United States Office of
Environmental Protection Solid Wast. and
Agency Emergency Response
SPEPA DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9234.0-04
TITLE:APPhi l tY of P 1 I quirei nta to
A Mining ste Sites
APPR OVAL DATE: 8/19/86
EFFECTIVE DATE: 8/19/86
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
‘ FINAL
o DRAFT
STATUS
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWEA
DIREc;7iW

-------
United Slates Environmental Protection Agency —
Washington. DC 20460
&E PA OSWER Directive Initiation Request
Interim Duect,ve Number
9234.0-4
—
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Elizabeth Hall
Mail Code J Telephone Number
WH 548 E 382-2451
Lead Office OUST
OERR OWPE
0 OSW 0 AA OSWER
Approved for Aeview
Signature of Office Director
Date
Title
Applicability of RCRA Requirements to CERCLA Mining Waste Sites
Summary of Directive
Clarifies use of Subtitle 0 and/or C of RCRA for developing remedial
alternatIves at CERCLA mining waste sites In light of a July 3, 1986, final
determination on regulation of mining waste. (8/19/86, 10 pp)
Keywords: Superfund, CERCLA, RCRA, rtining waste, NC°,
compliance with other environmental laws
Signed by Longest, OERR
Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Oirecuv.. Announcement. etci Status
0 Draft
Policy directive
L Final
New
Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directive s Yes No Does It Supplement Previous Directive s)?
Yes
No
If “Yes to Either Question What Oirect,yejnumber. tifle)
9230.0—2 CE CLA Compifance with Other Environmental Statutes
Review Plan
o
0
0
0 Other (Specify)
Date
PUG 8L986
o OUST 0 OECM
O OWPE 0 OGC
0 Regions 0 OPPE
Date

-------
• - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCT

WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
9234.0-4
A1O 19 i986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consideration of RCRA Requirements in Performing
CERCLA Responses at Mining Waste Sites
FROM: Henry 1. Longest I I, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial ‘esponse
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
As you know, on July 3, 1986, the Agency issued a final
determination on whether mining waste would be regulated under
Subtitle C of RCRA (copy attached). This determination was
based on a report to Congress mandated by RCRA Section 3001(b)
(3)(C) and subsequent public comments. The determination Is
that mining wastes will not be regulated under Subtitle C at
this time. This conclusion Is based on the belief that several
aspects of EPA’s current hazardous waste management standards
if applied universally to mining sites, are likely to be environ-
mentally unnecessary, technically infeasible, or economically
impractical.
However, given the concern about actual and potential mining
waste problems, the Agency intends to develop a program for
regulating mining waste under Subtitle 0. The current Subtitle 0
program establishes criteria principally aimed at municipal and
industrial solid waste which focus on standards related to surface
water discharges, groundwater contamination arid endangered species.
Modifications to this program will focus on identifying environ-
mental problems, setting priorities for applying controls at
sttes with a high potential for risk, and employing a risk manage-
nient approach in the development of appropriate standards to
protect human health and the environment, as necessary, including
closure options, tailored controls, pretreatment of wastes prior
to disposal, and cleanup options. Revisions to Subtitle 0 crIteria
are expected to be proposed in mid-1988; however, EPA has reserved
t e option to reexamine a modified Subtitle C in the future if
this approach Is unworkable or insufficient.

-------
-2-
In the interim, Superfund will continue to address mining
waste problems through the RI/FS and ROD/EDD processes taking’
Into account current Subtitle D requirements as well as options
for addressing risks not addressed by Subtitle 0 requirements,
To address such remaining risks, you may wish to consider the
technical requirements of Subtitle C regulations during the
Initial review of remedial alternatives. If these requirements
seem to be technically infeasible, they may be rejected early tn
the screening process. If Subtitle C approaches appear to satisfy
the criteria found In Section 300.68 (g), Initial Screening of
Alternatives, of the NCP, they should be considered in the detailed
analysis. Other remedial alternatives should be evaluated In a
risk management analysis. In some cases, a combination of Subtitle
C and risk analysis approaches may be used to address a discrete
phase of response. All data generated during remedial planning,
including the basis for selection of specific remedies, should
be forwarded to my office as it becomes available so that the
Information can be transmitted to OSW to assist that office in
its development of standards for mining wastes.
Attachment
cc: Marcia Williams, OSW
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Dan Berry, OGC

-------
Thursday
July 3, 1986
Part V
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 261
Regulatory Determination For Wastes
From the Extraction and Beneficiation of
Ores and Minerals

-------
24496 Federal R ’. ister I Vol.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
;PRI. 3033-71
Regulatory Determination for Waste,
from the E tractuori and 6eneficiation
• of Ores and Minerals
ACINCY Ent-ironm ntal Protection
.‘ ‘ nrv.
ACTION: Regulatory deulrmi.iation.
SUMMARY: This is the r ’guI,itory
‘ ‘. rmin.iiion for solid %dste from the
• ‘:r .JLtton and beneliciation of ores and
milcrjl required b section
“ (l (3J(C) of the Resource
Cs’rtcer%dtion an l Reco erv Act
iRCR.. . This section of RCRA requires
the Administrator to determine whether
i, prumulgat regulations under Subtitle
C of the Act for these wastes or
t’ rr itne that such regulations are
l’sdr:anted. the Administrator must
mike his d lerminar:or, no later thari
c months after completing a Report to
C. ni re, , on these wastes and after
‘iL luc hearings and the opporlunhI) to
‘i nment on the report. After completing
thiace actittlies and reuewtng the
information available the Aaency has
determined that reguljtion of the wastes
rudied in the Report to Congress. i.e..
‘ .4steg from the ettraction and
bencficijtion of ores and minerals.
.irtjt.r SLbtIie C is riot warranted at this
tinr.e
ADORISI: The address for the
lfradquarterg docxet is United States
F ironmenra1 Protection Agency EPA
RCR.; docket (Sub’basementj 401 M
‘ eer. SW. Washington DC. 20460. (202)
43 —93 For further details on what the
FPA RCRA docket con’aic,, see Section
‘.11 01 thie preamble titled EPA RCR.A
Doc ei under SUPPUM(NyA
OR F1JRINLA INFORMATION CON?ACI
RCR.’t/Superfun Hotlirti at (800) 424—.
