United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-99-020c
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB99-155 848
Agency (5305W) April 1998
Response to Comments
Document: Land Disposal
Restrictions-Phase IV Final
Rule Promulgating Treatment
Standards for Metal Wastes;
Mineral Processing Secondary
Materials and Bevill Exclusion
Issues; Treatment Standards
for Hazardous Soils; and
Exclusion of Recycled Wood
Preserving Wastewaters;
Volume 3: Comments Related to First
Supplemental Proposed Rule (January
25, 1996)
Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
List of Phase IV Land Disposal Restriction Codes,
Description, and Location by Page Number
AUTH: State Authorization 1
BERY: Beryllium Treatment Standards 12
CHRM: Chromium Treatment Standards 42
HWIR: LDR/Hazardous Waste Identification Rule Issues 45
METL: General Comments on Metals Treatment Standards 51
MGP: Manufactured Gas Plant Issues 53
MISC: Miscellaneous Issues 95
VAND: Vanadium Treatment Standards 101
ZINC: Zinc Treatment Standard 105
-------
Index of Commenters and Location of Comment, By Issue
Arizona Public Service Co
MGP 53
FMC Corporation
HWIR 46
Jersey Central Power and
MGP 60
New Jersey Natural Gas Co
MGP 68
MGP 73
Arizona Public Service Co
MGP 53
Brush Wellman, Inc.
BERY 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-23, 25-28, 33, 35, 37
Chemical Manufacturers Association
VAND 103
ZINC 106
Chemical Waste Management
HWIR 45
HWIR 45
Cyprus Amax Minerals Comp
State Authorization 5
Electronics Industries As
State Authorization 11
FMC Corporation
HWIR 46
MISC 97
VAND 102
ZINC 105
Friends of the Earth
State Authorization 2, 5
Jersey Central Power and
MGP 60
Molten Metal Technology
MISC 99
Montana Dept. of Environment
State Authorization 1
NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
BERY 12
BERY 12
MSTD 95
State Authorization 9
ii
-------
New Jersey Natural Gas Co
MGP 68, 73
NY State Dept. of Environ
MGP 54
OxyChem
CHRM 43
Phosphorous Producers Environmental Council
VAND 101
Public Service Electric &
MGP 55, 56
RSR Corporation
State Authorization 7, 8
Safety-Kleen Corp.
State Authorization 6
South Carolina Electric &
MGP 64
MGP 64
South Jersey Gas Company
MGP 74
The Ferroalloys Association
CHRM 42
The Ferroalloys Association
CHRM 42
U.S. Department of Energy
State Authorization 1
U.S. Department of Interior
State Authorization 10
Unocal Molycorp.
METL 51
Utah Mining Association
BERY 39
Utility Solid Waste Activ
MGP 86
MGP 78, 80, 83, 84, 86
111
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
IV
-------
COMMENT
• In Part Three, Section II of the supplemental proposed rule, EPA discusses State
authority primarily as it relates to Part One of the notice which pertains to mineral
processing issues. DOE does not believe that State authority with respect to the "Other
RCRA Issues," covered under Part Two of the proposed rule, has been adequately
addressed. Specifically, clarification should be provided as to whether the exclusions of
processed scrap metal and shredded circuit boards are considered by the Agency to be
less stringent than current Federal regulations, and whether authorized states would be
required to modify their programs to adopt requirements equivalent to the provisions
contained in the proposed rule with respect to scrap metal and circuit boards. 2. In Part
Three, Section II of the supplemental proposed rule, EPA discusses State authority
primarily as it relates to Part One of the notice which pertains to mineral processing
issues. DOE does not believe that State authority with respect to the "Other RCRA
Issues," covered under Part Two of the proposed rule, has been adequately addressed.
Specifically, clarification should be provided as to whether the exclusions of processed
scrap metal and shredded circuit boards are considered by the Agency to be less stringent
than current Federal regulations, and whether authorized states would be required to
modify their programs to adopt requirement equivalent to the provisions contained in the
proposed rule with respect to scrap metal and circuit boards.
(U.S. Department of Energy, 006)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Streamlined Authorization MDEQ strongly supports EPA's proposal for expedited
authorization of Phase IV program elements. MDEQ suggests that EPA expand this
expedited authorization concept to most other program elements as well. MDEQ agrees
with EPA's evaluation that EPA need only ascertain that a State has the requisite legal
authority and resources to implement a program and that detailed review is unnecessary.
Such an approach would bring to a close the seemingly endless process of application,
comments and revisions that plague the authorization process. Please refer to the
MDEQ,s earlier comments regarding the appropriateness of citing 40 CFR 267. EPA
should provide a better description or model of the public participation it considers
necessary in developing regulations for land-based mineral processing units.
