D
A OF THE OF
C
U.S.
OF
D.C.
,- A -J
MSB/
-------
FINAL DRAFT
A REVIEW OF THE EXCLUSION OF MINING
WASTE FROM SUBTITLE C REGULATION
March 31, 1988
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared by:
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
13135 Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway
Suite 200
Fairfax, Virginia 22033
Technical Preparation completed under EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939
Final Submittal only under EPA Contract No. 68-01-7374
-------
FINAL DRAFT
A REVIEW OF THE EXCLUSION OF MINING
WASTE FROM SUBTITLE C REGULATION
Prepared
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc
Date:
Approved by:
Linda Ji/ Brown
Work Assignment Manager
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Date:
Approved by:
A. Koski
Project Manager
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Date:
-------
ll
FOREWORD
This report was developed and prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation,
and reviewed by EPA under EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939, Performance of
Remedial Responses Activities at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites (REM
II). Just prior to the actual submittal of this report to EPA Office of
Solid Waste, CDM's work was shifted from the REM II Contract to the RCRA
Implementation Support, EPA Contract No. 68-01-7374.
11
-------
Kearney/Ceniaur Division Managemem
A.T. Kearney. Ini: Consultants
Suite ~IH>
14«•//'••"
March 31. 1988
Mr. Benjamin W. Haynes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-565)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Reference: EPA Contract No. 68-01-7374; Work Assignment No. H20-20-
01; Support for Mining Waste Regulation Development;
Delivery of Final Draft of "Bevill Beport"
Dear Mr. Haynes:
Enclosed please find one unbound copy and two bound copies of the final
draft report entitled, "A Review of the Exclusion of Mining Waste from
Subtitle C Regulation" (i.e., Bevill Report). The purpose of this review
is to provide an overview of the legislative and administrative record on
the implementation of the mining waste exclusion - often referred to as
the Bevill amendment - and to propose a definition for characterizing
those wastes that are subject to regulation under this section [Section
3001(b)(3)] of the law. Specifically this report:
o Expands on the key issues that EPA has identified with respect
to the implementation of the Bevill amendment, particularly
with respect to determining which wastes are within the scope
of the 1980 amendment;
o Provides an historical overview and the current status of each
issue; and
o Proposes a definition for determining which wastes should be
considered "Bevill wastes," that is, subject to the exclusion
from regulation under the Subtitle C "Hazardous Waste
Management" provisions of RCRA.
I would like to take this opportunity to again confirm that development,
preparation, internal technical reviews, and Agency reviews of this
document were performed under the REM II contract (Work Assignment 354-
HOOH). To date, A.T. Kearney, Inc. has had no direct involvement in the
preparation of this report. The report is being submitted under the RCRA
Implementation Support Contract {Work Assignment H20-20-01), rather than
under REM II, because all the capacity available to COM Federal Programs
Corporation for this task under REM had been used prior to COM completing
its final steps to submit the report to EPA. This report has been
completed as directed and is being transmitted to you for submittal to
the EPA docket.
111
-------
Mr* Benjamin W. Haynes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 31. 1988
Page 2
Please feel free to call Linda Brown, the Work Assignment Manager (who
can be reached at 703/968-0900), or me, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Arthur Glazer
Technical Director
Enclosures
cc: J. Levin
J. Grieve
L. Brown, CDM
B. Koski, CDM
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
Letter of Transmittal
Table of Contents
Exhibits List
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
Section E
INTRODUCTION
BEVILL AMENDMENT ISSUES
Issue I Direct Line/Auxiliary Processes
Issue 2 End Point of Processing
Issue 3 Fifty Percent Rule for Secondary Materials 8
Issue 4 Treatment and Processing of Bevill Wastes 9
Issue 5 Alloying/Fabrication/Manufacturing Wastes 11
Issue 6 Off-site/Sale 12
SUGGESTED DEFINITION 13
GENERIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 14
GLOSSARY 20
Page
ii
iii
v
vi
1
4
4
7
FIGURES
Figure 1
15
-------
EXHIBITS
1. January 24, 1981
2. September 24, 1982
3. November 17, 1982
4. June 25, 1983
5. August 22, 1983
6. April 4, 1984
7. April 4, 1984
8. April 19, 1984
9. May 9, 1984
10. August 15, 1984
11. May 16, 1985
12. June 10, 1986
13. June 16, 1986
14. September 15, 1987
15. Copper Processing Flow Diagrams
Alfred W. Lindsey Memorandum
John Lehman Memorandum
Letter to Rita Lavelle from Kennecott
Attorneys
Donald Shosky Letter
John Lehman Letter
John Lehman Memorandum
John Lehman Memorandum
Thomas J. Fronapfel Memorandum
John Lehman Letter
John Skinner Memorandum
John H. Skinner Memorandum
Marcia Williams Memorandum
Margaret Silver Letter
Marcia E. Williams Memorandum
vi
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency first proposed to exempt mining wastes
from regulation as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), PL 94-580, in its 1978 proposed
hazardous waste rules (43 FR 58992, Dec. 18, 1978). The Agency
acknowledged having
very little information on the composition,
characteristics, and the degree of hazard
posed by these wastes, nor [did] the Agency
yet have data on the effectiveness of current
or potential waste management technologies or
the technical or economic practicality of
imposing the Subpart D standards on facilities
jaanaging such waste (43 FR 58991).
EPA considered these wastes "special wastes" and proposed a later
rulemaking to provide substantive standards for regulating special wastes
(43 FR 58992). However, in its May 19, 1980 Hazardous Waste Management
System rules, EPA decided to provide an exemption only to mining overburden
returned to the mine site; the remainder of mining wastes would be
regulated as any other solid or hazardous waste (45 FR 33100). The Agency
stated that it did not believe mining wastes should be excluded from
Subtitle C regulation until completion of studies required under Section
8002 (f) of RCRA.
When Congress amended RCRA later in 1980, it included a provision in
Section 7 (the so-called Bevill Amendment) which excluded from Subtitle C
regulation all hazardous solid wastes from the ...
extraction, beneficiation, and processing of
ores and minerals, including phosphate rock
and overburden from the mining of uranium ore,
and cement kiln dust.
Congress recognized a need to study mining wastes prior to the imposition
of Subtitle C regulations because of the many outstanding questions
regarding the need for federal regulation, the economic impacts, and the
past and current effects of mining wastes on public health and the
environment. The temporary exclusion from Subtitle C regulation was
1 -
-------
provided to give EPA the time to study and, if necessary, develop a
regulatory program flexible enough to deal with the range of mining and
, processing wastes.
Since its enactment, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the
precise scope of the Amendment. EPA has considered first broad, and later,
narrow interpretations and has encountered difficulties with both. EPA
first responded to the Amendment with an interim final amendment to its
Subtitle C regulations and a request for comments, and proposed to
incorporate into its regulations the language of the Amendment (45 FR
76618, Nov. 19, 1980). The Agency initially took a broad interpretation of
the exclusion because, according to a January 2_, 1981 memo from Alfred W.
Lindsey, Deputy Director of the Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division to
Terry Thoem of EPA Region VIII (Exhibit 1),
[t]he question quickly became how far down the
production line did Congress mean for
"processing of ores and minerals" to extend.
Since there was significant disagreement on
the issue, Congress was not in session, and
the Agency was consumed in trying to produce
the mainframe Phase II regulations, EPA
decided for the time being to take a broad
interpretation of the Congressional mandate.
The attempt to narrow the scope of wastes excluded as "processing wastes"
(Notice of proposed rulemaking, 50 FR 40292, October 2, 1985) was later
withdrawn (Withdrawal of proposed rule, final action, 51 FR 36223, October
9, 1986) because the proposed reinterpretation had not
set out practically - applicable criteria for
distinguishing processing from non-processing
wastes.
The net effect of this withdrawal was to retain the interpretation of
November 19, 1980 (45 FR 76618).
- 2 -
-------
The purpose of this review is to summarize the evolution of thought and
decisions concerning the scope of the excluded mining wastes. Based on
this review, a generic flow diagram and a definition of Bevill wastes are
then suggested. These will provide a framework within which EPA can make
consistent decisions on the regulatory status of mining and processing
wastes, and thus reduce the need for case-by-case determinations.
Whether or not a waste is covered by the mining waste exclusion determines
its regulatory status. Non-excluded wastes are subject to regulation under
the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements of RCRA if they are determined
to be hazardous; excluded wastes are not subject to Subtitle C regulation
until at least six months after the date of submission of the studies of
excluded wastes required by Sections 8002(f) and (p) of RCRA and after a
determination of whether or not promulgation of new regulations under
Subtitle C of RCRA is warranted. In other words, the exclusion is
temporary. However, a potentially long-term effect of Bevill waste
designation is that Section 3001(b)(3)(A) requires that the regulatory
determination be
based on information developed or accumulated
pursuant to [the section 8002 studies], public
hearings, and comment...
In 51 FR 24497 (July 3, 1986), EPA stated that
Congress envisioned that the determination
would be based on all the factors enumerated
in Sections 8002(f) and (p). Congress already
knew that some mining waste was hazardous ...
[but] apparently believed ... that EPA should
obtain and consider additional information,
not just data on which types of mining wastes
are hazardous, before imposing Subtitle C
regulation on these wastes.
As a result, wastes for which 8002(f) and (p) studies have been conducted
may not be subsequently regulated under Subtitle C solely on the basis of
having been found to have hazardous characteristics; EPA must also look at
those factors listed in 8002(f) and (p). This provides the agency with
- 3 -
-------
some flexibility in its regulation of mining wastes since it allows consid-
eration of other factors affecting the need for regulatory safeguards.
For purposes of this discussion, wastes conditionally excluded from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA are referred to as "Bevill wastes," a
definition of which is proposed in Section C. "Bevill boundary" refers to
those lines drawn on an operational flow diagram within which hazardous
wastes generated by extraction, beneficiation, milling, smelting, refining,
and other processing are conditionally excluded from regulation under
Subtitle C.
The term "exclusion," as used in this discussion, is the conditional
exemption from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA per 3001(b)(3)(A) and 40
CFR 261.4(b)(7). It has occasionally been used in the past interchangeably
with the word "exemption" in related memoranda and Federal Register
notices.
i
B. BEVILL AMENDMENT ISSUES
Numerous questions have arisen from attempts to apply the language of the
Bevill Amendment to a variety of real world situations. These questions
1 continue to surface in the form of exclusionary determination requests made
by industry. Few administrative decisions or case law are available to
provide guidance for their resolution. The major issues identified in this
review are discussed below.
ISSUE 1
i Should excluded wastes be limited to those operations which directly
process ores and minerals, or should auxiliary operation processing wastes
s also be excluded from regulation under Subtitle C?
The auxiliary process wastes in question include wastes from operations
which produce materials critical to a particular process whose wastes are
excluded under the Bevill Amendment. An example of these would be scrap
- 4 -
-------
anode paste from the anode baking building at a primary aluminum reduction
facility. This waste is not derived from ore, yet anode production is an
essential ancillary operation in the reduction of alumina to aluminum.
There has been some debate as to whether wastes from such auxiliary
operations should fall within the scope of the mining waste exclusion.
However, the Bevill Amendment makes no mention of wastes from auxiliary
processes, and the prevailing opinion at present is that only wastes from
direct-line processes are excluded. The EPA Office of General Counsel
(OGC) has emphasized that the exclusion should be applied only to those
operations directly engaged in the processing of ores and minerals. Under
this interpretation, wastes from any auxiliary operations, however critical
and unique those operations may be to a refining process, would not be
excluded by the Bevill Amendment from regulation under Subtitle C.
