United States
Environmecual Protection
Agency
6EPA
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Res on..
• \._‘ - it-,-
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE: A )U bility of I fl k-
• cMingesft
- I - - -
APPROVALs’DATE -.
EFFEcTLVE DAlE:’
ORIGINATING OFFICE .
‘ 3FINAL. - •,
ODRAFT- .
- -
-------
v>EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
Interim Directive Number
9234.0-4
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Elizabeth Hall
Mail Code
WH 548 E
Telephone Number
382-2451
Lead Office
£3 OERR
D OUST
n
LJ
Approved for Review
Signature of Office Director
AA-OSWER
Date
Tula
Applicability of RCRA Requirements to CERCLA Mining Waste Sites ,,c CDA
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, mining waste, NC°,
compliance with other environmental laws
Signed by Longest, OERR
Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc I
Policy directive
Status
Draft
Final
C_I New
LJ Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directives)' | J Yes ^j) No Does It Supplement Previous Directive^)?
f "Yes" to Either QuestionLVVhat Directive (number titlel
9230.0-2 CEftCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes
Yes (_] No
Review Plan
D AA-OSWER
D OERR
D OSW
O OUST
D OWPE
D Regions
OECM
D OGC
D OPPE
D
Other (Specify!
This Request Meets OSWER^Directivea System Format_
Signature of UrtTOniceDJrflpl(ves£Micer /f^
^T. /f
^SWER Directives Officer I f
Date
AUG 8
Signature olmS'
Date
EPA Form 1316-17 (10-85)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
‘c i
WASHINGTON DC 20460
9234.0-4
JJ3 19 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consideration of RCRA Requirements in Performing
CERCLA Responses at Mining Waste Sites
FROM: Henry 1. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
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 probl ems, the Agency intends to develop a program for
regulating mining waste under Subtitle U. The current Subtitle U
program establishes criteria principally aimed at municipal and
industrial solid waste which focus on standards related to surface
water discharges, groundwater contamination and endangered species.
Modifications to this program will focus on identifying environ-
mental problems, setting priorities for applying controls at
sites with a high potential for risk, and employing a risk manage-
ment 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 U criteria
are expected to be proposed in mid—1988; however, EPA has reserved
the option to reexamine a modified Subtitle C In the future if
this approach is unworkable or insufficient.
se
-------
—2-
In the interim, Superfund will continue to address mining
waste problems through the RI/FS and ROD/EDO processes taking
into account current Subtitle U requirements as well as options
for addressing risks not addressed by Subtitle U 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
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
FRL 3033—7J
Regulatory Determination for Wastes
from the Extraction and Beneficiation
of Ores and Minerals
AGENCY: Entirorim ntaI Protection
nr v
ACTION’ Re2ulatorv determination
SIJMMARY: This is the regul,story
Ii,. , rmn,itiun for sold ttaste from the
• :r.i ,cion and beneficiation of ores and
miiei ,ils required b section
‘ t )O (l4(3)(C) of the Resource
CI i5ertation and Reco erv
RCRA) This section of RCRA requires
th ’ Administrator to determine whether
lo promulgate reQuldtlons under Subtitle
C of the Act for these wastes or
d. .-rrnine chat such regulations are
1’%ar:anted the Administrator must
mike this decerminaton no later than
ci months after completing a Report to
C.rit ress on these wastes and dicer
puL ’lic hearings and the opportumI to
‘iniment arc the report After completing
thi se actitities and re tewing the
i iformation atailable the .‘\ ency has
determined that reguljcion of the wastes
ttjdied in the Report to Congress i e.
“dstes from the extraccion and
boneficration of ores and minerals.
under St bti’le C is riot warranted at this
time
ADDRESS: The address for the
I l ’adquarterg docket is United States
F’itironmental Protection Agency EPA
RCR,A docket lSub’basernentj 401 M
‘reet SW. Washington DC. 2 460. (202)
.i’. —gj For further details on what the
FP RCRA docket Con’ai 5 see Section
‘ II of th i preamble titled EPA RCRA
Docket under SUPPLEMENTARY
Pa FO R U A TIO N
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CON1AC’f’
RCR A/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424—
9346 or (2O2 382—3000 or Dan Derkics at
2u2J 382—2’;i
SUPPLEME,rApy IMFORMAflON:
Preamble Outline
I Summary of Decision
II Background
Ill Legal Authority
IV Report to Congress
V Application o Subiitle C to .fining Waste
VI Application or Subtitle 0 to tining Waste
Il EPA RCRA Docket
Supplementary Information
I Su.’nmory
Dased on the Report to Congress
comrne-ics on the report and other
,it.Iildble information EPA hag
determined thdl regulation of mining
waste under Subtitle C of the Resource
Cor.sertatio and Recotery Act (RCRA)
is not t%arranted at this time
fhis Conclusion is based on EPA s
belief that set era) aspects of EPA s
current hazardous waste management
standdrds are likely to be
entironrnen,all unnecess ,r ,
terhnical)y infeasible or economically
impractical when applied to mining
waste While under existing law EPA
would hate some flexiblity to modify its
Stdndards for hazardous tvaste
management as applied to these wastes,
there are substantial questions about
whether the flexibility inherent in the
statute coupled with the Agency,
current data on these wastes piotide a
sufficient basis for EPA to develop a
mining waste program under Subtitle C
chat addresses the risks presented by
mining waste while remaining sensitive
to the unique practical demands of
mining operations Given these
uncertanties EPA does not intend to
impose Subtitle C controls on mining
w te at this time.