(Montana Dept. of Environment, 023)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
1
-------
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Section IV of these comments addresses the unprecedented, illegal, and
inappropriate state authorization procedures the Agency proposed for implementing the
exemption conditions applicable to the recycling of mineral processing wastes. As
discussed in Section IV, the proposal abandons the fundamental principle that authorized
state program requirements should be no less stringent than their federal counterparts and
is structured so that neither EPA nor the public can evaluate whether a state program
applies its requirements in a manner protective of human health and the environment and
consistent with federal law.
(Friends of the Earth, EDF, 041)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Under the guise of a "streamlined" state authorization process, EPA has proposed
state authorization requirements related to mineral processing wastes that are both
unlawful and unwise. As explained in this portion of the comments, EPA's approach fails
to satisfy the provisions of Sections 3006 and 3009 of RCRA, and forsakes the oversight
of state program requirements needed to ensure protection of human health and the
environment on a nationwide basis. Section 3006 of RCRA requires EPA to make
express findings that all three of the conditions specified in statute have been met before a
state can be authorized to administer the RCRA program in lieu of EPA.
Those three conditions are that the program is equivalent to the federal program,
consistent with the federal and other state programs, and provides for adequate
enforcement. The equivalency determination under Section 3006 is further bounded by
Section 3009 of RCRA, which prohibits a state from imposing requirements less stringent
than those promulgated by EPA under Subtitle C of RCRA. Under EPA's proposal, states
must demonstrate their mineral processing waste requirements have six components,
including design and operating conditions on units covered by this Rulemaking,
groundwater protection criteria, and groundwater monitoring. However, in none of these
areas (or the other three elements) do the proposed rules require that the state program
requirements provide equivalent or greater protection than the federal rules proposed by
the Agency. For example, under EPA's proposal, a state must demonstrate it can impose
design standards on exempt units as a condition of obtaining the exemption, but the
design requirements may be substantially weaker than the requirements EPA promulgated
-------
under option 2. Similarly, a state may impose groundwater monitoring, but the frequency
of monitoring, the constituents monitored, and the location of the point of compliance
may be less stringent than the federal rules proposed in option 1.
In addition, the groundwater protection criteria may provide less protection of
human health and the environment than the comparable federal requirements. -
Therefore, notwithstanding the plethora of weaknesses in the proposed federal rules, the
proposed state authorization scheme contemplates a process whereby states may impose
less stringent requirements than those deemed necessary by EPA to protect human health
and the environment. This approach is completely without precedent under Subtitle C of
RCRA, in large part because it blatantly violates Sections 3006 and 3009 of RCRA. Even
with respect to Option 3, EPA will unable to ensure state program requirements provide
equivalent or better protection than the federal program, and are consistent with the
federal and other state programs. As EPA acknowledges in the case of option 3, it is
necessary to evaluate how the state will apply its authorities to individual cases. Yet
under the proposed authorization requirements, state authorization applications will only
contain information on program authorities, not how those authorities have been or will
be employed.
Moreover, EPA will limit its review of the application to whether a state has the
necessary authority, and not whether EPA does not intend to conduct the evaluation
necessary to ensure site-specific determinations under option 3 are protective of human
health and the environment, equivalent to and no less stringent than the federal program,
and consistent with the federal and other state programs. It is also unclear whether in a
state authorization proceeding EPA would regard as germane comments from the public
on the application of state requirements to individual sites . Ironically, EPA justifies the
"streamlined" authorization approach because "states are familiar" with the kind of issues
raised by this Rulemaking and have existing programs that could be evaluated in this
context. Therefore, conducting the evaluation of how a state would apply its authorities is
both timely and appropriate. Moreover' even if a state lacked an extensive history of
making decisions resembling the site specific determination in the instant Rulemaking,
EPA can certainly request the state to articulate whether and under what circumstances a
state would entertain such site-specific applications, and the conditions the state would
apply under those circumstances.
EPA's mandate under RCRA to ensure a baseline level of protection nationally
requires such a demonstration before inappropriate site-specific decisions are rendered,
particularly where EPA's authority to override authorized state decisions may be limited.