This interpretation would consequently require a determination of whether a
process is in a direct line from an ore or mineral to a final refined
material. For purposes of discussion, a direct-line operation can be
regarded as an extraction, beneficiation, or processing operation which
produces either a final, or an intermediate to a final mineral product.
This is in contrast to an ancillary operation which produces materials
later used in extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations.
Another aspect of this issue has involved the question of "uniquely
associated wastes". The term "uniquely associated" was used by EPA as a
disqualifying term regarding the application of the exclusion to wastes
such as
spent solvents, pesticide wastes, and
discarded commercial chemical products that
are not uniquely associated with ... mining
and allied processing operations, or cement
kiln operations (45 FR 76619, Nov. 19, 1980).
This statement gives specific examples of wastes which are clearly not to
be considered mining wastes for the purpose of the Bevill exclusion and are
consequently described as being not uniquely associated with mining.
However, the term began to be used instead as a qualifying criterion
against which to determine whether process chemicals were or were not
-------
mining wastes subject to exclusion; i.e. whether or not a waste was
uniquely associated with mining. The following discussion of administra-
i tive decisions involving the use of the term "uniquely associated"
illustrates this.
In a memo dated September 24, 1982 (Exhibit 2), to Henry Schroeder, Project
<: Officer for Utah, EPA Region VIII, John Lehman, Director, Hazardous and
j
^ Industrial Waste Div., stated that spent acids and their dross generated by
electrolytic refining of copper are not uniquely associated with mining and
allied processing operations, and thus are subject to regulation under
Subtitle C. In another memo dated April 4, 1984, John Lehman, as Director,
' Waste Management and Economics Division, responded to James Scarbrough,
Chief, Residuals Management Branch (Exhibit 6) regarding a question
concerning a waste acid from a titanium dioxide plant. Mr. Lehman deter-
mined that the acid was conditionally excluded from regulation, since it
was present in the wastestream as a by-product of a chlorination process,
rather than having been added to the process to extract metal. He pointed
out that this was in contrast to
solid wastes, such as spent solvents, pesti-
cide wastes, and discarded commercial chemical
products, that are not uniquely associated
with these mining and allied processing
' operations ... (45 FR 76619).
Shortly thereafter, in response to a question posed by Thomas Fronapfel,
Environmental Engineer, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural
• Resources (Exhibit 8), John Lehman, in a letter dated May 9, 1984 (Exhibit
9) determined that nitric acid wastes from a commercial assay lab are
excluded by the Bevill Amendment since the wastes are uniquely associated
1 with mining operations. In this instance, the nitric acid is added to the
r process to extract silver, after which it is discarded.
In summary, the confusion surrounding the use of the term "uniquely
associated" appears to have resulted to a large degree from its attempted
use by some decision makers as a broad criterion for mining waste designa-
tion. Its initial use appears instead to have been intended as a modifier
of several specific wastes clearly not affected by the exclusion.
- 6 -
-------
ISSUE 2
At what point does further processing of a mineral product remove the
resulting wastes from the mining waste exclusion?
In reply to a request from the State of Utah for a regulatory decision,
John Lehman, Director of EPA's Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division,
declared in a memo dated September 24, 1982 (Exhibit 2), that the subject
refining process was a step beyond the initial basic processing of mined
ore and was instead a process for upgrading an already usable commercial
product (i.e. upgrading of copper from 98% to 99% purity). Thus, he
concluded that the wastes were subject to Subtitle C regulation.
Subsequent correspondence revolved in part around whether 98% copper is a
usable commercial product and thus exempt from regulation. In a letter
(Exhibit 3) dated November 17, 1982, to Rita Lavelle, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Edwin H. Seeger and
Carl B. Nelson, Jr., attorneys for Kennecott, took exception to Mr.
Lehman's interpretation. They pointed out that EPA's 1980 rulemaking (45
FR 76619, November 19, 1980) made no distinction between initial and
"further processing?" it excluded wastes from all processing activities,
from exploration through refining.
In its notice of proposed rulemaking, 50 FR 40293, October 2, 1985, the EPA
observed that
It has been particularly difficult to deter-
mine what operations constitute 'processing of
ores and minerals.' As a general rule, EPA
has interpreted this phrase to include any
operation which further refines or purifies
the product being mined (often a metal).
Combining the product with another material
(e.g., alloying) and fabrication (any sort of
shaping that does not cause a change in
chemical composition) is not considered
"processing of ores or minerals."
- 7 -
-------
The EPA Office of General Counsel has taken the position that no specific
level of refinement can be imposed as a condition for exclusion from
hazardous waste regulation (Meg Silver, OGC, personal communication, April
16, 1987).
ISSUE 3
What is the status of wastes derived from processes utilizing both primary
and secondary feed stocks?
According to Norm Huey, EPA Region VIII Air Branch (personal communication,
March 24, 1987), process wastes are excluded when the percentage of
secondary (scrap) materials in the processing feedstock is less than 50%,
such that at least 50% of the final product derives from primary feedstock.
This concept, which is referred to as the 50% Rule, developed from the need
to formulate a consistent policy regarding the addition of secondary
materials into process feedstock. In a memo dated April 4, 1984 (Exhibit
7), to Phil Bobel, Chief, Toxics and Waste Programs Branch, Region IX, John
Lehman, Director, Waste Management and Economics Division, stated that
process wastes at the Timet (titanium) facility were excluded from regula-
tion because
the amount of titanium sponge far outweighs
the amount of alloys (and scrap recycle) in
the [feedstock) mixture.
More recently, Marcia Williams, Director, EPA Office of Solid Waste, stated
In a June 10, 1986 memo to David Wagoner, Director, Waste Management
Division, EPA Region IX (Exhibit 12), that
if the predominant input to the process is
steel scrap, the waste from the ferroalloy
facility does not qualify for the mining waste
exclusion. This ferroalloy facility would be
in the same category as a secondary lead
smelter, reclaiming lead from old batteries,
or other secondary processes; their wastes are
not excluded from regulation either.
- 8 -
-------
The 50% Rule provides a definitive cutoff on the amount of secondary
materials allowed in a process feedstock while retaining the waste exclu-
sion. It thus provides an answer to the question of Bevill status for
wastes deriving from processes utilizing both primary and secondary
feedstock materials.
ISSUE 4
Are residuals of Bevill waste treatment and processing excluded from
regulation?
This issue involves several elements: (a) the exclusion of treated Bevill
wastes, including pollution control residues; (b) the exclusion of wastes
derived from the processing of Bevill wastes for the extraction of useful
products; and (c) the relationship between this issue and the 50% rule
(Issue 3). These elements are discussed below.
a. Bevill wastes treated prior to disposal.
Bevill wastes which are treated prior to disposal are excluded from
regulation under Subtitle C. Treatment generally involves volume
reduction, toxicity reduction, and/or stabilization. Such treatment
is often accomplished through the use of pollution control equipment.
In its Interim Final Amendment to Rule with Request for Comments (45
FR 76619; November 19, 1980), EPA intitially questioned whether
Congress had intended to exclude, among other things, wastewater
treatment and air emission control sludges generated by the mining
and mineral processing industry. However, in an August 22, 1983
letter to D. M. Friedman, Division of Hazardous Waste Management,
Pennsylvania, John Lehman, Director, EPA Hazardous and Industrial
Waste Division, stated that baghouse dust generated by an ore
reduction furnace was exempted by 40 CFR 261.5(b)(7) (Exhibit 5). In
_ 9 _
-------
answer to the same question, John Skinner, Director, EPA Air and
Waste Management Division, in a letter dated August 15, 1984, that
the mining exclusion includes air emission control wastes (Exhibit
10).
Therefore, it appears generally accepted that Bevill wastes which are
treated prior to disposal are excluded from Subtitle C regulation.
This includes wastes collected and treated by pollution control
equipment.
b. Bevill wastes processed for recovery of useful products.
Past decisions have precluded wastes from the Bevill exclusion if
they resulted from the processing of Bevill wastes for additional
recovery of useful products. A recent decision concluded that such
wastes should in fact be excluded from Subtitle C regulation.
In a May 16, 1985 memorandum to Harry Seraydarian, Chief, Toxics and
Waste Management Division, EPA Region IX (Exhibit 11), John Skinner,
Director, EPA Office of Solid Waste, stated that smelter waste (slag
and clinker) and leachate derived from it are excluded wastes. On
the other hand, if the smelter waste is used as a raw material for an
extractive process, the resulting wastes are not excluded since the
wastes in such an instance would not have derived directly from the
processing of an ore or mineral.
A contrary position was established in a September 15, 1987 memo-
randum regarding the applicability of the Bevill Amendment to the
American Natural Gas Coal Gasification Facility. In the memorandum
to Robert Duprey, Director, EPA Region VIII, Waste Management
Division (Exhibit 14), Marcia Williams, Director, EPA Office of Solid
Waste, and Christina Kaneen, EPA Asst. General Counsel for RCRA,
observed that
- 10 -
-------
r
i EPA has previously recognized that residues
are excluded from regulation if they derive
4 from treatment of wastes generated from mining
wastes.
They did not believe that wastes from the subject operations were
i subject to RCRA Subtitle C if the process yielded a useful
r by-product.
i
II
Regarding the Hay 16, 1985 memorandum from John Skinner to Harry
|l Seraydarian (Exhibit 11), they felt that such a position was contrary
to waste reduction goals. They went on to say that
i [i)t is not environmentally beneficial to
create a situation in which treating a waste
for recovery of useful materials is subject to
Subtitle C regulations whereas disposal of the
* untreated wastes would be exempt from RCRA.
'i On the other hand, wastes produced by aluminum refining operations
when recovering cryolite from spent potliners are not excluded.
These wastes (black and white muds) are subject to regulation under
Subtitle C since they clearly are derived from the processing of a
waste, not from processing an ore or mineral.
i
ISSUE 5
Are wastes produced by alloying, fabrication, or other manufacturing
• operations excluded by the Bevill Amendment?
/ In its notice of proposed rulemaking, published in 50 FR 40292, October 2,
f 1985, the Agency stated that its interpretation of "processing of ores and
, minerals" did not include operations which combined the processed ore or
^i mineral
'•: with another material (e.g., alloying) and
5 fabrication (any sort of shaping that does not
cause a change in chemical composition) ....
- 11 -
-------
In a nemo dated April 4, 19B4, to Phil Bobel, Chief, Toxics and Waste
Programs Branch, Region IX (Exhibit 7), John Lehman, Director, Waste
Management and Economics Division, noted that the mining exclusion does not
cover metal forming (such as rolling) or
working (cutting) vaste.
Likewise, in her June 16, 1986 letter to David Lamm, Indiana Assistant
Commissioner for Hazardous Waste Management, Margaret Silver, Attorney, EPA
Office of General Counsel (OGC), stated that the OGC and the EPA Office of
Solid Waste had concluded that the mining waste exclusion does not apply to
slag generated during the steelmaking process since steel is an alloy
(Exhibit 13).
An exception to the non-exclusion of fabrication-generated wastes would
logically include wastes resulting from the casting of intermediate metal
products into anodes and from cathodes into a shape suitable for shipping.
Casting into anodes is a necessary step in the refinement of some metals
and does not constitute the production of cast products in the sense
apparently implied in the notice of proposed rulemaking (50 FR 40292). The
melting and recasting of cathodes represents the final step in the produc-
tion process since copper in the form of cathodes can not be readily
shipped.