The Agency however, is concerned
jabout certain actual and potential
imining waste problems, and therefore
iplans to develop a program for mining
waste under Subtitle 0 of RCRA The
Ion -term effectiveness of this program
depends on asailable State resource, for
designing and implementing a program
tailored to the needs of each State. and
on EPA’ s ability to otersee 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 plans to administer such
program ,. The Administration will work
with Congress to develop expanded
Subtitle D authority (i e.. Federal
oversight and enforcement) to support
an effective State-implemented program
for mining waste EPA has already made
preliminary contacts with Congress and
intends to hold detailed discussions on
the specifics of the Subtitle D program in
the coming year. In the interim, EPA will
use RCRA section 7003 and CERCLA
sections 104 and 106 to protect against
substantial threats and imminent
hazards If EPA is unable to develop an
effective mining waste program under
Subtitle D. the Agency may find it
necessary to use Subtitle C authority in
the future
II. Background
Section 8002(fl of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
directed EPA to conduct
and abardrinpd surface and unde-Q-i ,ird
minp on the en%lr nmeci inctudrig 5 ,.r ‘ :
lim ed to the effects of such as:e on
humans water air health weifjre arid
naturdl resourres and on the adequac of
means and measures curren ’I.. errptu e ,J t
the mining indusiry Go ernme,t aa”ni. ‘
ard others to dispose of and uc,lize iuch ,il ii
wastes to pre ent or subs ni, ’ m ii ‘ ‘e
such adterse effects
The studt Wd5 to inc’ude arc dnalt s
of.
I The Sources and volume of
discarded material generated per tear
from mining:
2 Present disposal practices,
3. Potential danger to human hedth
and the eritironment from surface runo;f
of leachate and air pollution by dust.
4 Alternatives to current dispos,il
methods.
5 The cost of those alternatit es in
terms of the impact on mine prodi..Lt
costs, and
6 Potential for use of discarded
material as a secondary source of the
mine product
On May 19. 1980. EPA promulgated
regulations under Subtitle C of RCR.A
which covered, among other things
“solid waste from the extraction.
beneficiation, and processing of ores
and minerals,” i e. mining waste Or.
October 21, 1980, lust before these
Subtitle C regulations became effect.. ‘
Congress enacted the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1980 (Pub L 96—482)
which added section 3001(b)(3)(AJ 1 1 ) to
RCRA This section prohibits EPA from
regulating “solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation. and processing
of ores and minerals, including
phosphate rock and overburden from the
mining of uranium ore ‘ as hazardous
waste under Subtitle C of RCRA unc,j at
least six months after the Agency
completes arid submits to Congress iI’e
studies required by section 600Z (fl and
by section 8002(p) (which was also
added to RCRA by the 1980
amendments).
Section 6 002 (p) required EPA to
perform a comprehensive study on tt’e
disposal and utilization of the waste
excluded from regulation. i e . solid
waste from the extraction, beneficiaiio,
and processing of ores and minerals.
including phosphate rock and
overburden from the mining of ura-’jr-’
ore This new study. to be conducted ri
conlunction with the section 800 (”)
study. mandated an analysis of
1 The source and volumes of such
materials generated per year
2 Present disposal and utilizat on
practices,
‘ 4496 Federal R’ isier I Vol 51. ‘; 128 I Thursday July 3 1966 I Rules ,Jnd Re ulaton
I _ _
A detailed and comprehen,i ’e study on the
adterse effects of solid asies from aciive
-------
Federal_Register I Vol 51. o 128 / Thursday (ulv 3. 1986
I Rules and Rc2ulations
3 Potential danger. if any, to human
hi aIth and the en ironment from the
disposal and reuse of such materials.
4 Documented cases in which darger
to humdn hea!th or the en ironr ent has
boen pro ed
5 Alternati es to current disposal
methods.
6 The costs of such alternati ,eg
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
section 300l(bJf3)(c). %htch requtreg the
Admintstrator to make a reQulalory
determination ‘ 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
deiermine that such regulations are
unwarranted,”
EPA was required to complete the
study and submit it to Congress by
October 18. 1983 In 1984, the Concerned
Citizens of Adamsiown and the
Environmental Defense Fund sued EPA
for failing to complete the section 8002
studies and the regulatory determination
by the statutory deadline,. The District
Court for the District of Columbia
ordered EPA to complete the studies by
December 31. 1985. and to publish the
regulatory determination by June 30,
1986
EPA submitted its Report to Congress
on mining 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
public hearings on the report in Tucson.
Arizona art Iarch 6. 1986 Washington.