With respect to enforcement, the proposed authorization procedures lack any qualitative
review of a state program's enforcement resources, policies, record or capability. EPA
justifies this approach based upon the information already provided in previous RCRA
authorization applications, but in this case EPA anticipates some or all states may be
relying upon non RCRA authorities, in whole or in part, to satisfy the state authorization
-------
requirements . To date, it is highly unlikely the Agency has previously reviewed the
adequacy of a state's enforcement program under these non-RCRA authorities. Therefore,
under the proposed authorization procedures, EPA has no factual or valid basis for
rendering the enforcement finding for the non RCRA authorities required under Section
3006 of RCRA. Based upon the enforcement record of some states under their
non-RCRA authorities, this is a matter of grave concern.
In brief, some states do not enforce their non-RCRA requirements effectively
unless there are mechanisms for providing active EPA review and oversight or citizen
intervention. Accordingly, it is imperative that adequate enforcement becomes an
important element of EPA's authorization review insofar as non-RCRA authorities form
the basis of a state's authorization application. For example, Arizona's historical
enforcement record using non-RCRA authorities is grossly inadequate. Documented
noncompliance for several hundred wastewater treatment plants, and chemical
contamination exceeding applicable limits for 10% of the facilities with
groundwater/aquifer protection permits, prompted the Sierra Club to file suit against the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality seeking agency enforcement of its own
requirements and permits. More recently, years of delay by Arizona to revise its water
quality standards in a manner consistent with federal law prompted a federal court to
order EPA to finish the job and promulgate federal standards that would apply instead of
the state standards. Significantly, one the principal deficiencies in the state standards was
an exemption for mining related impoundments, the same units at issue in the instant
Rulemaking. The Court found that Arizona's failure to take appropriate action resulted in
substantial adverse environmental impacts to Arizona's lakes caused by mining
operations. The Court ordered EPA to promulgate the federal standards notwithstanding
EPA's pledge that the Agency (and not the state) would protect Arizona's waters from
exempt mining activities.
This case conclusively demonstrates the importance of baseline, enforceable
federal standards; and the need for active federal and public review and oversight of a
state's program requirements, particularly for mining activities in states where the
industry is politically powerful. Even if the proposed state authorization procedures were
lawful, they are flawed as a matter of policy. As EPA noted when it first proposed the
concept, a streamlined process is appropriate only where the regulatory changes are
"minor in nature" and do not involve major changes in regulatory approach . In the instant
Rulemaking, the proposed exemption for mineral processing land-based units is a matter
of first impression in the RCRA program, involving substantial and complex decisions
regarding the nature and extent of recycling in such units, and the appropriate means of
ensuring such units do not become part of the waste management problem.
These changes are neither "minor in nature" nor "a routine part of the RCRA
program" . Moreover, when EPA first proposed the concept of streamlined authorization,
the Agency still required that state program requirements be no less stringent than the
-------
promulgated federal requirements. In the instant Rulemaking, EPA unlawfully abandoned
that fundamental principle.
(Friends of the Earth, EOF, 041)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final
HWIR Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Cyprus Amax supports the concept of allowing authorized states or EPA Regions to make
site-specific determinations of unit status; however, the proposed rule is unlawfully vague
with respect to the parameters and procedures that would be used to make such
determinations As an alternative to the prescriptive groundwater monitoring and design
and operating requirements set forth in the proposed "conditional exclusion," EPA is
considering allowing authorized states and EPA Regions to make site-specific
determinations that land-based units are operating as process units, and not waste disposal
units. 61 Fed. Reg. 2346. Cyprus Amax strongly supports the need for authorized states
to make site-specific determinations of unit status that take into account non-RCRA state
authorities. One good example of such authority is the APP program in Arizona. The
proposed rule, however, is unlawfully vague with respect to the parameters and
procedures that would be used to make such determinations. Although EPA has sketched
out some of the criteria that it would use in determining whether to authorize state
programs, it has not provided sufficient guidance concerning how site-specific
determinations would be made, nor does it specify whether and how such decisions could
be appealed, and by whom. Instead, the Agency cites a nonexistent "environmental
performance standard" at 40 C.F.R. REWRITE 267. 10 as the source of "the factors
typically to be considered ... in making site specific determinations." EPA should have
provided notice and opportunity for comment on how it envisions site specific
determinations of unit status would be made, including the factors to be considered, how
the decision making process would be initiated and carried through to completion, and
what types of appeal rights would be provided in the case of an adverse decision. The
site-specific determination process should not incorporate or require any sort of
"multi-pathway" modeling or analysis, given the speculative and inaccurate aspects of
EPA's current models. Instead, site specific unit determinations of unit status must use
relevant portions of existing regulatory programs (@, state aquifer protection and mining
programs).
