Bevill status. Similar
considerations indicate that two of
Asarco's primary lead facilities (Omaha
and Glover) would also be unaffected
by today's proposed rule (waste
generation and management data have.
been designated CBI by Asarco).
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION, VALUE OF SHIPMENTS, AND COMPLIANCE COSTS
Commodity soctor
Chromiia (2)
Entfr* S«c(of__™. _™_™ . _..„ .
FMWlio* Evaluated,™. „„ .
Ame»ic«o Own*— Corpus Christ! TX .
OccWertal-CiiHia Hayn« NC
Elemental phosphorus
EflOf» Stetof,,.,. .«..,„...„..,,„..,,„.„..„..,„„....,._.„_ _ „.
F»e*Set Evaluated...................... . " ~
FMC— Poeatefto ID ,„.„„.... .
OoddonW-CoJombta TN.~ ._. .
Hydrofluoric AcH
Erttk* Sector,,,,^,,.,.™.,,.,,., „.„.„„.„ 41 . ,
FaeSSfti Evaluated C3) , .. .,
Number of
plants
producing
commodity
2
5
2
g
2
Production »
(mt/yr)
150 000
41 000
109000
341,950
1 22 449
51 701
235 374
110P04
Unit
value
($/mt)
1 416
1 416
1,688
1 688
1 P73
Value of
shipments (Syr)
58 056 357
577,266,155
•\AC\ 9QR PR*
Compliance
costs (Syr)
Q
179,000
R7A nnn
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 198Q / Proposed Rules
39315
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION, VALUE OF SHIPMENTS, AND COMPLIANCE COSTS—Continued
Commodity sector
Allied — Geismar LA
Pennwalt-Calvert City KY
Lead
Entire Sector ; , ;
Facilities Evaluated . .
Asarco— East Helena MT (4)
Asarco — Glover MO (4) ..:
Asarco — Omaha NE (4)... :
Doe Run — Buick MO . .
Doe Run — Herculaneum MO :
. Titanium dioxide
Entire Sector
Facilities Evaluated
Kemira Oy — Savannah GA (5) . ....• ..
SCM— Baltimore MD (5)
Combined total — all five sectors
Entire Sector. .....
Facilities Evaluated
Number of
plants
producing
commodity
5
3
9
1
£4
9
Production »
(mt/yr)
86,168
24036
374 633
374 633
52189
52,189
52,189
92762
125304
893,878
114,286
54 422
59864
1,995,834
923,272
Unit
value
($/mt)
1,273
1 273
724
724
' 724
724
724
724
724
1,891
1,891
1 891
1 891
1,529
1,228
Value of
shipments ($yr)
109,695,878
30 599 377
27T 162,781
271 162781
37,775 036
37,775,036
37,775,036
67 141 706
90,695,969
1,690,482,634
216,134,766
102921 317
113213449
3,050,955,829
1,133,986,421
Compliance
costs (Syr) .
490,000
188,000
276,000
276 000
41,000
0
0
34,000
201,000
1,817,000
1,817,000
0
1 817000
5,224,000
5,224,000
1. 100 percent capacity utilization is assumed. -
2. Data are for sodium chromate and sodium bichromate.
3. DuPont's La Porte, TX, plant produces HF acid but is not included in the analysis because DuPont claims that the facility does not generate any solid wastes
subject to this rulemaking, i.e., that its fluorogypsum and process .wastewater are not solid wastes. EPA has not fully evaluated this claim but as, for this analysis,
assumed that the DuPont facility not experience impacts from this rule.
4. Capacity and production values apportioned equally between the three Asarco facilities.
5. Sulfate process. - -
C. Economic Impacts
EPA's screening-level analysis of
economic impact compared the
magnitude of compliance costs for each
affected facility to the estimated value
of shipments. This ratio provides a first
approximation of the extent to which -
the profitability of firms, or,
alternatively, commodity prices, or other
measures of national impact may be
adversely affected by the imposition of
regulatory compliance costs.