DC on March 11. 1988. 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
for the wastes covered by the Report to
Congress. i e. wastes from the
extraction and beneficiation of ores and
minerals
On October 2. 1988. EPA proposed to
narrow the scope of the mining waste
exclusion in RCRA section
3001(b)13)(A)(ii), as it applies to
processing wastes (SO FR 40292) Under
this proposal, wastes that would no
longer be co ered by the mining waste
exclusion would’be subtect to Subtitle C
if the) are hazardous These
“reinterpreted” wastes were not
studied in the mining waste Report to
Congress and therefore, are not cosered
b) this regulatory determination
Ill. Legal Authority
EPA has concluded that its decision
t ”ieher to regulate mining waste under
S,jbt,tle C should be based not lust on
whether mining 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)(3)(A) which
states that the regulatory determination
must be ‘ based on information
developed or accumulated pursuant to
(the section 8002 studiesj. 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,
i ao 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 ott
which types of mining waste are
hazardous, before tmposing Subtitle C
regulation on these wastes. Accordingly.
this regulatory determination is based
on consideration of the factors listed in
sections 8002 (1) and (p).
In reviewing the factors to be studied
which are listed itt 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 are 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 condudes 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 read in conjunction with
the legislative history of this provision.
indicates concern about the feasibility
of Subtitle C control, for mining waste
Finally. Congress instructed EPA to look
at the costs of various alternaus e
methods for mining waste management.
as well as the impact of those
alternati es on the use of naturdl
resources Therefore EPA must cons :‘er
both the cost and impact of ri Stit,t.’te
C regulations in deciding whether they
are warranted Clean). Congress
belie%ed that it was importdnt to
maintain a %Iable mining ndustr
Therefore, any Subtitle C reguldtlons
which would cause widespread closures
in the industry would be unt%arr ,inted
IV. Report to Congress
EPA’g Report to Congress pro ides
information on sources and olumes of
waste, disposal and utilization prar’icec
potential danger to human health ard
the environment from mining practicrs
and evidence of damages EP.A rece. ed
more than 6C written comments on the
report and heard testimcny at the
hearings from more than 30 ‘ndi’.’duals
A complete summary of all the
comments presented at the }‘earin s a”
submitted in writing is a ail b e IICF
1986a see VII No 6), (see “EPA RCR.
Docket”). This section summarizes the
information contained in the Report to
Congress. public comments recei ed on
the report. and EPA ’s response to the
comments.
A Summary of Reourt to C4i’ -e:s
I Structure and Locaiion of ‘.lincs
EPA focused on segmens prod c:r g
and concentrating metallic ores.
phosphate rock, and asbestos totallin’
fewer than 500 active sites during 1Q 115
These sites, which are predominanih,
located in sparsely populated areas
west of the Mississippi Riser ar
widely in terms of size, product ulue
and volumes of material handled
Several segments are concentrated
primarily in one state The iron ses —’e’t
is mainly concentrated in Minnesoi.i
lead in Missouri copper in Arizona
asbesto, in California and phosphate ri
Florida.
2. Waste Quantities
The Report to Congress e iimated “ iF
13 and 2 billion metric tons per .e.1r of
nonfuel mining waste were generated n
1982 and 1980. respecti ely The
accumulated waste volume since 1910
from nonfuel mining is estimated to be
approximately 50 billion metric tons
The large volume of annual and
accumulated nonfuel mining was’e
results from the high waste’to’prod, ct
ratios associated with mining The cJc
that most of the material handled
mining is waste and not rnarket’ibic ’
product distinguishes minirg from —
other process industries where ssa,’
materials make up a relati elt sri’
portion of the materials usco :3
-------
a final product Conseque y, some of
the larger mining operations handle
more material and enera,e more waste
than many entire industries
3 Waste \fanage;nent Practices
The report indicated that site
selection for mines, as well as
associated beneficiation and t%aste
disposal facilities, is the single most
important factor affecting en ironmental
quality in the mining industry \fost
mine waste is 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 (i e . 2 to 4 percent of
all mining wa5te generated) Some
waste management measures (e g.
source separation treatment of acids or
cyanides, and waste stabilization) 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 problems in arid
regions.
4 Potential Hazard Characteristics
Of the 13 billion metric tons of
nonfuel mining waste generated by
extraction and beneficiacion in 1985.
about si million metric tons (5 percent)
exhibit the charactens.ics of Corrosivity
and/or EP (Extraction Procedure)
toxicity as defined by 40 CFR 261 22
dnd 261 24. respecti eiy Another 23
million metric tons (2 percent) are
contaminated with cyanide (greater than
10 mg/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 tailings
with the potential for release of acidic
and toxic liquid i e acid formation.
There are 443 million metric tons (34
percentj of waate from the phosphate
and uranium segments with
radioacci ity content greater than 5
picocuries per gram. a total 0(93 million
metric tons (7 percent) has radioactivity
content greater than 20 picocuries per
gram Finally, asbestos mines generated
about 5 million metric tons (less than 1
percent) of waste with a chry otile
content greater than 5 percent.
S Evidence of Damages
To determine what damage might be
caused by mining waste, EPA conducted
ground.wate monitoring and examined
documented damage cases During
short-term monitoring studies at eight
si’es, EPA detected seepage from
ta:!ing impoundments a copper leach
dump and a uranium mine water pond,
The EP tOxic metals of concern,
however, did not appear to hai .e
migrated during the 6- to 9-month
monitoring period Other ground.. ater
monitoring studies. ho se er. detected
sulfates, cyariides, and other
contaminants from mine runoff, tailings
pond seepage. and leaching operations
The actual human health and
environmental threat posed by any of
these releases is largely dependent upon
site.specific factors, including a site’s
proximity to human populations or
sensui .e ecosystems Sites well
remoted from population cente ,
drinking water supplies, and surface
xdters are not likely to pose high risks.