9146 or ( 02 3a2—3000 or Dan Derkic, at
( u l 382—r)1.
SUPPUM1P. A*Y iNFORulAy
Preamble Outline
I Summary of Decision
u 8dCkgrourid
Ill Leiial Auiliortty
IV Repor, to Congress
V Apptic , of Subtitle C to fining Waste
VI Application of Subtitle 0 to liriing W ii.
II EPA RCRA Docket
Supplementary Information
I S nmory
Based on the Report to Congress.
commer ts on the report and other
at. .iilable in(orrpatlon EPA ha,
determined that regulation of mining
waste under Subtitle C of the Resource
Cortseri 41 10.1 and Reco%ery Act (RCRA)
is not warranted at thi 5 time.
rhis conclusion is based on EPA,
belief that several aspects of EPA’,
current hazardous waste management
standards are likely to be
environmentail> unnecesssQ —---—i
terhnically infeasible, or econornic,IIy
impractical when applied to mining
waste While under existing law EPA
would ha%e some fle iblity to modify its
standards for hazardous Waste
management as applied to these waste,.
there are substantial questions about
whether the fle’iibility inherent in the
statute coupled with the Agencys
current data on these wastes pro ide a
sufficient basis for EPA to develop a
mining waste program under Subtitle C
that addresses the risks presented by
mining waste while remaining sensitive
to the unique practical demands of
mining operation,. Civen these
uncerla,ntte,, EPA does not intend to
impose Subtitle C conirola on rnirnng
w te at this time.
The Agency. however, is concerned
1 about certain actual and potential
imining waste problems, and therefore
plans to develop a program for mining
twaste under SubtitleD of RCR .A. The
Ion (errn effectiveness of this program
depends on a ailable State ‘esource, for
designing and implementing a program
tailored to the need, of each Slate. and
on EPA ’, ability to oversee and enforce
the program. As noted below in section
vi. EPA will be working with the States
to determine the specific nature of their
current mining waste activities and their
future plan, to administer such
programs. The Administration will work
with Congress to develop expanded
Subtitle 0 authority (i.e.. Federal
oversight and enforcement) to support
an effective State.,mpjeman(ed program
for mining waste. EPA has already made
preliminary contacts with Congress and
intend, to hold detailed discussion, on
the specific, of the Subtitle 0 program in
the corning year. In the Interim. EPA will
use RCRA section 7003 and CERCLA
sectIons 104 and 106 to protect against
substantial threat, and imminent
hazard,, if EPA is unable to develop an
effective mining waste program under
Subtitle 0. the Agency may find it
necessary to use Subtitle C authority in
the future.
IL Background
Section 8002(f) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
directed EPA to conduct:
A detailed and comprehensiv, study on the
adt.er,, effects of solid as!e, from active
and abandoned surface and un e gni.ind
mirle.l on the en%ironmet t iriclu&rg bi.i
lim:’ed to tte effects of such t. as :e on
human, acer air health weifjre and
naturdi re5nurre and on the adequact. of
means and measures curren’t} errplo ed 1i.
the mining indusirv Cot. emmeit agrn j
ar.d other, to dispose of and ut:lize iuch ail’tj
wO sies tu pret.ent or subs’ant,a’h m ha i’e
such adt.erse effects.
The study was to inc’ude an anak .a
of:
t. The Source, and volume of
discarded material generated per .edr
(torn mining:
2. Present disposal practice,:
3. Potential danger to human heaih
and the environment from surface runu ;f
of teacliate and air pollution by dust:
4. Alternative, to current dispos il
method,;
5. The cost of those alternatp, es n
terms of the impact on mine protji ,.LI
costs; and
6 Potential for use of discarded
material as a secondary source of the
mine product.
On May 19. 1080. EPA promulgated
regulation., under Subtitle C of RCR.A
which covered. among other th ings,
“solid waste from the extraction
beneficiation. and processing of ore
and minerals,” Ie. mining waste On
October 21. 1980. lust before these
Subtitle C regulations became effe:t
Congress enacted the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1980 (Pub L 96—48. )
which added section 3001(b)(3)(AJ 1 iJ t
RCRA. This section prohibits EPA from
regulating ‘solid waste from the
extraction. berieficiation, and proccssi ig
of ores and minerals, including
phosphate rock arid overburden from the
mining of uranium ore’ as hazardous
waste under Subtitle C of RCRA urit.l at
least six months after the Agency
completes and submits to Congress the
studie, reQuired by section 8002if’) and
by section 8002(p) (which was also
added to RCRA by the 1980
amendment,j.
Section 800 2(pJ required EPA to
perform a comprehensive study on the
disposal and utilization of the waste
excluded from regulation. i e. solid
waste (toni the extraction. beneftciaii ,
apd processing of ores and minerals.
including phosphate rock and
overburden from the mining of urat’!’jt’
ore. This new study. to be conducted in
conlunction with the section Boo tf)
study. mandated an analysis of
1. The source and volumes of such
material, generated per year
2. Present disposal and utiltzat:on
practices:
51. o.i:a / Thursday. Iulv 3. 1985 / Rules arid Regu!dtl fl,

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 128 I Thursday. lulv 3. 1986 I Rules and Re9ulations
3 Potential danger. if any. to human
hedlth and the environment from the
disposal and reuse of such materials;
4. Documented cases in which darger
to hurn.tn heafth or the environment has
bcen pro ed:
S Alternatives to current disposal
methods:
6 The costs of such alternati%es:
7 The impact of these alternatives on
the use of phosphate rock and uranium
ore, and other natural resources: and
8. The current and potential utiliza’ion
of such materials.
The 1980 amendments also added
ecnon 300 1(b)(3 )(Cl. shich requires the
Administrator to make a “regulatory
determrna non” regarding the waste
excluded from Subtitle C regulation.