1. Impacts on Commodity Sectors
Economic impacts, expressed as the
ratio of annual compliance costs to
annual value of shipments, are
displayed in Table 5. Sectors or facilities
with ratios above one percent were
considered vulnerable to moderate to
significant financial impacts arid were
evaluated in more detail in terms of
market and industry factors that might
affect the ultimate incidence and impact
of the costs. -
As seen in Table 5, only two facilities
(one each in the titanium dioxide
(sulfate), and sodium chromate/
bichromate sectors) are predicted to
experience impacts* above the one
percent level, both at around 1.5 percent.
This level of impact is regarded as
moderate. The two elemental
phosphorus (FMC and Occidental),
primary lead (Asarco and Doe Run), and
hydrofluoric acid producers (Allied-
Signal and Pennwalt) examined in this
study are expected to experience only
minor economic impacts. Obviously,
firms and facilities already in
compliance and with compliance costs.
of zero (i.e., Kemira, American Chrome
and Chemical, and Asarco) will not
experience any economic impacts
associated with this rule.
To further explore the economic :
impact of today's proposal, EPA has
examined some of the factors that affect
the ability of affected firms to pass
through prospective compliance costs to
product consumers in the form of higher
prices. These factors include absolute
price levels, major end users of the
mineral commodity, competition from
imports and substitutes, secondary
production, and flexibility in other
production cost factors. These are
discussed for each of the two affected
sectors in the paragraphs below.
a. Titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide
is used in pigments for paints and
surface coatings, paper manufacturing,
and plastics. Half of titanium dioxide
production is consumed in pigments,
where its competitive position is strong.
Demand for high-quality paper also
favors titanium dioxide.
The domestic industry supplies most
of the titanium dioxide used in the U.S.,
with imports exceeding exports by'only
a moderate degree. As a result, titanium
dioxide is in a relatively strong market
position. Producers using the sulfate
process, however, are in a minority and
account for only one eighth of domestic
production. It is not likely that the one
affected producer could establish a
premium for its product and would
therefore be limited in the extent to
which it could recover cost increases.
b. Sodium chromate and bichromate,
Sodium chromate and bichromate are
used in a number of applications,
including chrome pigments for paints.
Derivative chrome pigments have
excellent performance characteristics
and have experienced gains in certain
applications, such as traffic paints and -
automotive coatings. The U.S. is a net
exporter of sodium chromate and
bichromate.
Given the low level of import
competition and the small number of
producers in the domestic industry, the
one affected producer is apt to have a
reasonably good prospect of recovering
production cost increases.
-------
1"
Fed9ral Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—COMPLIANCE COSTS AT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FACILITIES
Commodity sector
Ciwmflt,..^,^,^™ :_„„„...
ttemcfd Phcsptwus
Hptrafluofia Acid ,,»_,m.»,^. „, „„.„.„,
t«d,r . .. ,_„,„„ .
TftnAmi Otoocfe, „____.,.„„.„..„„._.„„ .
Ctowtessd Total— Ai Ffc« Sectors,,.,,,,,...,.,, ......
- -•—
Plant
Amer. Chrome & Chem.-Corpus Chrlsti, TX „
Occidental— Castle Hayne, NC
Total— Chromite (1).«
Occidental— Columbia TO
Total — Elemental Phosphorus (1) „
Allied— Geismar, LA
PennwaJt— Calvert City, KY
Total— Hydrofluoric Acid (1)
Asaroo — Glover, MO ,„„„
Asarco — Omaha, NE
Doe Run— Buick, MO
Doe Run— Herculaneum, MO......
Total— Lead (1)....
Kemlra Oy— Savannah. GA (2)
SCM— Baltimore, MD (2)
Total— Titanium Dioxfde (1)
All Facilities (1) _
Facilities Affected by the Rule...
Compliance costs
($)
Q
2,274,000
6,000
173,000
179 OOO
490,000
188 000
678,000
41,000
0
20T 000
0
5,224,000
Costs per
metric ton
of product
($/MT)
o
15
<1
' 3
6
6
t
0
6
Costs/valud
of
shipments
(%)
b.o
1.1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 1989 / Propose^ Rules^
If so, regulatory alternatives that
eliminate or mitigate the impacts must
he considered.