Incidents of damage (e g..
contamination of drinking water
aquifers, degradation of aquatic
ecosystems fish kills, and related
degradation of environmental quality)
have also been documented in the
phosphate gold. sil er. copper. lead, and
uranium segments, As of September
1985 there were 39 extraction.
beneficiation. and processing sites
included or proposed for inclusion on
the National Priorities List under
CERCLA (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 wastes pose a hazard via
airborne exposure
6 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 $800 million per year
(for an unlikely scenario that
approximates 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
projected 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 costs Within a segment,
Incremental costs would vary greatly
from facility to facility depending on
current requirements of state laws, ore
grade, geography, past xaste
accumulation Percentage of waste
which is hazardous and other factors
B Comrner ‘s Reren eu wt the Rr ,,‘ ‘,
Confess and EPA s Re po, se
I Potential Hazard Characteristics
EPA recei ed se%eral comments
addressing the magnitude of the xx s es
generdted by the mining indusirv and
the amount that is hazardous lany
aQreed with the report a conclusion thdt
there dre substantial volumes of txJste
but questioned EPAs estimates of the
amount of “hazardous’ waste
Many commenters noted that they
believed the EP (Extraction Procedurei
test is Inappropriate for mining waste
because the municipal landfill
mismangement scenario on which the
test is based is not relevant to mining
waste. They further noted that the
corrosivity characteristic is not
appropriate because it does not address
the buffering capacity of the
en ironmen, at certain mining sites
Finally. several commenters noted thut
leaching operations are processes
rather than wastes 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 Processed to
recover metal values is a product a id
not a waste Only the (each liquor t hit h
escapes from the production process
and abandoned heap and dump leach
piles are wastes Since the report
identified so million metric tons of ‘enp
and dump leach materials as RCRA
corrosive wastes EPA has accordt R .
reduced its estimate of mininQ haste
volumes which meet the current
definition of hazardous waste The
Agency currently estimates that out of
the 61 million metric tons per year of
mining waste Identified as hazardoi s in
the Report to Congress only 11 miliion
metric tons of mining waste ge— - i red
annually are hazardous becaus e
exhibit EP toxicity. and an unkri .‘n
amount of escaped leach liquor is
corrosive EPA has also concluded i’ ii
potential problems from substanti,uj
quantities of mining waste ‘xhich hart’
other properties i e. radioacrt ii
asbestos, cyanide or acid Qenerat’on
potential will not be identified by he
current RCRA characteristics EP
therefore belie%es that entiref diCfi Ci t
criteria may more appropriatel ide :f
the mining wastes most likel to be of
Concern,
2 E idence of Damages
EPA received many commeri’s on
whether the Report to Congre’c
demonstrates that mining r%ac e p,_r ’
threat to human health and the
-------
cn Ironmerit M.irv cornmer’erc ..lleged
Ihdt t’ e report does not demor.strdte
LOflrluci l . that such .astes do pose a
thri t Tlw% ch imed that EP 1 did not
it•qu.., R’ Consider the site spec:fic
flilliC uI m ln:ng %%dSiP mdn1 t,ment
ins ‘1 het pointed (‘(it th , 1 t the
i i ur ctIings of sites
t ,IJI It is do mdnaQement przicticps
.ind ih, ,i dl tht,se fnctors f’i cnce risk
i\l o sctcral uimm(ltrrs nu cd th.jt the
r ”port f.ir!s to distir,ciuis}. between the
t?i Edt from PoSt prdct;’ es and the
if orn, from current practices
fl ,ic d on these obsen atloos mans of
te corr . urged EPA to
po iponc rcg atiocs pending dddi’jonril
s.s IIO%te er. other commenters
ncI, d !hdt they belie ed there is
suficient evidence that mining waste
roses a threat to human hea rh and the
i ’: ronmcnt and asked for imrnedid le
rc .il tor) acticn, noting that the time
for sIud ’ t as Oter.
The Aiir ncy agrees that adverse
clfrcts to the public arid the
c .o’,m t from the dispos I of mining
sast is rot likely at Sites (tell.rerno%.ed
trorr populat,on centers, dr nking water
siiip t i s surface water, or other
receptors Ifotteter for other sites,
ses of contaminant plumes
reledsed by leaching operat s and
rclc ’ases of other contaminants leg.
,ic’ds metals dusts. radioact,t ity
demonstrate adi, erse effects Morec Cr.
the .A encj ’ recognizes a evidenced by
Ih mining s aste sites on the 4ational
P iorit, List, the Potential for problems
from mining sites It is apparent that
omc of the problems at Superfund or
uther abarcjoned sites are attributable
ti waste d.sposaj practices not currently
iicpd liv the mining industry However, it
is not clear from the anal)sis of damage
cises dnd Superfund sites, whether
Current s aste management practices
c; ,n pre%ent damage from seepage or
sudden releases EPA is concerned that
lirt e exposure potential exists at
some sites generating mining waste,
Purlicujarit the sites that are close to
PopuIit n Center, or in locations
coridurit e to high exposure and risk to
h n un he,iiih and the en Ironment
Poicnti Costs of Regulation
EPA recei .ed a large number of
comments pertaining to the cost of
corr.pi ing with regulations for mining
waste, and the effects these compliance
cocts ‘touki hate on the mining
Inilustr fany commenters claimed
thdt reguldting the mining industry
tould Impose costs much greater than
thoso EPA estimated in its Report to
Congress They also noted that the
nining Industry was depressed, and thit
fur m m 3 mines, increased compliance
Costs would be greater than the profits.
leading to forced closures.