Specifically within six months after
submitting the Report to Congress. and
after holding public hearings and taking
public comment on the report. the
Administrator must “determine to
promulgate regulations under Subt:tle
C of RCRA for mining waste or
“determine that such regulations are
unwarranted.”
EPA was required to complete the
study and submit it to Congress by
October 16, 1983. In 1984. the Concerned
Citizens of Adamstown and the
Environmental Defense Fund sued EPA
for failing to complete the section 8002
studies and the regulatory determination
by the statutory deadlines. The District
Court for the District of Columbia
ordered EPA to complete the studies by
December 31, iggs. and to publish the
regulatory determination by June 30,
1986.
EPA submitted its Report to Congress
on :nining waste on December 31, 1985.
A nouce announcing the availability of
the report. and the dates and locations
of public hearings, was published
January 8. 1986 (51 FR 777). EPA held
p.jhlic hearings on the report in Tucson.
Arizona on March 6. 1986: Washington,
DC on March ii. 1986: and Denver.
Colorado on March 13. 1986. The
comment period on the report closed
March 31. 1986. This notice constitutes
the Agency’s regulatory determination
(or the wastes covered by the Report to
Congiess. i.e., wastes from the
extraction and beneficiation of ores and
minerals.
On October 2. 1986. EPA proposed to
narrow the scope of the mining waste
exclusion in R RA section
300 1(bJ(3)(A)(ii), as it applies to
processing wastes (50 FR 40292). Under
this proposal, wastes that would no
longer be co%ered by the mining waste
exclusion woul be sub ect to Subtitle C
if the) are hazardous. These
Congress and therefore, are riot co ered
b) this regulatory determination.
III. Legal Authority
EPA has concluded that its decision
is echer to regulate mining waste under
SubI Ile C should be based not Ju St Ofl
whether m;ning waste is hazardous (as
currently defined by EPA regulations)
but also should consider the other
factors that section 8002 required EPA to
study. The basis of this conclusion is the
language of section 3001(b)(3J(A) which
states that the regulatory determination
must be “based on information
developed or accumulated pursuant to
(the section 8002 studies), public
hearings. and comment.. . .“ Clearly,
Congress envisioned that the
determination would be based on all the
factors enumerated in sections 8002 (1)
and (p). Congress already knew that
some mining waste was hazardous.
since the RCRA Subtitle C regulations
which were promulgated on May 19,
1980 were to apply to hazardous (both
characteristic and listed) mining waste,
Congress apparently believed, however,
that EPA should obtain and consider
additional information, not lust data on
which types of mining waste are
hazardous, before imposing Subtitle C
regulation on these wastes. Accordingly.
this regulatory detertninatiort is based
on consideration of the factors listed in
sections 8002 (1’) and (pJ.
In reviewing the factors to be studied
which are listed in sections 8002 (f) and
(p). and the legislative history of these
and other mining waste provisions. EPA
has concluded that Congress believed
that certain factors ate particularly
important to consider in making the
Subtitle C regulatory determination,
First. Congress instructed EPA to study
the potential dangers to human health
and the environment from mining waste,
indicating that the decision to regulate
under Subtitle C must be based on a
finding of such a danger. Second. section
8002(p) required EPA to review the
actions of other Federal and State
agencies which deal with mining waste
“with a view toward avoiding
duplication of effort.” From this
provision. EPA concludes that Congress
believed Subtitle C regulation might not
be necessary if other Federal or State
programs control any risks associated
with mining waste. Third, Congress
expected EPA to analyze fully the
disposal practices of the mining industry
which, when reed in con unction with
the legislative history of thia provision,
indicates concern about the feasibility
of Subtitle C controls foimining waste.
‘ir1?ht , r u’ ’ ,5
as well as the impact of tP ’ose
alternatives on the use of naturdl
resources, Therefore, EP must cons
both the cost and impact of ant Subi
C regulations in deciding shether the’
are warranted Clearly, Congress
beliesed that it was important to
maintain a s’iable mining industr
Therefore, any Subtitle C regulations
which would cause widespread C!0Su
in the industry would be unwarr,inted
LV. Report to Congress
EPA’s Report to Congress pro% ides
information on sources and ‘.olurnes a
waste, disposal arid utilization prac’c
potential danger to human health ar,d
the environment from mining prac’icrE
and evidence of damages. EPA rece ‘.e
more than 6C written comments art the
report and heard testimony at the
hearings from more than 30 tntdi :dudL5
A complete summary of all the
comments presented at the earlni s a-
submitted in writing is a’ail b e [ ICF
1988a see VI ! o. 6): (see “EPA RCR.
Docket”). This section summarizes the
information contained in the Report o
Congress. public comments rece’ ed or-
the report, and EPA’s response to the
comments.
A. Summary ofReoort to C . -J- :5
1. Structure and Location of Mini’s
EPA focused on se mens proiLc:r
and concentrating metallic ores.
phosphate rock, and asbestos toiallr
fewer thgn 500 active sites during lQI 5
These sites. which are predominanik
located in sparsely populated areas
west of the Mississippi Rl%er *,arv
widely in terms of size, product ‘. .ilue
and volumes of material hdridled
Several segments are concentrated
primarily in one state’ The iron set re-’
is mainly concentrated in Minnesota
lead in Missouri. copper in Arizona,
asbestos in California. and phocpha e
Florida.
2. Waste Quantities
The Report to Congress ei’imaced ‘
1.3 and 2 billion metric tons per elr of
nonfuel mining waste were generated
1982 and 1980, respecti%&y The
accumulated waste volume since igia
from nonfuel mining is estimated to be
approximately 50 billion metric ‘ons.
The large volume of annual and
accumulated nonfuel mining was’e
results from the high waste.to.prod_c.
ratios associated with mirit’tg TP’e ic’
that most of the material h nile
mining is waste and riot mark ’,b’.’
product distinguishes tnirur.q rro , . — .