ISSUE 6
Does a waste which would normally be excluded from regulation lose that
exclusion if it derives from a process located off-site from the principal
processing operation? And secondly, do otherwise excluded wastes derived
from the refining of intermediate products lose their status if those
intermediate products have been sold to another party for refining?
These two issues were raised in a memo dated June 25, 1983, from Donald
Shosky, Physical Scientist, EPA Region VIII, to Louis Johnson, Chief, Waste
Management Branch, EPA Region VIII (Exhibit 4). The subject of the memo
was the question of exclusion for wastes derived from further refining of
- 12 -
-------
; copper. The stated conclusion was that the exclusion did not apply,
apparently, at least in part, because the intermediate copper product was
i sold, and thus, was no longer part of a primary extraction process. The
1 fact that the intermediate product was further refined at an off-site
. facility was also suggested as an important determinant.
!
*.
According to Meg Silver, Office of General Counsel (personal communication,
I April 16, 1987), the two issues are irrelevant. The mining exclusion
applies to wastes from direct-line processing operations. There is nothing
to suggest that who processes the material or where it is processed affects
Li the exclusion. This view is consistent with the fact that no one has
suggested that the sale of a raw ore or mineral to a beneficiation/refining
operation results in the loss of exclusion for subsequent processing
wastes.
C. SUGGESTED DEFINITION
i' Based upon the foregoing review of Bevill waste issues, the following
definition of Bevill waste is suggested.
i
A Bevill waste (a waste excluded by Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)
of RCRA from regulation under Subtitle C) is any solid waste
« which is produced in the course of exploration, mining,
• milling, smelting, or refining of ores or minerals, and:
a. Is not the product of processes designed to enhance
' an already usable commercial mineral product, e.g.,
] alloying, fabrication (any sort of shaping that does
not cause a change in chemical composition), or
other manufacturing activity;
i
' b. Is not produced by a mining or allied processing
operation other than one which lies in a direct line
1 from ore or mineral to a final refined product;
c. Is not a spent solvent, pesticide waste, or other
discarded commercial chemical; and
' d. Results from a processing stream in which at least
50% of the feedstock is primary (ore or mineral)
' material.
- 13 -
-------
'
D. GENERIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
A generic flow diagram for determination of wastes excluded under Section
3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) is provided in Figure 1.
Following is a step-by-step evaluation of copper ore processing operations
using the proposed generic process flow diagram (Figure 1). Information on
copper processing was taken from the study conducted by PEI Associates,
Inc. for the EPA Office of Research and Development, December, 1984,
entitled Overview of Solid Waste Generation, Management, and Chemical
Characteristics. The two copper process flow diagrams developed in the
study (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) are included as Exhibit 14.
Two methods of processing are considered: the conventional, pyrometallur-
gical method and the increasingly used hydrometallurgical ( elect rowinning)
technique .
PYROMETALLURGICAL PROCESS
1. Roasting and drying of the copper concentrate:
Roasting and drying prepares the copper concentrate for smelting.
Particulates collected from the off-gases are recycled to the roaster
or dryer, or are charged to the smelter.
Wastes produced:
a. Particulates. If not recycled, they are Bevill wastes since they
derive from air pollution control devices.
b. Acid plant blowdown. This is an air pollution control waste and as
such Is a Bevill waite.
2. Matte Smelting:
Copper concentrates are smelted to remove most of the iron and some of
the other impurities and to separate the feed into a slag and a copper-
- 14 -
-------
ON- OR OFF-SITE
OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF
DRECT LINE OF PROCESSING.
INCLUDING WASTES SUCH AS
SPENT SOLVENTS, PESTICIDE
WASTES AND DISCARDED
COMMERCIAL CHEMICALS
tn
I
EXPLORATION
SECONDARY
MATERIAL >50%
OF TOTAL FEEDSTOCK
///Y///
/////¥///
SECONDARY
MATERIAL *50%
OF TOTAL FEEDSTOCK
BENEFICIATION
/] TREATMENT
//X///,
BY-PRODUCT
'////A////.
PROCESS WASTES AND
POLLUTION CONTROL WASTES
WASTE PROCESSING
Y/A'///.
Y/Y/A
INTERMEDIATE
WASTE PROCESSING
//X///
SOLD FOR FURTHER PROCESSING
REFINED PRODUCT
OTHER METALS
FABRICATION
ALLOYING AND/OR
MANUFACTURING
WASTES
DISPOSAL
FINISHED PRODUCT
FIGURE I
BEVILL BOUNDARY DECISION FLOWCHART
FOR ORE AND MINERAL EXTRACTION, BENEFICIATION, AND PROCESSING WASTES
BEVll.
BOUNDARY
-------
iron-sulfide matte that can be efficiently processed in subsequent
operations. During smelting, the concentrate separates into three
* fractions. Some sulfur converts to sulfur dioxide, which leaves with
the combustion gases. Iron oxides and silica combine to form an iron-
silica slag. Iron sulfides and copper sulfides form a molten matte.
, The matte continues in the process; the slag is disposed of.
Wastes produced:
,' a. Acid plant blowdown. This is an air pollution control waste and as
such is a Bevill waste.
b. Iron-Silica Slag. After all recoverable copper is removed, the
slag is disposed of at an on-site dump. This is a Bevill waste.
3. Matte Conversion:
Conversion is a two-step process in which most of the remaining
impurities are removed and crude blister copper is produced. In the
first step, air is blown into the matte where it oxidizes the iron
sulfide. The resulting iron-silicate slag is returned to the smelter.
The oxidized sulfur leaves in the off-gas stream. Additional air is
blown into the charge as the second step and converts the copper
, sulfide to blister copper.
Wastes produced:
a. Participates. These are Bevill wastes since they derive from air
< pollution control devices.
: b. Acid plant blowdown. This is a sulfur dioxide air pollution
control waste and as such is a Bevill waste.
4. Fire-Refining and Anode Casting:
Air is blown into the molten blister copper to oxidize the remaining
' sulfur, other impurities, and some of the copper. The impurities
? combine with silica to form slag, which is recycled to the converter.
I' The cuprous oxide remaining in the copper is deoxidized by adding coke,
* by poling, or by injection of reformed natural gas. Copper is then
poured into molds, generally in the shape of anodes, for further
f processing in an electrolytic refinery.
j
Wastes produced:
1 a. Contact cooling water from anode casting operation. Casting is
1 generally considered to be a process outside of the Bevill
boundary. However, casting of anodes is a necessary intermediate
' step in the refinery process and does not represent the production
I of a refined commodity. Therefore, cooling water is a Bevill
waste.
] b. Slag.
- 16 -
-------
i. If slag is disposed of it is a Bevill waste.
ii. If additional products, such as iron, zinc, and tin, are
extracted, resulting wastes are Bevill wastes.
5. Electrolytic Refining. Includes three steps:
a. Electrolysis:
Copper anodes are refined electrolytically to remove additional
impurities that can affect the electrical conductivity of the
copper. The operation takes place in lead- or plastic-lined
concrete cells. During the process, the copper and impurities
dissolve in the electrolyte. The copper is deposited on the
cathode; the impurities stay in solution or fall to the bottom as
slime.
Wastes produced:
i. Slime. This may or may not be a waste depending on whether it
contains additional valuable constituents, the recovery of
which is often an important part of the refinery operation.
A. If they are considered wastes, then they are Bevill wastes.
B. If the slimes are processed for recovery of other consti-
tuents, the wastes produced are Bevill wastes.
ii. Spent Acids. These are Bevill wastes since they are produced
during the refining process.
b. Melting and casting:
Cathodes are washed with water and a surfactant to remove electro-
lyte; they are then melted in preparation for casting. Any
resulting slags and dusts are returned to the smelter. The molten
copper is cast into commercial shapes since the copper cannot be
sold or shipped in the form of a cathode.
Wastes produced:
i. Contact cooling water. Electrolytically purified copper
cathodes are melted in preparation for casting into a saleable
bulk shape. Although the copper is at this point of saleable
purity, it cannot be sold in the shape of the cathode.
Therefore, it must first be cast into a form suitable for
shipment such as wire-bars. Because this casting operation
represents a step in the production of the refined product, the
contact cooling water is a Bevill waste.
ii* Wash Water. Wash water consists primarily of dilute electro-
lyte, water, surfactant, and traces of metals. The water is
generally sent to a wastewater treatment plant prior to
discharge. This water is a Bevill waste.
- 17 -
-------
1
II
II
c. Electrolyte Purification:
Spent electrolyte contains dissolved copper and impurities. Puri-
fication takes place in liberator cells, which are similar to
normal electrolytic cells. An electric current causes the copper
and other metal impurities to deposit on the cathode, which is then
^ sent back to the smelter. Purified electrolyte is recycled to the
4 electrolytic cells. Sludge which forms in the liberator cell is
k either returned to the smelter or sold for metal recovery.
I, An alternate means of electrolyte purification involves the use of
J dialysis to recover some sulfuric acid for recycling to the
electrolysis cells. Following removal of copper, the electrolyte
.] is dewatered, leaving a sludge of nickel, iron and zinc. A "black
acid" liquor results from the dewatering process which is either
'* used in leaching operations, or is sold to fertilizer
manufacturers.
! *• Nickel, iron and zinc sludge.
A. If disposed of, the sludge is a Bevill waste.
B. If the sludge is processed for metals recovery, then the
wastes produced by the recovery operation are Bevill
I wastes.
* ii. Bleed electrolyte. Is neutralized with mill tailings and
disposed of in a tailings pond. It is a Bevill waste.
I iii. "Black acid" liquor.
I A. If used in leaching operations, it remains in the process
and is not a waste.
B. If sold to fertilizer manufacturers it is not a waste, and
it is not a Bevill waste.
iv. Spent acid. Most acid in circuit is returned to the electro-
lyte stream to maintain the acid balance in the refinery. A
small portion must be neutralized and discarded to prevent
buildup of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium ions in
the electrolyte. This spent acid is a Bevill waste.
6. Fire Brick
Fire bricks are replaced periodically. The used bricks are either
treated for additional copper recovery and recycled or disposed of on a
waste pile. If disposed of they are Bevill wastes.
- 18 -
-------
HYDROMETALLURGICAL PROCESSING (ELECTROWINNING)
The three major steps are:
1. Leaching
Leaching methods include dump leaching, vat leaching, and agitated
leaching. An acidic solution (usually weak sulfuric acid) is recir-
culated through the crushed ore. The pregnant solution is treated by
solvent extraction.
Wastes produced:
a. Crud. Goes to tailing pond and is a Bevill waste.
b. Barren Ore. Isa Bevill waste.
c. Spent Raffinate. Only a small amount is produced which is not
recycled. Is a Bevill waste.
2. Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction employs an organic chelating agent dissolved in an
organic solvent (usually kerosene). The chelate combines with the
dissolved copper to form a copper-organic complex. This, in turn, is
treated with a strong acid (spent tankhouse electrolyte) which strips
the copper from the chelating agent, and regenerates the solvent. The
pregnant electrolyte is then pumped to the electrowinning tankhouse.
Waste produced:
a. Spent organic solvent. Is recycled until end of process.
Remainder is disposed of and is a Bevill waste.
3. Electrowinning
Electrowinning cells are similar to electrolytic refining cells except
that the anodes are generally made of lead. When electric current is
applied, copper is deposited on copper starting sheets. Spent electro-
lyte is recycled to the solvent extraction plant.