Mdny commenters also pointed o
thut there are Current Federal and State
regulations tshich ahead-, appl ’ to
min:cg ithich impose Costs They noted
that EPA needs to ret iew the existing
Federal and State regulator 3 . Structure
bcfore adding to it thereby imposing
additional costs Others did not agree.
commenting that existing Federal and
State regulatio 5 are inadequate, and
that additional EPA regulation ‘s
r.ecessary
EPA is sens:ti%’e to the potential costs
to the industry associated cith mining
‘ 3s’e regulations under Subtitle C. The
Agency is also cognizant that many EPA
programs already affect the mining
industry such as the Clean Water Act
tchich. among other things, control
surface water discharge via national
Pollutant Discharge Elimination system
(\PDES) permits Other Federal
agencies, including the Bureau of Land
Maragcment the Forest Service, and the
atlonaI Park Ser ice, also exercise
oversight and impose regulatory
control, (CRA. 1986b see VII no 3) The
Federal waste disposal requIrern 0 5
generalt 3 call for practices that will
pretent unnecessary and undue
degradation Federal reclama lion
guideline, are somewhat more detailed.
requiring approval of a land
management operating plan and an
environmental assessment Al ,o these
agencies generally require compliance
with all applicable state and local laws
and ordinance,
A number of states have their own
statutes and implementing regulation,
for mining waste Some states have
comprehensive and well.integrated
program,: other States hate newer.
partially developed programs (CRA.
1986c see VII no. 4) Although there is
great vartation in program,, many states
hate siting and permitting requirement,,
and require financial assurance, ground-
water and surface water protection, and
closure standards. EPA agree, thst any
requirement, necessary to protect
human health and the environment
should consider the existing Federal and
State mining waste programs with a
.iew toward avoiding duplication of
effort,
C. ?il,ning Wosie Conclusion 3
Based on the available information
and public comments, the Agency draw,
the following Conclusions about mining
waste, (BA!. 1986 see VU No 1)
Source and Volume
The waste volume generated by
mining and beneficiation is considerably
larger than the volume of waste
gene.atp bi’ other industries currertl
subject to hazardous ‘cdste controlc
The mining industry alone genera c
o ey one billion metric tons of ‘ 3ste p.
}ear Compared to 260 million metr:c io:
generated annuajl 3 by all other
hdzardous waste industries The
aterage mining waste facility marngcs
about three million metric tOns of cas i
annually s hile the t3pical facility
subject to Subtitle C controls manages
about 50 thousand metric tons of waste
per year
In general, mining scaste disposal
facilities are Colsiderably larger than
industrial hazardous s aste disposal
Facilities, most of the largest industrial
hazardous waste land disposal facilities
are (tens of acres) in size, while t}picdj
mining %saste disposal facilities are
(hundreds of acres) in size Agency
studies indicate that rnir.ir.g waste
tailings impoundments acerege about
500 acres: the largest is oter 5( . Y) acres
Mining waste piles average 126 .ic-cs.
the la.-gest exceeds 500 acres.
Hazardous waste impoundments
however, aterage only about 6 acres
and hazardous waste landfills average
only about 10 acres. Consequently. EPA
believes that many traditional
hazardous wasle controls ma be
technically Infeasible or economicall)
Impractical to implement at mirtir.g
waste sites because of their size
Waste Management Practices
EPA estimates indicate that most
hazardous waste generators (about 70
percent) ship all of their caste off-site.
howeter. no mines ship all of their
waste off-site In addition nearly all
mining waste is land disposed, cshite
less than half of all industrial hazaraous
waste is land disposed
Evidence of Damage
In general, environmental
Conditions and exposure potential
associated with mining waste are
different than those associated cith
industrial hazardous waste streams
Agency studies suggest that mining
waste streams generally have lower
exposure and risk potential for set erat
reasons
—First, mining waste management
facilities are generally in drier
climates than hazardous waste
management facilities, thereby
reducing the leaching potential Ocer
80 percent of the mining sites are
located west of the Mississippi Ri%er.
which generally has drier climate,
whereas industrial hazardous s aste
landfills are more evenly distributed
nationally In addition, the Agency
estimates that more than sixtt percent
-------
24500
of all mines have annual net rI chdrge
lietween o-z inches. and only len
percent have net recharge gr. d er than
ten inches Hot%e er, about 80 percent
of the hdzardous waste land dispOsdl
tacilities hate net recharge greater
than (ite inches, and o er one-third
exceed is inches.
—Second. EPA studies ‘ndic t that
hazardous waste I d rid iiisposal
facilities are closer to ground water
than mining waste sites Oier 70
percent of hazardous waste sites hate
a depth to ground water of 30 feet or
less, while about 70 percent of mining
cites hd’,e iUUliU .
rea(pr t’. n 1C :
—Third. Subtitle C facilities tend to be
Ioca!cd in more densely populated
areas EPA estimates that mining
w.iSte sites have aterage populations
uf less than 200 within one m:le of the
iile, while hazardous waste sites
.i erdge over . tJ J people at the same
distance Within five miles of the
mining waste sites, the a%erage
population is almost 3000. while
hazardous waste sites average nearly
60 000 people.