-------
a final product. Consequently, some of
the larger mining operations handle
more material and qe tera,e more waste
than marty entire
3. Waste Management Practices
The report indicated that site
selection for mines, as well as
associated benefjcidtiofl and t%aste
disposal facilities, is the single most
important factor affecting en ronmen j
quality in the mining industry Most
mine waste us disposed of in piles, and
most tailings in impoundments, Mine
water is often recycled through the mill
and used for other purposes onsite, Off.
site utilization of mine waste and mill
tailings is limited (1 e.. 2 to 4 percent of
all mining waste generated). Some
waste management measures (e g..
source separation, treatment of acids or
cyanides, and waste stabulizationj now
used at some facilities within a narrow
segment of the mining industry could be
more widely used. Other measures
applied to hazardous waste in
nonmining industries may not be
appropriate For example, soil cover
from Surrounding terrain may create
additional reclamation problem, in and
region,.
4. Potential Hazard Characteristice
Or the 1 3 billion metric tons of
nonfuel mining waste generated by
extraction and beriefici ,io in -ig8. ,
about 61 million metric tons (5 percent)
e’chibit the characteris:zcs of Corrosivuty
and/or EP (Extraction Procedure)
toticuty. as defined by 40 CFR 261 22
dnd 61 24. respectibeiy, Another 23
million metric tons (2 percent) are
contaminated with cyanide (greater than
10mg/I). Further, there are 182 million
metric tons (14 percent) of copper leach
dump material and 95 million metric
tons (7 percent) of copper mill tailing,
with the potential for re’ease of acidic
and tO i liquid i e. acid formation,
There are 443 million metric tons (34
p rcenIl of waate from the phosphate
and uranium segment, with
radi3activity content greater than 5
picoctJfl , per gram; a total of 93 million
metric to (7 percent) has radioactivity
content greater than 20 picocune, per
gram. Finally, asbestos mines generated
about 5 million metric tons (less than 1
percent) of waste with a chrysotile
content greater than 5 percent.
5. Evidence of Damage,
To determine what damage might be
caused by mining waste, EPA conducted
ground.water monitoring and etamined
documented damage cases. During
short.term monitoring studies at eight
si’es EPA detected seepage from
ta:lings impoundments a conn o .h
dump. and a uranium mine wafer pond.
The EP toxic metals of concern,
however, did not appear to ha .e
migrated during the 6. to 9-month
monitoring period. Other ground..watet
monitoring studies, however, detected
sulfates, cyanide,, and other
contaminants from mine runoff fatling,
pond seepage. and leaching operation,,
The actual human health and
environmental threat posed by any of
these releases is largely dependent upon
site.,pecific factors, including a site,
Proximity to human population, or
sensui .e ecosystem,, Sites well
removed from popuLation Cente
drinking wafer supplies, and surface
waters are not likely to pose high risks,
Incidents of damage (e.g..
contamination of drinking water
aquifers, degradation of aquatic
ecosystem, fish kills, and related
degradation of environmental quality)
have also been documented in the
phosphate, gold. sihe,, copper, lead, and
uranium segment,, As of September
1985. there were 39 extraclion
beneficiation. and processing sites
included or proposed for inclusion on
the National Priorities List under
CERCL (Superfund), including five
gold/siver. three copper. three asbestos,
and two lead/zinc mines, The asbestos
Superfund sites differ from other sites in
that these waste, pose a hazard via
airborne exposure,
8 Potential Costs of Regulation
The Report to Congress presented for
five metal mining segments, total
annualized costs ranging from S7 million
per year (for a scenario that emphasizes
primarily basic maintenance and
monitoring for wastes that are
hazardous under the current RCRA
criteria) to over 5800 million per year
(for an unlikely scenano that
approximate, a full RCRA SubtItle C
regulatory approach, emphasizing cap
and liner containment for all wastes
Considered hazardous under the current
criteria, plus cyanide and acid formation
wastes ). About 60 percent of the total
prolected annualized cost at active
facilities can be attributed to the
management of waste accumulated from
past production, Those segments with
no hazardous waste (e.g.. iron) would
incur no coit,, Within a segment,
incremental costs would vary greatly
from facility to facility, depending on
current requirement, of state law,, ore
grade, geography, past waste
accumulatio Percentage of waste
which is h i ri4’ ,.
8 Comme,, 5 Rere, ed W7 the R, p.’,, ‘
Can 3 ess and EP 4 s Respoi se
1. Potential Hazard Characteristics
EPA recei ed se% era) Comments
addressing the magnitude of the w s es
genera ted by the mining industry, and
the amount that is hazardous farty
agreed with the report’s COflClugt that
there are substantial volumes of waste,
but questioned EPX, estimates of the
amount of “hazardous’ waste,
Many commenters noted that they
believed the EP (Extraction Procedurei
test is inappropn fe for mining waste
because the municipal landfill
mismangemene scenario on which the
test is based is not relevant to mining
waste. They further noted that the
CorTosiVity characteristic is not
appropriate becaus,, it does not addres
the buffering capacity of the
environment at certain mining sites.
Finally. several commenters noted that
leaching operation, are processes,
rather than waste, and are thus outside
the purview of RCRA.
The Agency agrees that dump and
heap leach piles are not wastes’ rather
they are raw materials used in the
production process, Similarly, the leach
liquor that is captured and procegse j to
recover metal values isa product a,d
not a waste. Only the leach liquor )i I,
escapes from the production process
and abandoned heap and dump leach
piles are wastes, Since the report
identified so million metric tons of eiip
and dump leach materials as RCR.
corrosive wastes, EPA has accord ,
reduced its estimate of mining waste
volumes which meet the Current
definition of hazardous waste The
Agency currently estimates that out of
the 81 million metric tons per year of
mining waste identified as hazardous in
the Report to Congress, only II muliun
metric tons of mining waste ge— ‘i red
annually are hazardous becaus .
exhibit EP toxicity, and an urikn. .. n
amount of escaped leach liquor is
corrosive EPA has also concluded ‘ ut
potential problems from subs antj, 1 I
quantities of mining waste t%huch ha ”
oth9’ properties i e.. radioacri,, tr
asbestos, cyanide, or acid eriera tor t
potential will not be identified b ie
current RCRA characteristics EP \
therefore, belie%es that entirel diff ’c t
criteria may more appropriaiel ‘de ’ ’f
the mining wastes most likeI to be of
con cern.