Wastes produced:
a. Tankhouse slimes. May contain base and precious metals. If
disposed of, they are Bevill wastes.
b. If procesed to recover other metals, resulting wastes are Bevill
wastes.
- 19 -
-------
GLOSSARY *
BENEFICIATION - the treatment of ore to concentrate its valuable
constituents.
DUMP LEACHING - a beneficiation process in which sub-ore-grade material is
leached by acid to recover copper. The material to be leached is
placed directly on the ground and the leaching may continue for years
or decades.
DUMP LEACH WASTE - a large-volume waste that results from the dump leaching
process.
ELECTROWINNING - recovery of a metal from an ore by means of electro-
EEimTcaT~processes.
HAZARDOUS WASTE - a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which,
because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or
infectious characteristics, may (1) cause, or significantly contribute
to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
HEAP LEACHING - an extraction process in which ore is leached by cyanide to
recover gold and silver, or by other reagents to recover uranium. The
material to be leached is placed on a pad; the volume of material
leached is smaller than in the dump leaching process. Leaching
continues for months.
LEACHATE - 1) the beneficiation solution (pregnant liquor) obtained from
heap leach and dump leach processes; 2) the liquid resulting from water
percolating through, and dissolving materials in, waste.
MATTE ** - A metallic sulfide mixture made by melting the roasted product
In smelting sulfide ores of copper, lead, and nickel.
MATTE SMELTING *** - The smelting of copper - bearing materials, usually in
a reverberatory furnace. The valuable product is a liquid, copper-iron
sulfide called matte.
MILL TAILINGS - the waste rock (gangue) discarded after ore milling. See
tailings.
MINE WASTE - a large-volume waste consisting of the soil or rock generated
by mining operations during the process of gaining access to an ore or
mineral body. The waste includes the overburden from surface mines,
underground mine development rock, and other waste rock.
SLIMES - a material of extremely fine particles encountered in the
treatment of ore. Primary slimes are extremely fine particles derived
from ore, associated rock, or clay. They are usually found in old
20 -
-------
dumps and in ore deposits that have been exposed to climatic action;
they include clay, alumina, hydrated iron, near-colloidal common
earths, and weathered feldspars. Secondary slimes are very finely
ground minerals from the true ore.
SMELTER SLAG - the rough vesicular 1avalike waste remaining after the
processing of ore and minerals.
TAILINGS - a large-volume waste consisting of the materials remaining after
the valuable constituents (also termed values) of the ore have been
removed by physical or chemical beneficiation, including crushing,
grinding, sorting, and concentration by a variety of methods.
VALUE - the valuable constituents of an ore.
WASTE UTILIZATION - a current mining waste disposal practice that involves:
(1) the extraction of economically valuable amounts of metals or
minerals in the waste, and (2) the use of this waste material for
productive purposes.
* Definitions taken from Report to Congress on Mining Waste, December 31,
1985, except where otherwise noted.
** ASM Glossary
*** Ency. of Chem. Tech., v.8
- 21 -
-------
EXHIBIT 1
-------
• I
i I
'!
2$
OFFICE 0? SOLID WASTE
7~ """^CBA Joining Sxenption and Synfuel Plants
. ________ Alfred H. Lindsey, Deputy Director
_•_». _• .Hazardous t Industrial Waste Division (WR-555)
r BegiazTviIi "-* " ~ ~ —
:*
ij
"
Your neao of December 30, eeelcs clarification of the *CRA
waste—e*»«ptio^ o£-ltorezib«r..19« as ap^ii*^ to
— operations*.- Your interpretation appears to b* *3*«i?i
correct in that nany, if not most, svnfuela operations will
--.b«-taapoxarily ejteapted fron itCRA control. x
As you aay know the November 19 regulatory a
'which exemots "solid waste from the extraction, henefi elation
and processing of ores and rcineraln (Inclu^ino coal),, ,nr*»qnl
directly from a Congressional asiemlwent t» TT7W. Ir. f-.-fc. iu-s
regulatory lanquaae is the sa^e as the le«isTati.v? 1 ?.«"".•; ?.'?••>
except that coal was not specif icsll-' er.clvtiv?''. ir t>!r-> l"~:.^ln
(The Aqency st^cif icallv inrlud*'! coal in *:h» r»c:ilntnrv arn»n
begaus^-if- is sra»3»n-lv -ja-«ln«»r«l)- - Tba aucst-ion auic^ly H^r^
how far down the production line did Concr*** *n<»*n for "r!T-onf"
of ores and ain»rals* to extend. Sine* there was
ns inn
disaqre«went on the issue. Congress was not in session, zr.*
the Aqen^
•* ..-
-------
• The breadth of this interpretation of Congrassional
intentj'and in fact the exemption itself, will he reviewed
'la the future to determine if son* of thes* waste*
.enter the RCRA systera. If BO, th*y way simply be
...Jtbl.the existing regulatory program, or tnore probablv, a
"
Affected. Current plans call for a quicX (6 nos.) evaluation
ofr-the leaislati*« history and consents received on the
— interpret at ion of Jfov. 19, to. «*tabliah the proper «en«?» of
" Congr»»«iosal intent. - Then later, a» called for in «S002
--of the> Act, a aajor report is beinq prepared for ouhaission
to Congress In 1983 outlining which mining related vastes
:"»obje
-------
I
t
i!
EXHIBIT 2
-------
1
1
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RCRri Mining Exclusion as Applied to
Kennecott Copper Wastes - Request
by State of Utah for Interpretation
John P. Lehman, Director £*F£&M*tA**~'
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division-(WH-5G5)
T0 Henry Schroeder, Region VIII
Project Officer for Utah
1 This memorandum will respond to requests from you and
] Sharon Metcalf for an interpretation of the ftCRA mining exclusion
as it applies to spent acids and dross generated by the Kennecott
I Copper Company.
EPA amended 40 CFR 2bl.4(b) on November 19, 1980, (see 45 Fj*
"" 76618) to exclude from the definition of hazardous waste, "solid
waste from the extraction, beneficiation and processing of ores
and minerals (including coal), including phosphate rock and over-
burden from the mining of uranium ore." In the preamble to the
amendment, we stated our intent to interpret the amendment to
Include solid waste from the exploration, mining, milling, smelt-
ing and refining of ores and minerals. However, the preamble
also states that the exclusion does not apply to solid wastes
"such as spent solvents, pesticide wastes, and discarded commercial
chemical products, that are not uniquely associated with these
mining and allied processing operations, or cement kiln operations.
The preamble continues, "should either industry generate any of
these non-indigenous wastes and the waste is identified or listed
as Hazardous under Part 261 of the regulations, the waste is
hazardous and must be managed in conformance with the Subtitle C
regulations." »
We have reviewed the description of the Kennecott process
which Sharon Metcalf provided in her July 9 memorandum to Jon
Yeagley. Based on that description and our familiarity with
the industry, it is our opinion that in the Kennecott process,
spent acids and their dross are not uniquely associated with
the mining and allied processing operations. Rather, they are
common to other ej_ec_tropjj>ting prpcesses. Therefore, the
exclusion does" not apply, and "the wastes roust be regulated
under RCKA.
We also reviewed this situation with regard to whether
the wastes result from the initial processing of the mined
ore, in which case the wastes would be excluded from regulation.
We find that the waste in question results not from the
RECEIVED
-------
-2-
Initial basic processing of the mined ore. but from further
processing designed to upgrade the quality of an already
usable commercial product. In the Kennecott process, sheets
of 98 * pure copper are upgraded to 99+ 5 copper. It is
apparent that the resulting wastes are derived from this further
processing which is designed to upgrade product quality. Thus,
the wastes produced are non-exempted and must be regulated.
cc: Sharon Hetcalf, Assistant Regional Counsel, Region VIII
Steve tingle, OSW
Alan Corson, OSW
Bruce Weddle, OSW
A1r and Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
-------
I
1
,1
1
EXHIBIT 3
-------
I ; ,
-. T-r7-v;;'.^v.
•--•-.•*£-£. *.-'^:A
V. J. OUATMf*
COWIN M. »eeocH
J.WILLIAM 000 LtTTLt
THOMAS L. FAMMCM
•. NEL»ON. JR.
PBATRBR.,
iioi
WASHINGTON, D.C. -COO36
T7 1OO9
i/f 1982
„ .
i^^-cff?^rei;3<
-*
xu-fve-osoo
». ONCCN
KURT c. »LA*C
Ms. Rita M. Lavelie
Assistant Administrator for Solid
Haste-and Emergency Response -.. . .--,. ...
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.H., Room S360
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: RCRA Mining Exclusion
Dear Ms. Lavelle:
On behalf of Kennecott Minerals Company, we
urge reconsideration of the conclusion in the September
25, 1982, memorandum from Mr. John Lehman to Region VIII
that the RCRA mining exclusion does not apply to Kennecott's
copper refinery-wastes.
EPA has previously stated that, pending further
rulemaking action, it would interpret Section 7 (the
Bevill Amendment) of the Solid Haste Disposal Act Amend-
ments to exclude solid waste from the "exploration, mining,
milling, smelting, and refining of ores and minerals"
<45 Fed* £££• 76619, November 19, 1980). Hastes from
Kennecott's Utah refinery are accordingly excluded fiom
regulation.
In the memorandum, Mr. Lehman noted that the
1980 rulemaking did not exclude "non-indigenous wastes"
such as spent solvents, pesticide wastes, and discarded
commercial chemical products that are "not uniquely
associated with these mining and allied processing opera-
tions." He stated that in Kennecott's case "spent acids
and their dross are not uniquely associated with mining
and allied processing operations" but are instead "common
to other electroplating processes" and thus the exclusion
is inapplicable. Kennecott respectfully disagrees with
this analysis.
-------
<• PrtATHER SEEDED DOOLITTLE & FAHMER
-T- Rita-M . -ia ve 1 1-e -
Page Two
November 17, 1982
At Kennecott's Utah refinery, 98 percent pure
anode copper produced by the smelter is electrolytically
refined in a sulfuric acid/copper sulfate solution to
remove and recover impurities including silver, gold,
selenium, platinum, antimony, bismuth, arsenic, nickel,
and other metals. The result is 99+ percent pure cathode
copper. The electrorefining solutions, electrolyte,
and residues are recycled through precious metals
recovery plants and electrolyte purification facilities
in which by-products and metals are recovered and spent
acid is removed. The refining process is quite dissimilar
from electroplating, as it serves as both a metals
extraction and a purification process. The spent acid
is indigenous to the refining process, and is clearly not
akin to spent solvents, pesticide wastes, or discarded
commercial chemical products subject to regulation.
Mr. Lehman also states that while wastes from
the "initial processing of the mined ore" should be excluded,
wastes from "further processing designed to upgrade the
quality of an already useable commercial product" are not
exempt. Kennecott also disagrees with these statements.
First, EPA's 1980 rulemaking makes no reference to "initial
processing" but excludes wastes from all processing
activities from exploration through refining. Second,
the assertion that copper is a useable commercial product
prior to refining is in error. All of the anode copper
produced at Kennecott's Utah facility is subsequently
refined by Kennecott into cathode copper which is then
sold. Kennecott sells no unrefined copper, and does
not believe that a commercial market exists for such
copper.
Accordingly, we ask EPA to withdraw the recent
memorandum and to reaffirm the conclusion in the 1980
rulemaking that copper refinery wastes are excluded from
RCRA by the Bevill Amendment.
Very truly yours,
• '•>•
Edwin H. Seeger
'Carl B. Nelson, Jr.