—Fourth, Agency studies suggest that.
compared to mining waste site,.
hazardous waste sitpg tend to be
located closer to drinking water
receptor, and serve larger
populations Almost 70 percent of the
hdlardouq waste sites are located
within f ’ite miles of a dtinking water
receptor serving an averJge
population of over 18000 and as nidny
4 OOO 00 p P Almost half as
many mining sites are located within
this same distance, and Ihey serve
considerably smaller populations
(averaging 3.000 but ranging as high as
0.000.)
A though the Agency believe, that
the human exposure and risk potential
.ippedrs to be lower for mining waste
sites than for indastrial hazardous
.iste sites, many mines are located in
cPnsiti% e environmental settings EPA
estimate, that about 50 percent of the
mines are located in areas that have
resident Population, of threatened or
endangered species or species of other
special concern. (often the case for
industrial sites in addition, mining sites
ire I!. pically located in relatively remote
dnd otherwise undisturbed natural
ironme, ,
Cost and Economic Impacts
• EPA believe, that many traditional
waste management controls designed
principally for industrial hazardous
waste management facilities may he
economically impractical to implement
.it mining sites and could Impose
substantial cost, to the industry
resulting in potential mine clnsu; Full
Subtitle C controls for mining SI!CS could
irnposp as much as Sd3 ) million o cr ..jr
in compliance costs Such c o ’ .ts could he
grr uter than profits resulti in mine
ijosures.
• Iany Federal and S’a:e agenci. ,
u reddv 1 ia’.e regulaior programs for
mandging mining waste New hazardous
waste controls for mining waste could
be difficult to Integrate with existing
Federal and State programs,
V. AppLicatj of Subtitle C to Nrining
aste
EPA belie%eq that it needs maximum
1 flexibili to develop an appropriate
program for mining waste which
i addresses the technical feasibility the
enuronmental necessity, and the
economic practicality of mining waste
control,. The program should consist of
a tailored risk.based appioac,h which
addresses the diversity an ,J ‘inique
characteristic, of mining waste
problems.
current Subtitle C program is
designed principally for controlling
problem, created by industrial wastes.
Based on information available, the
Agency believe, that many controls
required under the current Subtitle C
program, if applied universally to mining
sites, would be either unnecessary to
protect human health and the
environment technically infeasible, or
economically impractical to implement
Fur iribtance. certain Subtitle C
requirement, such as sing’e and double
liner system requirements which provide
liquid management, and closure and
capping standards to minimize
infiltration, may be technically
infeasible or economically impractical to
implement for mining waste, because of
the quantity and nature of waste
involved. l it addition, for many mining
sites located in remote areas, such
control, may be necessary to protect
human health and the enviropjne t, For
example, liquid release, to the ground
water can be minim ed and controlled
using cutoff walls or interceptor wells
( I e.. controlled release) as well as
through liner systems, and alternate
capping requLremen , designed to
address slte.specufjc concerns such as
direct human contact or wind erosion.
are likely to be feasible and practical.
thus providing better long.term
protection of human heelth and the
environment.
Section 3004(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 Hazardoij and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) which
c ”Lt:e in iquiiI5 in landfills pr”r I; ‘ii’’
on l.inj di’ .posa l minlrium
tl.chrtoJr ic, l requirem, n,s rrryirj.:.
at permitted fariIi’i. “it
r.’trofutti,i, interim t.itus curia i’
impoundments with liners In moil:f
iliCsri requtr meiirs EPA m.i i.o1su- ..’r
itc-spec,ifir r.hjracteristicq a. t%l ’ll .i ,
the practical difficulties associated t
urnplement:ng such requirPmnn ’s In
addition F.P has gcni’r.’iI .iuthorit ’
tinder RCRA section JO04( J to :r-iejif
rem.uinur Subtitle C reCluIru .rtio. ..c cu N
iS .idmiritstrati ’e s’indardc f’n.,r
f”quiremcrit,, and closure and “nop ”.
requirements if a tvabtc pOse. L!.: ‘ t
risks or the existing st.ind., ts -.
tei.hnic.aIly infeasible lfusveti - ir
inodif ing such rccuiremen’s
iO04( ) does not pro ide CP’ the. .vr ,’
degree of flexibility to cutisid r the ’
economic impact of r i’gu l.it.un tNt i. ,
found in section 30 041x)
1 c described earlier ii’. this i’.Otii
EPA beIiptv q that the dcci :un ‘‘t ’,’i
to regulate mining waste under S.ihii
C must consider the factors l:sted n
RCRA seLtions 8002 (I) .and (pJ.
including the risk 5 assu iat .d ‘ ith
mining waste, the ui t of su iJi
regLl iton, and the effeu rrgui t 1 )n
might hate on the LSC of nat’j al
resources EPA has oncljJcJ ‘i
order to meet that ohtecti - it
want to detelop a progiam thai his
maximum flexibility to devel.’p in
effcc tive control strateg) fur indi.idi.