2. E%idence of Damages
EPA received many common ’s on
whether the Report to Congre s
--
24498 Federal Register I vol 51. No. 128 / Thursday. July 3. 1986 / Rules and Regulaic,ns

-------
Federal Register I v i
crt ironment Mdr.v cummpr•er ..lleged
th t &.e report does not demor,str4te
nnrlu i ,cIv that such wastes do pose a
thri . .t. The) Cidimed that EPA did not
;i(li.qu.,tclv consider the sIte .spec fic
fl iure of mining t dstp m.Jn. ement
p:utjh.ms, ‘I hcv pointed out that the
i ‘i%ir nmp ; 5Ctlin s of sites ry
.is do management pr .icticp,.
•.iid ih.,t ,dl lh se fnctor :‘lflutcnce risk.
Also. setural uammcntcrs noted that the
r’•port fdils to distir, uist, between the
thredt from oSi prdct;res and the
i unv. from current practice,.
O iccd on these obsen’a,ion,, mant’ (If
SC urged CPA to
po tpnnic reguations pending dddi!lonal
d1n! s.s I fowe er. other .ummenter ,
ncl,.d thdt they believed there is
stift uent evidence that mining waste
roses a threat to human health and the
c tIronmcnt and asked or immediate
rc ulatory acticn. noting that the time
for sIud ’ was over.
The A icncy agrees that adverse
effects to the public and the
en :roflmcnt from the disposa! ofmini ,g
nG te is rot likely at sites seIl-remnoved
from population centers. d nking sater
ilip!im ’5 surface wat,r. or other
receptors Ifowe%’e ’. for other sites,
ati lyses of contaminant plumes
released by leaching operattens and
releases of other Contdminants leg.
ic’di. metals dusts. radinacfl ,tyj
demonstrate adverse effects. Morecvcr.
the A .ncy recognizes, as evidenced by
the mining waste sites on the National
P iorit.p 5 List, the potential for problems
from mining sites. his apparent that
some of the problems at Superfund or
other abar .doned sites are attributable
to waste dsposal practices not currently
ticed by the mining industry Howe%er, it
is not clear from the analysts of damage
ases and Superfund sites, whether
current waste management practice,
c;un prevent damage from seepage or
s.ic!den releases. EPA is concerned that
lari,’e exposure potential exists at
some sites generating mining waste.
p srticularl% the site, that are close to
populati” n centers or in location,
con jur .e to high exposure and risk to
.1: , n h aith and the environment.
.1 Potent j Cost, of Regulation
EPA received a large number of
comments pertaining to the cost of
comp . ing with regulation, for mining
waste. and the effects these compliance
costs isould have on the mining
indu ,tr ’ Many commenfers claimed
ihiit regulating the mining industry
would impose costs much greater than
lhos EPA estimated in its Report to
Congress They also noted that the
n;inur g industry was depressed, and th it
for m.4n} mines. increased compliance
cost, would be greater than the profits.
leading to forced CIOSUJeL
Many conmenler , also pointed oat
that there are current Federal and State
re3ulations s hich alread:. apply to
m ln:rg, which impose costs They noted
that EPA needs to review the existing
Federal and State regulator). struct
before adding to it. thereby imposing
additional costs. Others did not agree.
commenting that existing Federal and
State regulation, are inadequate, and
th 0 t additional EPA regulation s
necessary.
EPA is sens:tjve to the potential costs
to the industry associated sith mining.
‘ as e regulation, under Subtitle C. The
Agency is also cognizant that many EPA
progra,ns already affect the mining
industry such as the Clean Water Act
which, among other thing,, control
surface water discharge via national
Pollutant Discharge Eflmina on system
(NPDES) permits. Other Federal
agencies, including the Bureau of Land
Mar.agcment the Forest Service, and the
‘aiionaI Park Service, also exercise
oversight and impose regulatory
controls (CRA. 1988b see VU no. 3). The
Federal waste d4spo$aJ requireme t•
generally tall for practice, that will
present unnecessary and undue
degradati . Federal reclamati
guideljne are somewhat more detailed.
requiring approval of a land
management operating plan and an
environmental assessment, Also these
agencie, generally require complianca
with all applicable state and local law,
and ordinance,,
A number of states have their own
statute, and implementing regulation.
for mining waste. Some states have
comprehensiv, and welj.int .ated
programs.’ other States have newer.
partially developed programs (CRA.
1988c see V I I no. 4). Although ther, is
great vlr t f5 ift Programs, many states
have siting and permitting requirements,
and require financial assurance, ground.
water and surface water prQtectjo and
closure standard,, EPA agrees that any
requirement, necessary to protect
human health and the environment
should consider the existing Federal and
State mining waste programs with a
view toward avoiding duplication of
effort.
C Muting Waste Conc/us,o,p
Based on the available information
and public comment,, the Agency draws
the following conclusions about mining
waste,, (BA!. 198 see VU No. 1)
Source and Volume
The waste volume generated by
mining and beneficiation is considerably
larger than the volume of waste
,
genera ted by other industries Cutter
subject to hazardous waste Controls
The mining industry alone generatec
over one billion metric tons of %%,aste
) ear compared to 260 million metr:c
generated annually by all other
hazardous waste industries The
average mining waste facility m z g
about three million metric tons of sa
ar.nually hile the t)pical facility
subject to Subtitle C controls manage
about 50 thousand metric tons of . as
per year.
• In general, mining waste disposai
facilitie, are Consider bly larger than
industrial hazardous waste disposal
facil;ties: most of the la;ge ,t industria
hazardous waste land disposal faciliti
are (tens of acres) in size, while t)pic
mining waste disposal facilities are
(hundreds of acres) in size. Agency
studie, indicate that mzr.ir.g waste
tailing. impoun ent, average about
500 acres: the largest is ‘we? 5000 acre!