• •-'•*'•' - -..-'. v. Attorneys for
•V-",1 . . .-'.Kennecott Minerals Company
-------
EXHIBIT 4
-------
£Uit.£ l.i-port en tl.t fctnr.Ltctt
Lewis Jchnsw,, CMif
l.titc l,£ji£yfcr,cnt
FIXCLSS
UK A; »11 7, ii-te, F.occrt Utllir.e (I?*) tnc Steve HcUfl (I'ttf. f'tttr
t^r.litj) r.c-t v.Ufi J.cr.nc-Cotl tt the. Ktr.;,ccc-U ItLh Cvpje-r Division. Ir. tut
r-ittli-s, titty rivieue kornccctt 's her «* ling cf liquid er.tf solid vtstts frcr..
tt.c. Ccj.j:cr l;ci"iM.r,y. 7i;c puTLcie cf this i..vr.c 1s tc cescritc l^L cuircrt
Vvtstc cir,eccir,tr,t prtctict *t the Ker,r,tc(,tt Cc-ppcr ncfinor> cnc' hov. U.:t
rcincs tc ti.-:- ovcrcll *.ertc r.ij.cr^v.rt tl tf*".c fccllity.
l«»r Kti.nt.cott tttl; Ccpf-rr r-lvliicr 1s trr 1r,ttcr\-ti'L f«ci!U> iMtf-
ttfrs i ccpper r,.irt=t nil, irclur, cU rif1r«r,j. frcr. tb*. ftrsp-ctlvc; tf
tnerieccr.!, the r.ine 1s scperite frc;.i tht rest cf tr.c ticilitics. U.t
taste- fru tin- i?;ir,c- trt her.clct U the. Mr.?. Is.-:- rtrrir.irr li.r?: crcrgtl'.-r.r..
ti.t ccnccntrclcrs. the src-Utr, *r:r the rtfiivf^, vlllizc erf Ittcrrrtcc s;itc...
1cr fji-rulific thilr vtiUv.ftcrs cr:1 tc'tit i.ci
The refiner.) (pr.ctos ti, c, i, 4) prcrutCi c types if V.
Dcccppcrizec £lt-ctrcl,>tc (ifcrt Acit) ».;»ic:; is •: Licit ci tr.c
sp^r.i tcic electrolyte sclftic/n frc<-. ti;c Ktirlr.^,- Cvlli;
Slic:es which' accun.ulttc 1r. the tetter cf the cclU;
Keflncr.v cr*1r, ^ftcr v.,.lcl. consist* cf ti>i^:t ct:tlir.r i.itcr,
«r,r. teller pUi.t rc
7r.t ettecl cd Ktstc Flw D lifer sr.«v-s hrv; trt rrfln:r> t-cstcs ere hcr.cHcc
*:.j tikir vclur-ts in rtlttion to the ctl;tr testt s
f Iti*: irC"t *CiC, l,i;iCJ. 1l tfx Icitv CtrCc'..: it itilli, CU'.StittttS C.i,'* Cf
I th£ ti;-c.r£uiic ICbC'ric tc- tr.c ctu.icfl »cstc\.ctci ir-_LL'.C!.t pUrt. K.-c
'-^tcr i»Tiu:c;A pUnt is a ,7«.cr;i.1ce.l ivitt-r ccr.sUtir.c, cf stctccc
. tinks tr.c; r^chenicc« cirri ficr; (r^cto ti).
As a result tf iiPtES rc^iMrejr^pr.ts fine; crsolng KPCIS pcrc:1t rer.tv.tl
n«roti5ticn5, Kenr.ccott has been revising the cvcrill t.'ssiei'itcr tves-trcrt c
.vficling fcr the er.tlrc car.plcx. /.s e result cf tl.csc cftrr.ccs the fccc' tc tht
*.estCi»st£r trcetrent pUr.t ii.ti th5 cfcfitiro ccr.cltiers c-f the pUnt l.pva
cj.inrcc in t»:c Itst >e£r. As e rc-iuit tf tr.c clftcrrfit r.tt*.rt cf tU fcv: to
t(t- treefc'iinl pUnt (ccnctnirtior i.cctcs cc tc- * nc%.. tret tr.c nt ftcilii^; £i c
ti.c U;tei lir.t. prfee1pit«ticT« i;.&ce cf crcrttlcr V'« i2.t tc If.5) c;c-siciaC fcr
1i..?rtvcc arstnlc rLravel, the slucfrc fr«. t^ vi,i,lc'.tter trcctr.-cnt r.is
thur.rdc. The treetir.crct plcnt ilutt^? currently tdrr prefect vill f?il 1:5 Li
tcxiclt.v ttst for /.s, Pi', Se, enc K». Kfcnnccctt is currertlj t!.r.;.inr tr.r
sicxct, iO to!!S/ce^» to £ Ur.porfr^1 f.ulcinc pciic (pl-cto ttj urti* twiir;
-------
frciJUits t»x ccr.structc-c to pusp tf.c siuc.c tc irix i.Hfc tht ccr.ct.rir tier
ttiiiit:, iCO.tuG tons/tfy. lr-e- IretUcfit r-lcnt Sii^occ i.ill represent.C-.Cl* cf
the IctcJ trlic v.t'.t? fisc!'£rr^ tc tftc t.-ilinr- r-rr.c If 1t 1i i:1*r.cr v1t»» t'.c
tr11lt)£,£. htCtC ii $/;Di;S tf:C TClCtlVt Silt Of'tf.i; tCr.pCTCry sU'C-fC pCHd fr.
rciclior. tc ir; irrslr.rs pcr.o.
ru'.s iuvs U-er, ruiscc! ever t?.i fist fo.; ia.r.t!;s. Ifccse issuts
cr r.ot lJ;c r;i:.irif. t>xsr-t«tT. tprJi-.-s tr this f«cility, ic the.
ilnc f-roctss tnipc to the rir.irr. Irc-ustr^-, t.1il it Lc ecccptcble tc rt-Jx
injjS >;«th ^.zcrccus i.-tste slutcci. drx tirctly, c&ts li.is tccilU^ r.ctt U.L
fcxu.pt iur.?
1?.f Mnlrir. Exert tlon
it 1s t*,c- cpinicr\ tf ti.is ilfpicr* tfct li.c t.ininr, r.xcf.vfiuj ctc;S not c»T'b'
tc tLt topper rkfininc process. turrL'tlv ttxrt ot ct h.-^st 11 t^cllitics
:.: 1cfr r?.fifi-;- ccp;cr tc r. hir.!:tr pv-rit>. './ii:. fev wet 7! lens, ell ol UK
rtnrlr.r Tc.cslliui ire Ircctcc sa..* i.uvr.-Ci- «.'..«••;• frt.: ti.. ri:,;- t/.u t Ul
titc. ifi crccr fr; t rtl iTicr^ tc prc-cc^s Ci.fj\r j. lvtti to c iiriri piriiy c
t;.i-ii-csL trcr.ii.cticr. I&KCS p'uct in >.i:1ci; t!>: rif;j£. \ 'lu.vi11 t« 'trcccs" icr
t:;c to^fir pUici. Since- c trenscciicr. tc^cs piece ticrc L rrc^tct is
••;.»!• -^.i*- cr *!cUtfc i.;.c e.£ tMs prc-Ci:^ n »:-.; £ pi: i.... ixirici-.f.i
li.i <*".;: ir... excretion trt.s rut tpplj.
*!//. pxccss cf electrolytic rtfiiilr: cr.t elcctrcj trtisif
Vc.-,; sir. lit! processes. Tf.c cnl> ne^cr tiMirt:;cc i'.irtn, tu tvt- Pttf.c-s is
il.i^ ii-.p^-rUus 1ii ti.i cctp&r plftcs i.:£y Lc rc-luScv curlnc, tf;f;
i cfcn/.ir.f prtctsi. IV.* rtLscri tor tnls e-ifitrtrcfr is ttLfeUit ir. £r
rrrictiiir prcccss, st£i;ti£rc cntn.ic£is, stcj;^i.rc plctin9 rctcrials tr>^
ittiru sc-!i;tiorjs trc fst-c. Jii £» c-kcci er&.f ifiiri;.- prcccii. hr.vt.vcr,
trt fU-iir.i; 5ciuti*.r-s *r.c pinlnc t.ttciiils r.;-;
The ccr«pi;r:y desires to itix tr.t wrsteifttr UtiU.cnt vioc>-.s i;ith t».t- rill
tf.ninrs if.u cxposit the- rtsifitJrtt, rixturc it. t^ tr.lir.tc t^^5i?:r£ pc:;?o. (ur
pciitlcr, en tnU Issue Is tiut citct tlic i.eitt t*cco;. es rt-r,ul*tc»., tUutU:. c.t
trcoLS »este ilt-dccs snc-ilc not L6 dHcwc-c, urritss ivictnce ccr be
c: u shot Uiei tr.is lictnct1 ot ctspssei pro vices eJeqyitc- er.vucr-r.cnttl
Trcttr.ir.t Sysicr. Excn.pt 1 cr i
. •
Itit fctsteuetfer trc*tt,cr,t systet-. implies only tc- tcr.fcs, rot survtce
ji.pccr.cr..c.r.ts (sec ci.1 Ir.itic:. cf e fciotevUer trc?t/ crt t-r.ltj. ir. ml*
iu., tnc %»6Stei.*.Ur trtetRtr.t txcr.pticn li r.it
-------
hoS I'.to t:1scfs*to \i, li>: cciTtSi&nctnct on the Ktnnccctt Refinery
Usuo, t!.t- e^iicctilit^ cf ti't r.inusr v<£sle c-xc^pHcn to rc.fu.cr>
»»itti is tr, ir.E;-::. ;.t::-.;cUss tr tf.e sf-crt ter^ rtcUt-rj of ton: rtfintry
..biles cri. »;»;.cUJ turirj thj txa j.ticr. fcrioci, ErA tactic )CCK it tr.t Ic^
Urt. rt-rv-ittu-.v ci ti/it »£*U» in liit amttxt cf ctner r.lninr fccste
it .Icc/fitw fbCilitUs. l:»t «r-iii1i:p v,uStts study cr.i the rtJfcltlPc
.•.st.nc.'fclt.r.i t: Cc-r/rcss sUtk' i«-cotnuc fie irter-reUticnsMfS
i iri»,c t rite *tcr. £5 UUing CT;C ctii«r ^cter-tiel)> h&z&rc'ous »tstc5
i«ici*i;Ui« li.a n.'.ttls inw'fStri such ts trc£tt»Lr>t slvJres, sr-tUor tcit*
LCi:£iC S
l icitr.tut
-------
EXHIBIT 5
-------
c c
e- s
H-. 5:
AUG 2 2 1983 > S
3 Ui
rr >
•->
N Ci
N .*"
O 3
D >
H- 3
CO rr
7T *••
Mr. D. M. Friedman **• N
Division of Hazardous Waste Hanagenent w \
Department of Environnental Resources fj
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania n
P.O. Box 2063 *£
harrisburg, PA 17120 JJ
rr
Denr Mr. Friedman: &
rr
I an writing to you to follow-up on recent conversations 3"
between members of your office and ray staff regarding your letter w"
of June 24, 1983 concerning the regulatory exclusion requested by §
PEMACOR for the bayhouse dust generated from their ore reduction ^
furnace. The Agency considers the solid waste, in the form of 3
baghouse dust, generated by the REMACOR subraerged-arc furnace to w
be e_xem£ted by 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(7) from federal regulation £
under Subtitle C of RCRA. The use of steel turnings rather than »o
iron ore as a source of iron does not prevent application of the ^
exemption because the steel scrap is a relatively minor component ®
of the charge to the furnace (i.e., steel turnings represent i
less than 20 percent of the charge to the furnace as calculated $
from the REMACOR enclosure entitled "Gas Cleaning Calculations * &
for Ferroalloy Plant Baghouse at New Castle, Pennsylvania"). \
Other smelting operations that have been found by EPA to be f
eligible for the exclusion also use small quantities of scrap £
along with ore. i
UJ
As discussed in previous conversations, the Agency currently
is re-evaluating the interpretation of the wining ana mineral
processing waste exclusion set forth in the Federal Register of
November 19, 1980. That exclusion includes, "solid waste trora
the exploration, raining, milling, smelting, and refining of ores
and minerals.* 45 76619. The Agency could take action to lessen
the scope of the exclusion with respect to smelting and refining
waste. This could effect the regulatory status of the REMACOR
waste. In such an event, determination as to whether or not
the REMACOR waste is a hazardous waste would be in accordance :
with 40 CFR $262.11. • <'-,.