In the preamble to the September final
rule, the Agency presented a description
of and the results from a comprehensive
screening analysis to determine the
potential for significant small business
impacts imposed by the reinterpretation
of the Mining Waste Exclusion. The
analysis conducted for today's proposal
was conducted using identical
procedures. These are outlined very
briefly below and are described mqre
fully in the'technical background
document to the September final rule.
The Agency has concluded that
today's proposed rule will not have a
significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small mineral
processing companies, because there are
no small businesses in the sectors that
are expected to experience impacts from
today's proposed rule.
A. Definition of Affected Small Entities
Today's proposal would impose
impacts only on the facilities in the five
commodity sectors that generate wastes
that would be removed from the Bevill
exclusion and that could fail any of the
Agency's tests for hazardous waste
characteristics. Based upon the
information contained in the responses
to the industry survey and EPA waste
sampling results, the five mineral
commodity sectors and nine facilities
most likely to face subtitle C compliance
costs have been identified in section
VIII of this preamble.
For purposes of defining "small
business" firms, EPA has again relied on
the standard definitions of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) as
: published at 13 CFR ch. 1, part 121. For
the industries in question, SBA employs
a basic employment-based definition,
with the small business cut-off value for
total company employment ranging
between 500 and 1,000 employees,
depending upon the specific industry in
question.
For the affected mineral processing
facilities identified!above in section VIII,
EPA conducted a comprehensive RFA
• business ownership screening analysis
for those mineral commodity sectors
estimated to incur economic impacts
associated with today's proposed rule.
All potentially affected plants and
businesses were examined individually.
Facility location and ownership
information was obtained as in the
previous analysis in support of the
September 1 final rule (see 54 FR 36592).
Data on the employment size of affected
firms were obtained from published
sources [e.g., Standard & Poors, Dun &
Bradstreet). The Agency then compared
reported company employment to the
Small Business Administration's (SBA's)
definition of a small business for each
sector's SIC code to determine the
number of small businesses, if any, in
that sector. SBA defines small
•businesses as less than 1000 employees
or less than 750 employees for most of
the SIC codes. .
B. Results .
As shown in table 7, EPA believes
that all of the firms that might be
affected by .today's proposal are large
businesses, according to the SBA's
company size criterion. Accordingly, the
Agency concludes that there will not be
a significant (or, in fact, any) adverse
impact on a substantial number of small
mineral processing companies as a
result of this rulemaking.
TABLE 7.—EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED MINERAL PROCESSING BUSINESS
Commodity sector
Hydrofluoric Acid ..;
Lead
Titanium Dioxide
Facility name
Am. Chrm. & Chem
FMC
Allied-Signal....
SCM '.
Facility location
Castle Hayne NC
Geismar, LA
Calvert City KY
Herculaneum, MO
East Helena, MT
Baltimore MD
Owner name
Harrison's Trading Co....
Occidential Petroleum.
FMC Corp
Occidental Petroleum
Allied-Signal
St Joe Minerals 2.
St Joe Minerals 2
Asarco
Hanson Industries
Kemira Oy
Owner location
Bronxville, NY .-.
Los Angeles, CA
Chicago, IL :
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Clayton, MO
Clayton, MO
New York, NY
New York, NY
New York, NY
Iselin, NJ ....
Helsinki, Finland
No. of
employees
1 1,200
51,000
24,797
51,000
144,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
7,600
7,600
7,600
33,000
7,200
Source
of info.
DCA.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
S&P.
D&B.
1 Employment estimate is based on total employment for all subsidiaries held by Harrison's Trading Co.
2 Doe Run is a general partnership of Homestake Mining Co. and St. Joe Minerals Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Fluor Corp. _ _
Sources: S&P: Standard and Poor's Corporation, "Standard and Poor's Corporation Records," (New York, New York: 1988). DCA: National Register Publishing
Company, "Directory of Corporate Affiliations," (WilmetteJL: 1988). D&B: Dun & Bradstreet International Market Identifiers. ,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR 260, 261,
and 262
Designated facility, Hazardous waste,
Waste treatment and disposal,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
. requirements, Manifests.