Mining waste piles average 128 c .cs.
the largest exceeds soc acre,.
Hazardous waste impoundment,.
however, a%erage only about 8 acres
and hazardous waste landfills average
only about io acres. Consequently EP,
believe, that many traditional
hazardou, waste control, may be
technically infeasible or economically
impractical to implement at mmir.g
waste sites because of their size.
Waste Management Practices
EPA estimate, indicate that most
hazardous waste generator, (about 70
percent) ship all of their waste off’site.
however, no mines ship all of their
waste off.site. In addition, nearly all
mining waste is land disposed. while
less than half of all industrial hazaroous
waste is land disposed.
Evidence of Damage
In general, environmental
condition, and exposure potential
associated with mining waste are
different than those associated with
industrial hazardo , waste streams.
Agency studies suggest that mining
waste streams generally have lower
exposure and risk potential (or se eral
reasons.
—First, mining waste management
facilitie, are generally in drier
climates than hazardou, waste
management facilities, thereby
reducing the leaching potential, O’.er
80 percent of the mining sites are
located west of the Mississ 1 pp 1 Riser.
which generally has drier climate,.
whereas industrial hazardous waste
landfills are more evenly distributed
nationally In addition, the Agency
estimates that more than sixt percent
31. 128 / Thursd,, ’. (ul .1. 1Q86 I Rt les and

-------
f all mines ha’e annual net recharge
between o—z inches. and only tori
percent have net recharge gr.e:er than
ten inches. However buut 80 percent
of the haz, rdø 05 waste land disposal
far.ilities hai.e net recharge greater
than fl e inches. and o er one.third
exceed 13 inches.
—Second, EPA studies indicate that
hazardous %vagte ldfl.J i. iSpt3sal
Facilities are closer to ground wdter
than mining waste sites. Oier ‘o
percent of hd2.irduub wa.t sites has.
a depth to ground water of 30 (eel or
less, while about 70 percent of mining
sites ‘. UrpiP s
greater i
—Third, Subtitle C facilities ?,nid to be
located in more densely populated
.Ircas, EP. .’ estimates that mining
v..iste sites have iverage populations
‘if less than 200 within one m le of the
iie, while hazardous waste
•a’. rdge over . .UAJ people at the same
distance Within five mile, of the
mining waste sites, the average
population is almost 3.000. while
hdzardou, waste sites average nearly
60.000 peuple.
—Fourth, Agency studies suggest that.
compared to mining waste site,,
hazardous waste sites tend to be
located Closer to drinking water
receptOr, and serve larger
populations. Almost 70 percent of the
hazardous waste sites are located
within fke miles of a drinking water
receptor serving an average
population of over ie 000 and as many
i i 400 000 people. Athiost half as
many mining sites are located within
this same distance, and they serve
considerably smaller population,
( veragirtg 3.000 but ranging as high as
20.000.J
• Athough the Agency believes that
th human exposure and risk potential
.lpp dr to be lower for mining waste
istes than for industrial hazardous
‘ .Iste site,. many mines are located in
rnsitit e environmental settings. EPA
estimate, that about 50 percent of the
r.li,’ies are located in areas that have
resident populations of threatened or
endangered specie, or species of other
sper.id l concern. (often the casa (or
industrial sites). In addition, mining sites
ire ttpically located in relatively remote
and otherwise u.ldisturbed natural
•‘n% irnnm n
Cost and Economic Impacts
• EPA believes that many traditional
waste management controls designed
principally for uldustnal hazardous
waste managemant facilities may he
economically impra ical to implement
,it mining site, and could impose
coste to the industry
resulting in potential mine closures Full
Subtitle C controls (or mining Sites could
rnpos as much as SgSn million ocr ar
in compliance Costs. Such c.o ’its could he
gre ,gter than profits resulti.,g in mine
tiosures,
tany Federal and Sta:e aqenci .s
ali’eaciy iate req’Jiatory programs for
managing mining waste New hazardous
waste controls for min:ng waste could
be difficult to integrate with existing
Federal and Slate programs,
V. Applicatjn of Subtitl C to Mining
$t.
EPA believes that it needs maximum
flexibilit) to develop an appropriate
program for mining waste which
addresse, the technical feasibility the
environmental necessity, and the
economic practicality of mining waste
control,. The program should consist of
a tailored nsk’based approec.h which
addresse, the diversity anJ ‘inique
character, , , of mining w a tc
A problem,,
‘‘l’he current Subtitle C program is
designed principally for controlling
problems created by industriui waste ,.
Based ott information available, the
Agency believes that many conrrohs
required under the current Subtitle C
program. if applied universally to mining
sites, would be either unnecessary to
protect human health and the
enbironment technically infeasible, or
economically impractical to implement.
Fur instance, certain Subtitle C
requirement, such as single and double
liner system requiremen 5 which provide
liquid management and closure and
capping standard, to minImize
infiltra o may be technically
infeasible Ot economically impractical to
implement (or mining wastes because of
the quantfty and nature of waste
involv In additto, , for many mining
sites located in remote areas, such
controls may be necessary to protect
human health and the environmenl For
example, liquid releases to the ground
water can be mInimi, ed and controlled
using cutoff walls or interceptor wells
tie.. controlled release) as well as
through liner systems, and alternate
capping reqw,emen designed to
address site-specific Concerns such as
direct human contact or wind erosion,
are likely to be feasible and practical,
thus providing better tong.term
protection of human health and the
environment
Section )0OS(x) of RCRA does provide
flexibility for regulating mining waste.