.v. >M •
-------
f C
- 2 -
The State of Pennsylvania, of course, nay choose to establish
more stringent requirements concerning such wastes than the federal
EPA requirements.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehnari
Director
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division
•».*""•?•,
f .;..•»
-------
EXHIBIT 6
-------
u
3
A.PH 4 ISO-
Hazardous Vaste Determination on the nupont Titanium
Pioxide Plant Near Nev Johnsonville, Tennessee
John P. I-ebf.an, Director
Kaste Management and Fconomics rivision (V*K-5fS)
Janes H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Peg ion IV
,; In response to your request of November 2n, 19R3, we havA •£
1 reviewed the processes that t»ke place at the Dupont titaniur. ^
* dioxide plant near Few Johnsorvi lie, Tennessee, we conclude *•
, that the solid wartcs from these processes are excluded fror- £
I regulation undrr Fubtitle C of PCFA by Section 3H01(b)(3)(A)(ii) 2
[ of the Act, which excludes wastes "frop the extraction, ben.e- •
ficiation, and processing of ores and minerals, including 2
i phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium ore.* ?
In the Federal Peqistcr of November 19, 19PO (45 ^FP 7P6ir), £
FTA tentatively interpreted the mining waste exclusion to include "^
•solid waste from the exploration, mining, milling, smelting, arO if
« refining of ores and minerals." However, FPA r-ade it clear that -
it intended to reconsider its interpretation of the exclusion: £
j "The Agency fully intends to consider the appropriate scope of *
I the statutory exclusion and may well take rulemaking action to «
lessen the scope of the exclusion.... In particular, F.PA quos- i;
(: tions whether Congress actually intended to exclude... waster ~
:.! generated in the smelting, refining, and other processing of 5
ores and minerals that are further removed from the mining and "^
beneficiation of such crer. and minerals.* To date, however, c
, EPA has not changed its 1980 interpretation. i
1 ' •> s.
Since Dupont is processing concentrated (i.e., beneficiated) *
p^ ore, wastes produced are excluded from Subtitle C regulation by £
| the mining waste exclusion. It is true that the mining waste ^
exclusion does not apply to "solid wastes, such as spent solvents, =
| pesticide wastes, and discarded commercial chemical products, Y
that are not uniquely associated with these mining and allied ^
processing operations ..." 45 FP at 76*1°. However, thisjro- *•
i vision only__applies to materiaTs used in, not produced by, the
> ben<
enef iciation, and processing of ores and mjne^raj_g.
TKeretore, Fince the acid presefit in the wastestream fron~this
process is not added to extract the metal but is produced as a
by-product of the chlorination process, Dupont's wastestream is
pot con-parable to spent pickle liquor produced by the steel
industry.
FPA is now in the process of reevaluating its earlier
interpretation of the mining waste exclusion to more accurately
define the wastes that Congress intended to exclude from Sub-
title C regulation. In addition, several studies are underway
-------
tr- chararterire the ore r-rocoFPinr, jnrii'fitriep, and to detnrr-inc
the volures ?nri potential hazard's of the waste? they producr.
The titaniur riioxirio industry falls within t»^
-------
EXHIBIT 7
-------
APR
Hazardous i-'asto Peternl nation on the Tir.pt Facility in
John P. Lehr»an, Ciroctor
Waste Management and Economics Division (VH-SF5)
Phil Bohel, Chief
Toxics and Haste Prograirs branch. Peg ion ix
In response to your reriorandum of February 24, 1984, and §
subsequent conversations with Fey ion IX staff, we have examined i
the available information on the Tinet facility and have con- S
eluded that its primary waste streams are currently excluded i£
from regulation under Subtitle C of PCPA by the so-called "nining \
waste exclusion" In Section 3001(b) (3)( A.) ( ii) of PCPA. As you ?
know, this provision excludes wastes "froro the extraction, bene- •£
ficiation, and processing of ores and irinerals." 3
•x
In our June 24, 1983 memorandum to you, we indicated that %
while solid waste from the processing of the titanium ore *<_
("titanium sponge,* in this case) would b« excluded, it was tt!
unclear whether solid waste fro.T, the mixture of titanium ore -,
and purchased alloys would be excluded. Based on data Tir*et £•
recently provided to EPA, It in evident that the arount of x
titaniun sponge far outweighs the »arount of alloys {and scrap ^
recycle) in the rdxture. Therefore, we conclude that Tinet is ^
•refining" titanium ore in the cielt shop. Consequently, the TI
solid wastes from this process fall under the mining waste £
exclusion, which was defined to include wastes refining in the \
November 19, 1980 interpretation (45 ££.76610). " O
3
This exclusion would not apply to waste solvents, since
they ere not "uniquely associated with these r.ininc and Allied »
procnssing operations." (See 45 £P nt 76fl9, rovenber 19r l^SO.) J^
Nor would the exclusion cover metal forning (such as rolling) or \
working (cutting) wastes. »
The Agency is now in the process of reevaluating its jJ
earlier interpretation of the nining waste exclusion to define *-
rore accurately the wastes which Congress intended to exclude \
fror Subtitle C pending completion of the mining waste study. ^
V-'e will keep you advised on the progress of the reevaluation and *o
its supporting studies. 7*
so
-------
I,
l!
II
,; EXHIBIT 8
-------
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Capitol Comolex
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 39710
Telephone i702) 235-4570
April ..19, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO:' John P. Lehman, Director
VI a. ~ e Management and Economics Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Headquarters
FROM: Thomas J. Fronapfel, P.E.
Environmental Engingeer
, THROUGH :^.L.TH. Dodgion, P.E., Administrator
] - Division of Environmental Protection
SUBJECT: STATUS OF MINING LABORATORY WASTES UNDER THE BENEFICIATION
j EXCLUSION OF 40 CFR 251.4(b)(7)
! ' •.
On April 18, 1984, I was instructed by Jim Antizzo to send you a
il brief memorandum outlining the concerns we have in reference to wastes
produced by mining laboratories, both on and off-site. A summary of
our concerns foliow s.'
(1) Precious metals (gold and silver) mining operations, and
their on-site assay laboratories, produce wastes consisting*
of nitric acid containing silver and fire assay cupels con-
I taining substantial quantities of lead from the fire assay
• proce'ss. At larger mining operations, the quantities of
wastes generated are generally much greater than the
I* 1000 kg/month small quantity generator limit. If these
: wastes are not exempt or excluded under 261.4(b)(7), then
are they regulated along with, and in addition to, any
! . waste solvents, etc., that may be produced during equipment
I maintenance and repair?
I , (2) For the smaller precious metals operations that cannot afford
j the capital necessary to build an-on-site assay laboratory,
and use commercial laboratories for the same purpose, do the
wastes from these off-s"ite facilities also meet the exclusion
! criteria under 251.4(b)(7)? These facilities may or may not
* ' fall under small quantity generator status.
-------
MEMORANDUM
John P. Tinman
April 19, 1984
Page 2
!!
ii
The lead added In the fire assay process is added as litharge (PbO)
to act as a carrier for the small quantities of gold and si 1 ver'which
are or may be present in the ore sample. It is not found in the ore
body, and is added specifically for this purpose. The litharge is
mixed with the ore sample, along with borax, silica, flour, and other
necessary fluxing agents. The fixture is melted in a furnace, poured
into steel molds and allowed to cool. The lead "button" which settles
to the bottom of the mold is placed on a bone ash cupel and placed in
a furnace and melted. The lead is absorbed by the cupel, leaving a
gold/silver dore1 "33". The cupels are then discarded.
The dore' "S3" is weigned ana placed in a crucible 1 n wh i en n i -. r •! c
acid is ad d e d to dissolve tne silver. The nitric acio is rei.iovec r'rc;"
Th~e cruel ble and generally discarded. The silver concentration is
generally much in excess of 5 ppm.
We would appreciate a response to these issues as quickly as
possible, s'ince Nevada has a substantial nu~bar of precious metals
operati ons .
Should you
please contect
require any
me at (7C21
additional
385-4670.
information on this matter
,*•
ihornas j. rronaprei, ?.c.
Environmental Engineer
Waste Management Section
Division of Environmetnal Protection
de
-------
EXHIBIT 9
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAY 9 1S84
CFF1CE O^
SOLID WASTS AND EMERGENCY RESPCN5E
Mr.-Thomas J. Fronapfel, P.E.
State of Nevada
Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710 ^
Dear Mr. Fronapfel:
I am writing in response to your memorandum of April 19, 1984
regarding the status of mining laboratory wastes under the
exclusion of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
Based upon the information submitted in your memorandum, the
Agency has determined that both the nitric acid waste and the fire
assay cupels are solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals. As such, the wastes temporarily
are excluded by Section 3001 (b)(3)(A) of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) from regulation as hazardous wastes under
Subtitle C of RCRA. The exclusion is effective-until at least
six months after the date of submission to Congress of the mining
waste study being conducted under Sections 8002(f) and (p) of
RCRA and after promulgation of regulations in accordance with
Section 300"! (b) (3) (C) of. RCRA... These wastes are excluded regardless
of whether they are: generated by. mining, operations or- commercial
laboratories. -
The Agency is now- in- the process of. re-evaluating its-
November 19, 1980 interpretation (See 45 FR 76618) of the mining
waste exclusion to define more accurately the wastes that Congress
intended to exclude from regulation under" Subtitle C pending
completion of the mining waste, study. If the Agency modifies its
interpretation, we will notify you..
If you have any questions or require any further information
on this matter, please contact James Antizzo of my staff at (202)
382-7926.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Management & Economics Division
-------
EXHIBIT 10
-------
(O
WASHINGTON. O.C. *04«0 ^
'*'.'. . r«
1SAVS1934
I "
•OLIO WASTI AMD tMIMGINCv MEt'OMSI
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS Regulatory Interpretation on Mineral Processing
Residuals Generated by Combustion Units Burning
Hazardous Waste Fuel
FROM:' John H. Skinner, Director
Office of solid Waste (WH-5
(r
TO: .Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division (2AWM)
I -am writing in response to your memorandum of May 25, 1984, '
in which you requested a regulatory interpretation regarding mineral
processing residuals generated from the thermal expansion of shale
in rotary kilns that are fired with hazardous waste fuels. The '
issue is whether these mineral processing residuals, i.e.* shale
fines sludge, which would otherwise be exempt from Subtitle C of
RCRA under, the mining "extraction, beneficiation, and processing"
exclusion of 40 CFR $261.4(b)(7), are subject to regulation as a
hazardous waste due to the use of listed hazardous waste as a fuel
source for the process. This letter resporids to the questions
that you raised in your request, and also addresses the points
that Norlite Corporation has made in response to the Region's
complaint against them.