facilities based ott site’specific
eondttions The exisiin Subtitle C
reguldtory program would problt)l}
ha’e to be changed substantially fur
mining waste to provide that t , pe of
flexibility
Given these general conclusions .iho,;
what would be needed to make the
Subtitle C system appropri,ite for rnir.I—4
waste, there are substantial
uncertaintie, about whether that
program is the right mechanism to
addres, mining waste First. ut,g un, leu
whether the legal authorities under
which EPA would be acting (‘e.
sections 3004(a) and 3004(xll gi%e EPA
sufficient f1exibilit to craft a progra i
for “hazardous’ mining waste gicen iNc
statutory and regulatory approach
established for other hazardous v.iSti ’S
Second, and closely related, there are
substantial questions about whether ih
Agency, current data on mining t%aste
management provide a basis for
substantial modifications to the e is’,”
Subtitle C regulatory program With iI ’
mining Ivaste study and the
supplementary information collectiari
efforts associated with toda s noti e
EPA has greatly expanded its
understanding of mining aste
Federal Register I Vol 51. N0 128 / Thlirsdar fuR .3 iqit / Riilp and Ri guIatiq
- -
-------
r nwnt pr,it tiCes •\t the sdmo
tim. .iikk’inal d.it t C0lI&ction .irid
•‘n ,R . 5 “i’tild PrOb tiR iteCccsafl
to Sipprirt .pecifjc modiftc ,rions of
rh’ pru ISIOnS in the e icting
h. 1 rd 1 iiic v uStp regula tiOii ht fore
i.l ’.(ifl 5 ts oulil priis tile the tt re
I I. . sit ‘j:fS s e currentl} bik.’ e mi t ir
I .e flrL, ’s, ,,rt ihece unCert jflhip 5
(I I ii . .i c 1 11 S 10 fl th.it SihtiiI C
tic .. c ciii pr is di .iii .upprupri, 1 i ..
ti i .itt fit j n ni ig “ ‘i’I
ri ugl’mrnr pro rdm
I tpplication of SUbtitlP D to Mj j,
V aste
S ..ltj ss ,iste th . t us nor hJzdrdous
s . ,is’e us s .iuie, to regijl,gtion under
SuI.: .tlc 0 1 herefure mining wa.te,
s ‘. iii , iii lut. td :n the RCR.
r 10 (if colid is ctp us euurrcntlv
c . ‘ hi Su.i.t, ‘I c 0 ,\ beIue es that
c.in disigr. und imple T .nt a program
sp . cufu. to mnirl2 ss,iste under Subtitle
U thu •i(’ij rscpç the rii.ks acsoru,itc.d
is h such ss ,t ‘e ‘1 be i:rrr .nt Subt,tI 0
Jir .’r,im o t,uI ,Iusbec criter .1 5% hu h are.
for t e n, ci fu ,fl er.s irn mpiit ,,l
pI’rf,rrnd e stur.d ,,rJs that .ir u ”tiJ 1 ’ ,
S , Ii ’ S to udrn Ii Iv Un.I - opt. hip cc .t’d
.usii• du poc , 1 : pr.o tices or f,ir ilutic’s
“i’.’ 4(1 CF’R Port 57 I Th .se criteria
• ‘rfluflg other thirrs St .tnddrds
;, ‘. .‘i ii to cuurf,ic wdter dusr hargoc
i tOLfl( 5% utP COflt , I’fllfldttQfl .ind
r rd . r ..rp j species BeCausp IhC
p ulL’ . m 5 C .teria are aimed prui1cup ,lI .
.11 niuiricip..d and inductridl oIud isicte
P b . s ihe ilu not noss fuIl ’
“S m. ’ icg si .i ttc concerns In
‘ JcJ’ or m.ri of these criteria such as
C’ n:rul of dise,jse VpctOrs and h’rd
h .‘dr,ls ure not dppropriate for flinung
5’, iste
I he . r.cy is cu rentf ’ res ising these
r: ir ,3 for ficilitues that may receise
b. .’urduu 5 household ‘saste and smull
gen r , t F hazardous waste.
th. so ri’s sions iiiil rot dpp!s to mining
ssisrp sib rh ire genordfl) not
Cc d. puc. .j isith such %sdst 5 I-foweser
the \gelcs intends to further augment
the Su1.uiti D program by des eloping
.uppropruøte standdrds and taking other
actions ilpprnpriate for mining siacte
problems EPA ili focus on identifying
e’u. Irorrnc.ntai problems and setting
priorities for applying Controls at mining
5it s isith such potential problems as
h 9 h acid generation potential,
radiodctJt t} asbestos and cyanide
astes EPA is ill also d ci olop a risk.
ni.Indgement frametsork to deselop
‘ppropriat” standards as neces ,irs to
poIect human health and the
errs ironni’i EPA still Consider
reqiiirpmon 5 such as tit A rdnpe of
rlrtciire options to accommodate
.‘ri ,ituli ’ problems such dS infiltr tuorr to
g uiirJ isuler and esposure From fugutise
di’ t (2) options to define tailored
controls including those eStublished b
the Clean Vater Act to address
piiblpms from runoff to surface waten
(if uptuons (or liquid management
roitrols such as pretreatmen, of wdstes
prior to d.sposa), Controlled release, or
Iir,cr s stems (4) ground.wa ,er
monitoring options that accommodate
site.cpecific iariabiI t : and (5) a range
of ck’an.up options.]