(Cyprus Amax Minerals Comp, 046)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
-------
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Safety-Kleen supports the Agency's intent to streamline the slate authorization
process Safety-Kleen looks forward to the more streamlined state authorization
procedures that are to be presented in the upcoming proposed Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) addressing Contaminated Media. Safety-Kleen conducts
transport, storage, and/or treatment operations in 50 states and one U.S. territory, so we
deal with the full array of state RCRA programs. One of the significant problems we face
on a daily basis is identifying which requirements have been adopted by states, and when
they receive authorization to implement the changed RCRA regulations. When state
authorization lags far behind Federal rule promulgation, we encounter problems with
duplicative (and sometimes contradictory) permitting, inspection, and enforcement. We
also understand the frustrations of some states when efforts at obtaining state
authorization take precedence over activities that have more immediate environmental
protection consequences.
We support the Agency's intent to streamline the state authorization process to the
extent possible. Even with the anticipated streamlining of the state authorization
programs, Safety-Kleen understands that major rulemakings (such as this proposed LDR
rule) may have a significant lag between Federal promulgation and state authorization.
This becomes particularly problematic when the revised regulations are not promulgated
as HSWA rules (immediately effective in all states). The EPA has indicated that most of
this proposed Supplemental Phase IV LDR regulation is considered to be a non-HSWA
Rulemaking.
Safety-Kleen disagrees, because the Rulemaking affects newly listed wastes and it
makes changes to the LDR regulations, both of which should be considered to be HSWA
rulemakings. Therefore, the EPA would be justified in determining that this is a HSWA
Rulemaking.
(Safety-Kleen Corp., 047)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• RSR supports EPA 's proposed streamlined State authorization approach
advanced in the rule. EPA 's rationale for this approach is sound and will help to ensure
that badly needed revisions to the RCRA regulatory program are expeditiously adopted
-------
by RCRA-authorized States. RSR urges EPA, however, to review fully States' program
requirements used to manage the materials at issue in this Rulemaking.
(RSR Corporation, 054)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• RSR supports the proposed streamlined State Authorization Procedures but
believes EPA should fully evaluate States' case-by-case determinations of Primary Metal
Facilities Units. RSR supports EPA 's proposed streamlined State authorization
approach. EPA 's rationale for the streamlined authorization approach is sound and the
proposed revisions will help to ensure that badly needed revisions to the RCRA
regulatory program are expeditiously adopted by States. Under the current authorization
procedures, all revisions to authorized State hazardous waste programs ~ including
minor changes — are potentially subject to the same level of scrutiny by EPA.
RSR believes that the preparation, review, and processing of these program
revisions represent a significant resource commitment on the part of EPA and the States.
These commitments force many States to decline not to adopt regulatory changes to the
RCRA program that EPA has promulgated. For example, in many States EPA is still
implementing regulations promulgated pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. The streamlined authorization approach recognizes that
RCRA-authorized States have demonstrated the competency to implement and enforce
the RCRA regulatory program. Currently, 49 states and territories have received final
authorization (as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 270.2) for the "base" RCRA program.
EPA has never withdrawn a State 's authorization for the RCRA program,
demonstrating that States have exercised their authority over the RCRA program in a
manner that is acceptable to EPA. Many States also have over a decade of experience in
promulgating and implementing hazardous waste regulations. States that are authorized
for the base RCRA program and portions of the LDR program are familiar with the type
of rule changes as well as the requisite legal requirements needed to implement rule
revisions. EPA should build upon the competency and experience States have
demonstrated, and EPA 's trust in these States, to allow rapid and streamlined
authorization of RCRA regulatory revisions. RSR 's experience with three
RCRA-authorized States (California, Indiana, New York) demonstrates the need for a
streamlined authorization process. On countless occasions over the past 12 years, EPA
regulations were adopted in these and other States only after a delay of years, largely due
to resource constraints. Other important revisions have yet to be adopted at the State
level, RSR believes that little benefit is achieved if RCRA reforms are not rapidly
-------
adopted by RCRA-authorized States. RSR disagrees with one aspect of the proposed
streamlined authorization procedures. EPA has proposed that States would be authorized
to make case-by-case determinations for units at primary metal facilities that are used to
manage the materials at issue in this rule. EPA states that it believes the addition of a few
units does not significantly expand the State program, and that "another detailed
evaluation by EPA is not warranted under such circumstances. RSR disagrees and
believes that EPA should fully evaluate how these units will be addressed under States'
RCRA regulatory programs. The management of the materials at issue goes to the very
heart of the debate as to whether these materials have contributed to the waste disposal
problem.