In response to one of your questions, we are not aware of any
•xplicit precedent or policy that has been established regarding
the applicability of either the mining waste exemption or the
cem*nt kiln dust exemption where waste solvents are employed as
fuels. Therefore, we have consulted with the office of General
Counsel and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement in developing
the following responses.
Background . • .
Norlite Corporation, located in Cohoes, New York, mines shale
and thermally expands it to produce a lightweight aggregate that
is used in construction products. The thermal expansion takes
place in two rotary kilns that are fired by listed hazardous waste
fuels (hazardous waste nos. F001-F005, according to Norlite) that
are purchased from waste generators and fuel blenders. Before
FihibH B
-------
b
I .
f
I
I
I
i
j
I
]
1
|
entering the stack, the kiln gases are scrubbed with an alkaline
aqueous slurry* The shale fines captured by the scrubber are
collected in surface impoundments from which they are subsequently
dredged at a rate of 40,000 tons year. The shale fines sludge
dredgings are accumulated in waste piles at Norlite's facility.
' •
. »
Question li Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCPA by virtue
of the mining waste exclusion in f261.4(b) (7)?
Answer: Yes, the waste is currently exempt.
*
Discussion*
Section 261.4 (b) (7) provides an exemption from Subtitle C
control for "Solid wastes from the extraction, benef iciation, and
processing of ores and minerals...". In the preamble to the rule
providing this exemption, the Agency said we would interpret the
•xclusion to include solid waste from the exploration, mining,
milling, smelting, and refining of ores and minerals (see 45
Federal Register 76618-76619, November 19, 1980). This interpre-
tation include* residuals from mineral processing, including air
•mission control wastes.
The process that Norlite uses involves heating shale to produce
a lightweight aggregate, thus enhancing its value. This approach
'is analogous to many other thermal processes used to dry, smelt,
or otherwise upgrade an ore or mineral. Therefore, the Norlite
process would be considered benef iciation or processing, and the
wastes from that process fall within EPA's current: interpretation
of the $261. 4(b) (7) exclusion. The use of hazardous waste_fuels
•s the total or partial energy source does not, in our opinion,
change the status of the waste as benef iciation or processing
waste. EPA made it clear in the November 19, 1980, preamble that
the exclusion does not apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents,
pesticide wastes t and discarded commercial chemical products, that
are not uniquely associated with the mining snd allied processing
industries. The solvents that we were addressing in the 1980
notice are those that night be generated as s result of equipment
maintenance or some other general plant operations, but not as a
result of extraction, benef iciation, or processing operations.
Me arrive at the same conclusion for cement kiln dust waste
that may be generated during a cement manufacturing process that
employs hazardous waste fuels as an energy source. Cement kiln
dust waste is currently exempt from Subtitle C by $261 .4(b) (8) .
The use of hazardous waste fuels in this process would not negate
the exclusion.
We emphasize that this interpretation of the mining waste
exclusion does not necessarily exclude all solvents from regulation
ExhibttB EihibHC
-------
under Subtitle C. As described above, wastes that are not generated
from extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations, e.g.,
•pent solvents generated during equipment maintenance, are not
•xcluded from Subtitle C regulation. Therefore, if Norlite mixes
its shale fines sludge with nonexcluded listed hazardous waste,
the resulting waste is subject to the 'mixture rule" in $261.3(b)(2),
%
The Office of Solid Waste is currently reviewing i'ts 1980
interpretation of the Mining waste exclusion to define more
accurately the wastes that Congress intended to exclude from Sub-
title C pending completion of the mining waste study. We will
keep you advised on the progress of the reevaluation and the
supporting studies.
Question 2t Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt under
the beneficial reuse exemption provided for
by $261.6?
No. Hastes resulting from a beneficial reuse
process are not covered by the $261.6 exemption,
Discussion!
Sections 261.3(0 and (d) state that any solid waste generated
from the treatment (which includes some recycling)* storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, including any sludge or emission
control dust, is a hazardous waste until the generator proves
otherwise. In the case of s waste that is derived from s listed
hazardous waste, the solid waste is considered hazardous unless
and until it is delisfd in accordance with $5260.20 and 260 22.
.*
In the case of Noilite Corporation, the shale fines? sluc-je is
considered to be derived from the treatment of hazardous wastss,
i.e.* the solvents that are used as fuel. Burning of hazardous
wastes, albeit for legitimate energy recovery, is still considered
treatment. If the shale fines sludge had not been considered a
beneficiation or processing waste under f261.4(b}(7), and therefore
excluded from regulation, it would be classified as listed hazardous
waste.
The beneficial reuse exemption contained in $261.6 applies to
the beneficial reuse process only, and not to any wastes that may
be generated as s result of such processes. This exemption thus
applies solely to hazardous wastes prior to and during legitimate '
recycling.
It should be noted that listed hazardous wastes, such as the
solvents that Norlite uses, are subject to certain transportation
and storage requirements prior to reuse. These requirements are
contained in $261.6(b). I assume that Norlite's tanks used for
storage of these listed hazardous wastes prior to firing in the
kiln are subject to these provisions.
-------
Question 3; Is Norlite's shalt fines sludge exempt under
the wastewater exemption of f261.3(a)(2)(iv)?
Answer: No, this exemption does not apply to the shale
———- . fines sludge.
Discussion; 5
The wastewater exemption contained in $261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A)
applies only if solvents are commingled with process wastewater as
part of routine housekeeping procedures (e.g.* minor release of
solvents during degreasing operations that would collect in the
wastewater sewer). The provision has no applicability to sludges
that are nixed or otherwise commingled with wastewater, or to
sludges that, in affect* generate a wastewater through the settling
of solids from the sludge.
-.You expressed concern that the mining wasta and cement kiln
.dust exclusions could lead to burning hazardous waste fuels with
high levels of toxic organic or metals constituents, resulting in
the generation of hasardous residues. We are presently developing
standards to regulate burning of hazardous wasta in boilers and in
cement and aggregate kilns, and intend to require that these units
generally meet the same performance standards applicable to incin-
erators. The residues from burning hazardous waste in these units
may contain high levels of toxic compounds, particularly metals.
Consequently, if we find through our research that aggregate kiln
residuals or cement kiln dusts pose a substantial hazard, we will
consider eliminating their respective exemptions under Part 261,
and subjecting the wastes to regulation under Subtitle C of PCRA.
Your letter and Norlite's response to the Region's complaint
necessitated this lengthy response. However* it has enabled us to
develop a position on a highly complex regulatory interpretation
issue. Z trust that our response can be used by the Region in
resolving the Norlite case* as well as providing advice to similar
wasta fuel/mineral processors that you mentioned* John Heffelfinger
of my staff has discussed our findings on this issue with Bob
Karris* of your office. You may contact him at FTS-382-7923.
For further information on the subject of burning and blending
hazardous wasta fuels and our regulatory development efforts,
please contact Bob Holloway at rTS-382-7936.
cc: Regional Waste Management Division Directors* Regions I-X
w/attachment (Region ZI Itr. dated 5/25/84)
-------
EXHIBIT 11
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
•OLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEKORVTOUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Mining Waste Exclusion —
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director /$/
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Chief
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region 9
In your memorandum of April 4, 1985, and a telephone call
from Bill Wilson on April 15, 1985, you have asked whether
leachate derived from smelter waste, in this case pyritic cinders
and fragmented slag, is subject to regulation under the mining
waste exclusion in RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(A(ii) and 40 CFR
Section 261(b)(7).
The leachate is under the exclusion because it is derived
from slag and clinker wastes, i.e., excluded wastes, and moved
through the groundwater into the impoundments. It has not been
subject to further processing and, therefore, is still a waste
from "processing of ores and minerals."
The situation would be different if the slag or clinker were
used as a raw material for some extractive process and a listed or
characteristic waste resulted. Under this scenario, the hazardous
waste would fall outside the mining waste exclusion, even as it
is now broadly applied, and could be regulated under Subtitle C,
because it is derived from processing slag or clinker, not an
ore or mineral*
The mining waste exclusion has, since November 19, 1980,
been interpreted as including "solid waste from the exploration,
mining, milling, smelting, and refining of ores and minerals".
The Agency is planning to propose a reinterpretation of this
exclusion before December 31, 1985, which would 'narrow its scope
but slag would remain within the exclusion because it is a large
-------
volume, relatively inert, and generally non-hazardous waste.
The pyritic clinkers, which are produced in the roaster used to
prepare ore for smelting, also would remain exempt. Leachates
from the clinkers and slag would remain excluded after the
reinterpretetion.
Slag, and other large volume primary ore processing wastes,
will be addressed in a Report to Congress, to be submitted as a
sequel to Report to Congress on mining and beneficiation scheduled
for submission December 31, 1985. In the Report to Congress on ~
ore processing wastes, problems such as the one described in your
memorandum will be addressed and appropriate recommendations will
be made.
Meanwhile, the facility should manage the disposal of sludges
from the impoundment in a prudent fashion, preferably sending
them to a RCRA secure landfill.
If you have further questions, please call Dexter Hinckley
at 382-3388.
-------
I
\
I
I
EXHIBIT 12
-------
JUN 10
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTi P.CRA Regulatory Internretation \ssistance
Request-A.rjplication of Mining Waste Exclusion
to a Ferroalloy Facility
PHQMt Garcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Haste (KH-5C2)
TOi David Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Civicion
Reqion VII
In your memorandum of May 13, 19&C, you sought guidance
on the regulatory statue of a ferroalloy facility and the wastes
it generates in the production of ferrosilicon (silvery iron).
The ferrosilicon alloy is produced by mixing quartxite ore,
metallurgical coal, and steel scrap in submerged arc electric
furnaces* Based on telephone conversations between our respective
staffs, I understand that steel scrap is the predominant input*
Wastes generated by this process are kish reclaim system rejects,
venturi scrubber sludge, and baghouae dost. The scrubber sludge
has been identified as being EP toxic for lead.
The ferroalloy sector was included in the studies supporting
the reinternretation of the mining waste exclusion* Most
ferroalloys are produced from various combinations of ores*
metal oxides, line, and coke or other reducing agents* However,
ferrosilicon is made from scran steel and quartzite in the
presence of netallurgical coal as the reducing agent*
As you know, the Bevill exclusion for raining waste only
applies to wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals* The Agency has consistently
held that ratal scrap is neither an ore nor a mineral. Therefore,
if the predominant input to the process is steel scrap, the
waste from the ferroalloy''facility does not qualify for the
mining waste exclusion* This ferroalloy facility would be in
the sa»e eateoory as a secondary lead smelter, reelaiaing lead
-------
»
2
from old batteries* or other secondary processes* their wastes
aro not excluded from regulation either* (In fact, there are
two listed hazardous wastes (K069 and K100) generated by
secondary lead snelt*rs.)
As you also know* last October the Agency proposed to
reinterpret the mining waste exclusion as it applies to processinn
wastes so only large-volu?ne wastes would qualify for the exclusion.
Un-Jor this rulamaking, all ferroalloy facilities using ore (rather
tuan scrap) and exonerating hazardous waste would become subject to
the Subtitle C regulations because none would qualify individually
or collectively as generators of large-volume processing wastes.