Dated: September 15,1989.
William K. Reffly,
Administrator.
For tht, reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912{a], 6921
through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938,
6939, and 6974.
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
revising the definition "designated
"facility" to read as follows:
§ 260.10 Definitions.
* * - *. * * .,
"Designatedfacility" means a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facility which (1) has received
a permit (or interim status) in
accordance with the requirements of
parts 270 and 124 of this chapter, (2) has
received a permit (or interim status)
from a State authorized in accordance
with part 271 of this chapter, or (3) is
regulated under § 261.6{c)(2) or subpart
F of part 266 of this chapter, and (4) that
has been designated on the manifest by
the generator pursuant to § 260.20. If a
waste is destined to a facility in an
authorized State which has not yet
obtained authorization to regulate that
particular waste as hazardous, then the
-------
39318
Federal Register^/ Voj.j^jifeLjL84jJfonda^ Rules
designated facility must be a facility
allowed by the receiving State to accept
such waste.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for part 281
continupi to read as follows:
Autttctttyt 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 0921, and
5022.
4. Section 281.4, paragraph (b)(7), is
revised to read as follows:
§261,4 Exclusions.
* » * * *
(b) • * *
l?j Solid waste from the extraction,
boncflcfalion, and processing of ores
«nd mineral! (including coal), including
phosphate rock and overburden from the
mining of uranium ore. For purposes of
tiii* paragraph, bcEcficlation of ores and
mineral* is restricted to the following
activities: crushing, grinding, washing,
dissolution, crystallization, filtration,
sorting, siring, drying, sintering,
pcIfeUdng, briqueUmg, calcining to
remove water and/or carbon dioxide,
wasting in preparation for leaching
(except where the roasting/leaching
saquence produces a final or
Intermediate product that does not
undergo further beneficiation or
processing), gravity concentration,
magnetic sopaniUon, electrostatic
separation, flotation, ion exchange,
solvent extraction, electrowinning,
precipitation, amalgamation, and heap, *
dump, vat, tank, and in situ leaching. For
the purposes of this paragraph, solid
waste from the processing of ores and
minerals includes only:
(i) Slag from primary copper
processing;
(if) Slag from primary lead processing;
(iii) Red and brown muds from
bauxite refining;
(iv) Phosphogypsum from phosphoric
acid production;
(v] Slag from elemental phosphorus
production;
(vi) Gasifier ash from coal
gasification;
(vii) Calcium sulfate waatewater
treatment plant sludge from primary
copper processing;
(viii) Slag tailings from primary copper
processing;
px] Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production;
(x) Air pollution control dust/sludge
from iron blast furnaces;
(xi) Iron blast furance slag;
(xii) Air pollution control dust/sludge
from lightweight aggregate production;
jxiii) Process wastewaterfrom
primary magnesium processing by the
anhydrous process;
(xiv) Process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production;
(xv) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace air pollution control
dust/sludge from carbon steel
production;
(xvi) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production;
(xviij Chloride process waste solids
from titanium tefrachloride production;
(xviii) Slag from primary zinc
processing.
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
5. The authority citation for part 262.
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6908, 6912,6922, 6923,
6924, 6925, and 6937.
6. Section 262.2& is amended by
adding paragraph (e} to read as follows:
§ 262.23 Use of the manifest.
*****
Ce) For shipments of hazardous waste
to a designated facility in an authorized
State which has not yet obtained
authorization to regulate that particular
waste as hazardous, the generator must
assure that the designated facility
agrees to sign and return the manifest to
the generator, and that any out-of-state
transporter signs and forwards the
manifest to the designated facility.
[FR Doc. 89-22419 Filed 9-22-89; 8:45 am}
BILLING CODE 6560-50-K
-------
-------
------- |