This section gives EPA the authority to
modify certain Subtitle C requirements
For mining waste which were imposed
by the H a z a r d o,j , and Solid Waste
—
r.’!.i:e to iquuuIs in landfills pr”r’1 1 ’, , ,..,,
in land diMposdI minic,um
tI’r’truIIr)qucaf requireri,,.,’e,, r- i ‘:“.
at permitted Fjr:li’i ’ .rtl
r. trofitting interim ctdfUs ‘t:rta ,
im i)undmen,s with liners In m.i f;f
thu%e requ,r..meiit ,, EPA m.iv coi i. r
‘itc’speciuir r.haracter,sticq a r’ll .i ’.
the practic,il diffir’ulties associa. d
i’npl ment:,, ‘uch requiriarnAn.s In
addition, EP. hj; geni’r.’il luthori ly
tinder RCRA section J004(a) to “Uuf
rem,iin,n Subtitle C requiri’m ...s c:j h
.ss •Ir!ministratlve s’indard . f ’n.ir’i.,l
requirements, and Closure and ‘°r’
requirements if a tvaaIe pose.
risks or the existing st.arud,v’d,
tei.hnicully infeasible lIuWC%u ’ ir
inodi1 , ing such rccuirements. S. u.tiuuii
3004(j) does not protide EPA th..
degree of flexibility to considr’r ti ’..
economic impact of reguI.jt un r •.
found in wcttco 3004t ),
As described earlier ii’. this r. it ,
KPA beIie r.q that the deci ijn ‘. “! ‘,‘r
to regulate mining waste under S.ihci::..
C must consider the factors ti’ted ri
RCRA section, 8002 (1) and (pj.
including the risL dao iati.d iii’i
mining waste, the u) t of su h
re i.!.,t: n, and the effeLt rrgu at, ,,n
might hjv on the isc of natjrai
resources, EPA h s cuncIadcJ t ’
order to meet that ob;ectu . it .uuu’j
want to detelup a program ih t ms
maximum fle ibiluty o devel.’ip in
effruive control strduig) (or indi-.uui ,
facilities based on site.specific
.onditions, The e istinQ Subtiil C
regulatory program would probaI,I
ha’e to be changed subst nti ji (‘it
mining waste to pto ide that t.pe of
flexibility.
Given these general conclusions .thu’ui
what would be needed to make the
Subtitle C system appr’opri,ite for rnir,,-
waste, there are substantial
uncertainties about whether that
program us the nght mechanism to
address mining waste First, it is urn !t r
whether the legal authori ie, under
which EPA would be acting I, ..,
Sections 3004(a) and 3l 04( ) g: ø EPA
sufficient flexibility to craft a progra’.i
for hazardous” mining waste giten the
statutory arid regulatory approach
established for other hazardous w
Second. and closely related, there arc
substantial questions about whether iP
Agency’, current data on mining t uc:c
management provide a basis for
substantial modification, to the e us’:” .
Subtitle C regulatory program With th ’
mining waste study and the
supplementary information Coltectijn
efforts associated with toda , s notu, e
EPA has ei’euttu
Z4500
Federal Register / Vol 51, No. 128 I l’hi,rsda July J. iqi / Riilp ancj Ru p, tp., q

-------
Federal Re jçtpr / Vol 51. No. l 8/Thtjrsdav fulv 3. lO86/Ru pq_nnd R IdtioflS
r ,.i.s ’ rmi’r pr.iuiceq Aj the Sdmp
tim ,. • ‘ i’,i’n at dai 1 i Collprt,on and
.in.l ..is unuld Probabj 5 ie nece scif
to 5 i’ppart pec.Ifpc modifications of
V ç l , ’ pru isionq an the esi ting
WuSIC regularto,is hi fore
•.•.I iOfl5 % uuid pri. I de the t re
ii f1. ’sit ,u :i ssc rurrenti) bi•ha . p m ti,
These ufleCrtj4;flties h.ji.ij
I . d i. ; i (.iJI’CJiSIO th. 1 : SiiIitiile C
S fl t 1 i ,. •‘pprupn t 1 .
ii’ :;i!, ,t h.r a fl.iflhig W.sste
r ’.r:ugi mrnt program.
V I . pplicat fl of Subtitle 0 to Mining
Waste
S did isaste th.it t not hazardous
.i ’e is s; ,h 1 e, t to regulation under
Sul.:itle 0 1 he refure. mining waste.
‘.. lii. n lus.cd :n the RCR.
:i initiorj ,f ;olid waste ig rurrentt-
LUL(Ipd Ib% 5. l.t ’k D A belieses that
“c . n ilesigr. and impl Thjqii a Program
cific to n’nrng W.iste under Subtitle
L I th. t .ick!;r pq the ri’.k acsor.m. ,,cd
t :ti cuch .aste Tt’c . .tirre,it Subi ,tl 0
p ” i m “.‘ 1 ’l’sleq rnti r.,i t hich are.
fur t’,C n,r st p.irt
pi•rf irm,,,; e sL ,r.d. 1 rd that are u ed l.,
to id.’niifv un..r ept Ne ‘(‘ U
VI.iSti’ practices cit facilities
1-1 4(J (SR Purt 25? I Thpse rMteria
i Ld,- .ui 8 other thir , standards
‘ ‘n’t d to ciirf ice water disrhargpq,
tuund. t te, COnt iOation and
SPeCIeS &cauae the
p ’i .m S C;,tena are aimed prinup . Ily
. 11 mu”ir.ip4 and induqiru I solid ,i’te,
ch, do not now fuIl ’
ui’i!r .. 5 m.nirg iiStO concerns, In
or.. m.in of these criteria, such as
(i.n:ruI of dtse,tse vpctor 5 and bird
h : ar f atC ?IOt appropriate for mining
%% “Ste
I he .‘t.i’r.cy is currently these
rr ti’ria (sir f.icilsti g that may receive
l”.?.,rduus hou phoId waste and smi 4 il
gener to hazardous waste;
th. ret isior g tiH r.otapplv to mintng
th.rh .ire gcnerall not
r c pcca . j tsith such s’astes, However.
the \ge-ict intends to further Sugment
the Sutjt:t e 0 program by det eloping
.ipprnpr; 0 te standards and taking other
actions Ippropriate for mining waste
problems EPA will focus on identifying
e”. iror,mi ,ntal problems and setting
priurities (or applying Controls at mining
sites t utIi such potential problems as
high acmd.generation potential.