Altogether* the 10 plants producing ferrosilicon in 1934 generated
about 10,000 metric tons of slag; 36,000 metric tons of furnace
etoiaaion control dust? 3,000 metric tons of product crushing and
sizing enission control dusti and unknown quantities of emission
control sludge. The sludge quantities are believed to be in the
3,000 - 36,000 tons/year range. It should be noted that the
emission control dust tested EP toxic for selenium at one
ferrosilicon facility (not at Keokufc).
In summary, it would appear that the facility in question
is currently subject to RCRA requirements. Its status will be
further clarified by promulgation of the final rule on the
reintorpretation of the mining waste exclusion'.
-------
\
EXHIBIT 13
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN I 6 1986
OFFICE OF
GENERAL. COUNSEL
Mr. David D. Lamm
Assistant Commissioner for Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Dear Mr. Lamm:
In your letter of April 22, 1986, you asked whether the
mining waste exclusion in Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), codified at 40 C.F.R.
$ 261.4(b)(7), applies to the slag generated by a basic oxygen
furnance (BOF) during steelmaking when a listed hazardous
waste is used in the steelmaking process. I have consulted
with staff in the Office of Solid Waste, and we have concluded
that the mining waste exclusion does not apply to this waste.
As stated in EPA's proposed reinterpretation of the mining
waste exclusion, alloying is not considered "processing of ores
and minerals." See 50 Fed. Reg. 40293 (October 2, 198^6^ Since
steelmaking is an alloying process, the wastes from this process
are not excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulation (regardless of
whether a listed hazardous waste was used in the steelmaking
process). In fact, EPA has listed emission control dust/sludge
from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces (K061),
another steelmaking waste, as a hazardous waste and currently
regulates it as such. See 40 C.F.R. § 261.32.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at
202-382-7706.
Sincerely,
Margaret B. Silver
-------
EXHIBIT 14
-------
RECEIVED FEB 2 9
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
SEP I 5
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of Bevill Amendment to the
American Natural Gas Coal Gasification Facility
FROM:
TO:
Marcia E. Williams, Director ':A/VCX*-
Office of Solid Waste :
Christina
Assistant General Counsel for RCRA
Robert L. Duprey, Director
Region VIII, waste Management Division
We have reviewed your memorandum of May 1, 1987, your undated
memorandum received June 17, 1987, and the Planning Research
Consultants (PRO report, regarding the applicability of the RCRA
mining waste and the combustion ash waste ("utility waste") exclu-
sions (which are both part of the "Bevill Amendment") to the
American Natural Gas (ANG) coal gasification facility. We have
also reviewed ANG's May 13, 1987, letter on this subject and our
staff met with Larry wapensky of your staff.
Regarding the applicability of the combustion ash waste
exclusion (Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)) to the ANG operation, ANG's
operations include controlled oxygen-starved combustion of coal.
Coal ash produced in the gasifiers from this combustion is equiva-
lent to coal ash (from the same coal type) produced in utility
operations. In Gary Dietrich's letter to Paul Emler, dated
January 13, 1981, he stated that combustion wastes were excluded
from Subtitle C regulation by the Bevill Amendment providing
fossil fuel constituted at least 50 percent of the fuel mix.
Assuming that coal constitutes at least 50% of ANG's fuel mix,
the combustion ash waste exclusion would apply to the ash from
the ANG operation.
Regarding the applicability of the mining waste exclusion
to ANG's operations, we agree with you that the exclusion for
"solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing
-------
- 2 -
of ores or minerals" (the "mining waste exclusion") in RCRA Section
3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), applies to the coal gasification process. This
is consistent with the position taken in the January 21, 1981,
memorandum from Alfred Lindsey to Terry Thoem in which Mr. Lindsey
stated that the mining waste exclusion clearly extends to retorting
of shale and "to direct gasification and liquefaction of coal or
the wastes produced by those operations."
Analyzing ANG's wastes under the mining waste exclusion, we
agree with your conclusion that wastes from the following units
• are generated from the primary beneficiation or processing of a
I mineral (i.e., coal), and are, therefore, excluded from regulation
' under RCRA Subtitle C by the mining waste exclusion:
: The Gasification Units
, * The Raw Gas Cooling and Shift
Conversion Units
The Rectisol Unit
I The Methanation Unit
»
i \ t-hafr «
However, we disagree with your analysis of the regulatory
status of wastes resulting from operations that are not in the
direct line of producing synthetic natural gas. We believe that.
the ANG operations that treat the gas liquor, the waste gases,
and the cooling tower blowdown are also exempt from Subtitle C.
We note that EPA has previously recognized that residues are
excluded from regulation if they derive from treatment of wastes
generated from mining waste. For instance, EPA suspended the
listings of several such wastes when Congress enacted the
mining waste exclusion. See 46 FR 4614 (January 16, 1981) and
46 FR 27473 (May 20, 1981). See also the attached letter from
James Scarbrough, EPA Region IV, to John Stubbs.
We do not believe the wastes from these units become subject
to RCRA Subtitle C if the treatment yields a useful by-product.
Certain units at ANG's plant produce, from the liquid waste
streams, materials which are to varying extents reused in the
plant or sold. These include sulfur, tar oils, phenol and
ammonia. In his May 16, 1985, memorandum.to Harry Seraydarian,
John Skinner stated that leachate generated from slag and clinker
wastes was exempt under the mining waste exclusion because the
leachate was derived from an exempt waste. He stated further
that "the situation would be different if the slag or clinker
were used as a raw material for some extractive process and a
listed or hazardous waste resulted. Under this scenario, the
hazardous waste would fall outside the mining waste exclusion."
We feel that this position is contrary to waste reduction goals.
It is not environmentally.beneficial to create a situation in
which treating a waste for recovery of useful materials is subject
to Subtitle C regulations whereas disposal of the untreated wastes
-------
r
. *
- 3 -
would be exempt from RCRA. We believe that wastes from the
following units are exempt from Subtitle C because these opera-
tions constitute treatment of mining wastes:
The Stretford Unit
The Gas Liquor Separation Unit
The Phenosolvan Unit
The Phosam W Unit
Similarly, we believe the cooling tower blowdown and related
wastes are also exempt as wastes from ore processing. The
January 21, 1981, memorandum from Alfred W. Lindsey regarding the
RCRA status of wastes from synfuels processes, including coal
gasification, states that the mining waste exclusion "extends to
wastes produced from the process ... provided they are unique to
the 'ore* processing operation. [However the] ... exemption
does not extend to wastes... which are not unique to synfuels
operations like spent cleaning solvents, cooling tower blowdown,
and ion exchange regeneration wastes."
We believe Mr. Lindsey's statement regarding cooling tower
blowdown is best interpreted as only applying to blowdown from
industrial cooling apparatus which is incidental to making
synfuels. The composition of the blowdown from such cooling
towers is not dictated by (i.e., is not "uniquely associated
with") the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and
minerals. ANG's cooling tower receives the liquid treated waste
stream from a mining process. The blowdown procedure is used to
remove from the cooling tower contaminants contributed by this
liquid waste stream. In the case of the ANG operation, the ANG
cooling tower blowdown is a pollution control residue which is
derived from waste produced in the coal gasification process (and
is thus "uniquely associated" with the coal gasification process).
As such, it is excluded from regulation.
This is consistent with our position on other large volume
wastes. For example, cooling tower blowdown from fossil-fuel
fired electric utility cooling towers is currently exempt and is
under study in a forthcoming Report to Congress. Thus, the ANG
units listed below treat an excluded waste, i.e., cooling tower
blowdown, so the wastes from these units are also excluded from
regulation:
The Cooling Tower Unit
The Multiple Effect Evaporator Unit
The Liquid Waste Incineration Unit
The Gasifier Ash Handling System
From this analysis, we conclude that two of the ten wastes
you list on page 2 of your May 1, 1987, memorandum attachment as
"potentially regulated" are not excluded from potential regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C:
-------
V
i
1. Wastes from cleaning operations, vehicle maintenance
operations, container storage areas and laboratory
areas, and wastes from the oily water separation
system.
2. Spent methanol catalyst from the methanol plant.
Regarding the flue gas and ash wastes from the steam
generation system, insufficient data are available from the PRC
report to determine the status of these wastes.
Finally, you requested our view on the reinjection of the
Multiple Effect Evaporator liquid waste concentrate into the
gasifiers. Since the vast majority of the input to 'the gasifier
is an ore or mineral (i.e. coal), the waste from this unit would
J remain excluded from regulation even if the NEE waste gas were
* not exempt from Subtitle C. This is consistent with pur position
in previous correspondence regarding the status of ore processing
with mixed feedstocks (e.g, memorandum from Marcia Williams to
David Wagoner, dated June 10, 1986; memorandum from John Lehman
to Phil Bobel, dated April 4, 1984; and letter from John Lehman
to D.M. Friedman, dated August 22, 1983 (all attached)).
In conclusion, we recognize the ANG facility is essentially
a Bevill operation producing Bevill wastes which are currently
excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulations. The two exceptions
listed above are still potentially subject to Subtitle C
regulation.
We do want to stress that the exemption from Subtitle C
may be temporary. The exemption of any wastes from processing
an ore or mineral can be lifted by EPA after providing a Report
to Congress that addresses the factors identified under Section
8002(f) of RCRA. Further, we have serious reservations as to
whether the operations at the ANG facility would remain exempt,
1 were the facility to be reconfigured to conduct significant
organic chemical synthesis with the synthetic natural gas or
the gas liquor as a feedstock.
While we hope the above discussion clarifies our review of
the legal status of the various units at the facility, we recog-
nize that exempt wastes can be of environmental concern. There
are other authorities under RCRA for obtaining information and
for taking corrective actions as appropriate. We encourage you
to use these authorities to investigate and address health or
environmental impacts.
If you have any questions, please contact: Ben Haynes
(FTS/475-7242) of OSW or-Meg Silver (FTS/382-7706) of OGC.
Attachments
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
J. Winston Porter
Jack McGraw
Ben Haynes
Meg Silver
-------
EXHIBIT 15
-------
COPPER — *
CONCENTRATES
(A*
1
MATERIAL
HANOI ING
ROAS
AM
TING
ID
DRYING
ACID PLANT
|
OFF -GASES
en
JWnOWN TO
— »• TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL
SLAG
J_
.._.».
SMELTING
SLAG
1
SLAG TREATMENT
i
CONV
FIRE REFINED
COPPER
SLAG 4
1 1 1
ERTING » rlRtflNnrlNING » ELECTROLYTIC ^ MELTING ^REFINED
Aiinnr r AC r • uf* RCF 1 H 1 HG ... . £ ... COP r 1 n
nnuut injlinu " CAbllRG
COOLING WATER L SLIMES TREATED
AND SOLD/RECYCLED
^ ELECTROLYTE TREATMENT
— + mm
1
SLAG TO
DISPOSAL .SOME
SALES
Figure 3-1. Simplified process flow diagram of the smelting and refining of copper.
-------
I
01
LEACH
RESIDUE
1
LEACHING
AQUEOUS
- LEACH -
SOLUTION
RArrtNATE
I
ORGANIC
SPENT
SOLVENT
EXTRACTION
MEDIA
NT
IC_^
A
i
ElECTROim
STRIPPING
SECTION
CONCENTRATED -».
ELECTROLYTE
ELECTROMINNING
SLIMES
RESIDUAL
SLUDGE
- COWER
CATHODES
-*"- RECYCLED MITM
ftAFFINATC
Figure 3-2. Simplified process flow diagram depicting electrowlnning of copper.
------- |