In deselop.i’g suc a prograrr,. EPA
use its RCRA Section 3007 authority
to collect dddit.onal information on the
n.itcre of mining waste, mining waste
mdna ement practices, and mining
ssas’e exposure potential EPA believes
this authorits’ does not limit information
cokection to “hazardous ‘ ss ste
idPr.Lifcd under Subtitle C but also
ai.ihorzes the co!IcctQn of information
tin .iu solid ‘saste that the Agency
rt’ .jcjnab ly belieses may pose a hazard
silirn improperly managed (EPA may
. lsu use this authority in preparing
enforcement actions i Initially. EPA will
use this information to deselop a
program under Subtitle D. The
ir.formation host ever may indicate the
need to reconsider Subtitle C for certaip
mining ssastes.
In specif ing the appropriate
standards, EPA also will further analyze
existing Federal and State authorities
and programs and determine future
pans for administering their mining
waste programs Additionally EPA will
perform anal) ses of costs, impacts, and
benefits and will cornpls full) with
Executise Orders 12291 and 12498, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the
Pdperwork Reduction Act
EPA is Concerned that the lack of
Federal osersight and enforcement
authority over mining waste controls
under Subtitle 0 of RCRA and
inadequate State resources to deselop
ard implement mining isaste programs
may jeopardize the effectiseness of the
program The Administration therefore
stilt work with Congress to develop the
necessary authority In the interim. EPA
is ill use section 7003 of RCRA and
SeCtions 104 and 106 of CERCL.A to seek
re)’ef in those cases where wastes from
mining sites pose s.bstar it,aJ threats or
imminent hazards to human heaj:h
the ensironment Mining “aste
prc5 ems (an also be addressed unde,’
RCR,; Section 7002 ishuch Uthori p 3
citizen lass suits for ‘.ioldtioi’s of Scbtrt:
0 require tents in 40 CFR Part 257
As EPA dci elops thus program for
regulatir,g human health and
ens ironrne al risks associated with
mining ssastp the Agency mas’ find that
the Subtitle 0 approach is unstorkable
perhaps because there us insufficient
authority to implement an effertise
program (i e, the Agenc% does not
obtain os ersight and enforcement
authorit under Subtitle L)) or th .it
States lark adequate resources to
deselop and implement the pn ”a’ . lit
such an event EPA ma) find it
necessary to reexamine use of Sub’ tir’ C
aL.thoril) ssith modified mining isase
standards i’ the future
EPA has alread) made prelurnirtors’
contdcts with Congress to discuss the
best approach for an effec:i’.e m’r rg
isasre program The Agenc) uiitends to
imrnediatel begin collecting addi ui ,r il
technical economic and other relpsor,t
information needed for program
developryie 1 t and to complete its dâtd
anal)sis b) (cIte 1987 EPA hopes to
propose res’is,uns to the S ibtit 0
criteria that are specific to “riin is us,
by mid.iggg
VI !. EPA RCRA Docket
The EPA RCR.A docket us loc,,ted ,it
United States Ens ironnienral
Protection Agency
EPA RCRA Docket (Sub’base..eflt
401 M Street, SW.
Washington. oc 20460
The docket is open from 930 to 3 Jo
Monday through Friday except for
Federal holidass The public mus ni.ike
an appointment to res ew docket
materials Call Mia Zmud at (202) 475—.
9327 or Kate Bloss at (202) 38— .t, 3 fur
appointments
Copies of the follostir,g docjme, ,uc a e
as amiable for S u C h ,,’ ? 8 o-I; in the EPA
docket room’
1 Buc & As,oc’ates trc 1986 Location uf
Mines and Factors Affecting Espos ,.re
Chartes River Associates 1986i Es, rlu’ I
Cost, to the L’S Urani’jm and PhLspr, . ,e
Mining Industry for 4anagome’?c of
Radioacris’e Solid t.’i sates
3 Charles Riser Associates 19861) Fede aj
\on-EPA Regulations Address.ng \tiru- 5
“%asie Practice,
- I
-------
24502 Federal Register ‘ Vol. 31. No. 128 / Thurscjd . J l 3 986 / Rules dnd Re2uldt,00s
- --- . ___
4 Charles Ri r r Ass cl3tes. 1 6t S: ’e
Regulations of the US .fTu.Ig tr.dustrr
5 Fr )rt.er Te hricaI Associates lQR a
Gruund atpr IOnI.JF,ng Data nn OTe
tining and t ’: ‘ig Sol ii .V ,iste D’ pocal
6 ICF 1 t86a Summa.-y of Cmrnents on the
Report ‘o Congress
7 ICF 1986b Over ,cw c i Sti e’iunj f ‘e
es
8 len ii 1986 St iti tic .jl .4.- . . cs if
lir ig W . ste Data.
9 Versar 1986a Quartities of Ctdr .de.
bearing and Acud.Gen ratirg W..cip 5
I’) Versar 198sb Tech’iical St.:djes
Suppnrti”g the 1ining Waqte R.’gulatnry
D rerminit iu
The public may copy a mdximum of 50
p ’g s of matertal from any one
r gtilator docket at no cost AddutIIifldl
cpiec cost 20! page
O.lI,Lj June 30 1J86.
Lee %I. Thomjs,
ER Doc 8t,—131’ a Fi d — —t 843 mu
5iLuh CODE 6SSO—SO—
------- |