radioactii, ty asbestos and cyanide
wastes EPA sill also de clop a risk.
m.inagement framework to de elup
sbs t Z
the entironment Mining waste
prcb ems c ’an also be addressed undt
RCR.; Section oo: i %hlCh authorizes
citizen lawsumis for ‘.iOldtiCr s of SLbI
0 requirem fl ; in 40 CFR Part 257
As EPA develops thig program for
rcv latir,g Puiman health arid
environme aI risks associated with
mining waste, the Agency may find IP i
the Subtitle 0 approach is unworkabi,
perhaps bei ause there us insufficient
authority to ir”plemer.t an effecti’.e
program Ii e. the Agenc does not
obtain otersught and enforcement
authorit) under Subtitle 0). or th..t
States lack adequate resourc j to
detelop and implement the pn ran Ii
such an event EPA tray find it
necessary to ree’tamine use of Subt flu’
authority with modified mining Isas e
standards in the future.
EPA has already made prelirn:n. r. .
contacts with Congress to discuss the
best approach for an effectite m’rt.rg
waste program. The AQenc ) uiiter;ds to
imtnediateI begin collecting addi:i ,i’,ii
technical et.onomic, and other relet,jrr
information needed for program
det-elopme.,t and to complete its data
and l)sis by late 1987 EPA hopes to
propose revus, ns to the Subtit D
criteria that are specific to nine wJSt
by mid-1988.
‘ ppropriatc standards as necess. - to
roterr human he 4 lth and the
Pfltlfonment EPA will ror,s,d ’
reqtiirpmpnts such OS’ iii A range of
Clociu p Options to accommodate
‘.srijl,k . problems such as infiltration to
riui:rJ waler and e po urc (torn fugitite
du: t: (21 options to define tailored
controls, including those established by
the Clean Water Act, to address
problems from runoff to surface water
(‘t; jptions for liquid management
rn . ’itro ls such as pretreatment of waste,
prior to d;sposal, controlled release, or
liner s stems: (4) ground-water
monitoring tiptions that accommodate
site-ipecific %anabi ltt}: and (3) a range
of clean-up options.j
In dot elop:rg cu a program, EPA
will use its RCRA Section 3007 authority
to coHe t addit ;ona l information on the
n.It re of mining waste, mining waste
management practices, and mining
waste espogure potential, EPA believe,
this authority does not limit information
coIection to “hazardous’ waste -
identified under Subtitle C but also
a,ihortzes the collection of information
on .iii solid waste that the Agency
rt’a anably believes may pose a hazard
n improperly manageti (EPA may
also use this dUthority tn preparing
enforcemen, actions,) Initially. EPA will
use this information to develop a
program under Subtitle 0. The
ir,formation, however, may indicate the
need to reconsider Subtitle C for certain
mining wastes,
Ir s specif3.ing the appropnate
standards, EPA also will further analyze
e tsting Federal and State authorities
and programs and determine future
plang for administering their mining
waste programs, Additionally, EPA will
perform anal) ses of costs. impact,, and
benefits and will comply fully with
E’iecutive Orders 12291 and 12498, the
R gul to,’y Rexibility Act. and the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
EPA is Concerned that the !ack of
Federal oversight and enforcement
authority over mining waste controls
under Subtitle D of RCRA and
inadequate State resources to detelop
ard implement mining waste program
may jeopardize the effectiteness of the
program. The Administration therefore
will work with Congress to develop the
necessary authority. In the interim. EPA
will use section 7003 of RCRA and
sCctzons 104 and 106 of CERCLA to seek
rel:e( in those cases where waste, from
VU. EPA RCRA Docket
The EPA RCRA docket is loc,.ted .ut
united States Entmronment 4 !
Protection Agency.
EPA RCR.- Docket (Sub.base”ienti
401 M Street, SW.
Washington. DC 20460
The docket us open from 930 to 3 30
Monday through Fr iday except for
Federal holidays The public must ril. t
an appointment to ret tew docket
matenals. Call Mia Zmud at (20 :1 4 ’S-.
9327 or Kate Blow at (20; J8-4t , 3 ‘or
appointment,,
Copies of the follow ii’,g docutreri’q a-p
available for o /; in he EP..
docket room:
I
Buc & Auoc:ares Ir.c. 1986 Lc atI3fl .t
Mine, and Factors Affecting E posje
Charge, River Associate, 19884 Es rij-
Coits to the If S tJrani’jrn and Phusprt,.te
Mining Industry (or Managcme t of
Radioactive Solid as:e ,
3 Charles River A ia t.jt i, 19551, Fejp-dI
on.EPA Regulation, Address,ng ti”-a
%asie Pract:ce,
1

-------
21502 Federal Re isier Vol. 51. No. 12$ I Thursda . Jul’. 3. 1g8$ / Ruli’s dnd ReQujdttons
4 Charles Ri r AsioCi .3?e$. 1 id& SLie
Regulation, of the U S. Mi iiq lr.dujtrv
$ Fr irt:er Te i.hrtcal Associate tQ i
Cru nd ai.r %loni r.ng DdtS on Ore
1i tnq and Sol:d ‘ 4 dsi D’ po at
8 ICF 1988a Summary of Cmment, on the
Reoort n Corigre,,.
7 ICF 1985b O ter . icw of Su trfunj it ‘e
Site,
8 MeriJ . ., tq88 St.*U tic 4 t A .(
1 Was:e Data.
q Veriar 1988a. QuRrtlu,, of C ar .de.
b.anng and Actd.Ceri.ratirq
II) Vi’rsar I 8aib Techiacal S tad , e *
Sup2nrrl’q the Mining R.’ uIatory
Dev rmtn tiufl.
The public may copy a rn .i Imttm of 50
pig s of material from any one
r giiIatnr docket at no cost Adilitt,;ri..iI
cost S ZOIpa;e.
D. 1 t.• j June JO 13db.
Lee M. Thonu,.
rrt.jr
;tR D 8t —1 1’ a FI:Ld —2-s’1 a 3 rnj
IILut.a Coat seao..

-------