Moreover, the land placement of materials in these units is a prime focus of
RCRA. EPA' s generally applicable conditions for these units are intended to ensure that
the units do not allow significant releases of the materials managed in them, thereby
helping to ensure that the materials do not contribute to the very types of disposal
problems Congress sought to address in RCRA. EPA's evaluation of the authorized
State should go beyond ascertaining only that the State has the requisite legal authorities
and resources to control the land-based units, and should fully evaluate the States,
programs for these units to ensure that they are properly designed, constructed, and
maintained.
(RSR Corporation, 054)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• NMA Supports An Expedited, Performance-Based Approach For State Program
Authorization In the supplemental Phase IV proposal, EPA reproposes and expands upon
the expedited approach to state authorization that it proposed in the August 1995 Phase
IV proposal. 61 Fed. Reg. at 2365-66. See also 60 Fed. Reg. 43,654,43,687 (Aug. 22,
IS 195). The Agency claims that it will "give great weight to statements and legal
certification submilfted by the State[s]" in granting authorization. 61 Fed. Reg. at 2365.
To this end, EPA proposes "to evaluate a limited number of specific criteria" aimed at
ensuring that states have in place the "key requirements" for implementing the proposed
revised definition of solid waste. Id. NMA supports an expedited approach for state
program authorization. As discussed below, however, the criteria identified by EPA in
the proposed rule are overly prescriptive. Rather than imposing detailed criteria on the
states to obtain authorization, the Agency should instead use a more performance-based
approach, thereby allowing the states flexibility to demonstrate that their programs meet
or exceed federal requirements. B. EPA's Proposed Requirements For State
8
-------
Authorization Are Overly Prescriptive EPA sets forth three broad requirements that it
would impose on states seeking authorization to implement the proposed regulations
governing the status of land-based units in the mineral processing industry. First, EPA
takes the position that state programs "must demonstrate that [they] can distinguish
land-based units receiving mineral processing residuals Horn those units operating as
waste disposal units." 61 Fed. Reg. at 2365. It is unclear precisely ,what such a showing
would entail, however. Although EPA points to the "environmental performance standard
set forth at 40 C.F.R. ° 267. 10," id., no such provision currently exists in the Agency's
rules, nor has regulatory language been proposed in the instant Rulemaking. Instead,
EPA has provided only a narrative description of a number of alternative potential
requirements for the "conditional exclusion" from the definition of solid waste for
mineral processing materials managed in land- based production units. Id. at 2341-48.
That narrative suggests a complicated, prescriptive regulatory regime upon which the
"performance standard" for state authorization would be based. Second, EPA asserts that
states must have legal authority to: impose preventative measures, including design and
operating conditions; establish groundwater protection criteria; require groundwater
monitoring; and detect and remediate releases of hazardous constituents from the unit to
groundwater, should such a release occur. EPA proposes that such state authority need
not exist solely under RCRA, and explicitly declares that, for instance, general aquifer
protection authority would be sufficient for state authorization purposes. 61 Fed. Reg. at
2365-66. NMA agrees that non-RCRA state legal authorities should suffice to support
state authorization to make determinations regarding the regulatory status of land-based
units. Existing state groundwater protection regimes, in concert with state clean water
and solid/hazardous waste regimes, provide the necessary level of protection against
potential risks to human health and the environment attributable to releases of pollutants
or contaminants from land-based units to groundwater. An additional layer of federal
regulation in this context is neither necessary or desirable. Finally, EPA declares that
state programs must provide for public participation in site- specific determinations that
land-based units qualify as "process units" within the scope of the "conditional
exclusion." 61 Fed. Reg. at 2366. The Agency sets forth a number of examples of the
type of "public participation" requirements it envisions would be appropriate in this
context. Contrary to EPA's proposal, NMA's view is that states should be accorded the
right to determine how best to factor public participation into site-specific determinations
for mineral processing units. State programs already have in place public participation
requirements, and through experience have determined what needs to be done to ensure
that the public is informed of, and able to participate in, regulatory decisions, including
site-specific determinations. It is neither necessary nor appropriate (particularly given the
current movement in Washington towards devolving authority to the states and ending
unfunded mandates) for EPA to subject state regulatory agencies to additional,
prescriptive, public participation requirements for process unit determinations at mineral
processing facilities.
(National Mining Association, 058)
-------
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• We also agree with EPA's proposal for expedited authorization for States to
implement these rules. It would simplify the process and would be cost-effective. We
would also like to see the concept embodied in this proposal applied to capacity
determinations.
(U.S. Department of Interior, 074)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Site Specific Determinations from an Authorized State or By an EPA Region. We
believe that this proposal is also appropriate and should be adopted. Site specific
conditions are the best factors to consider in the determination of how to meet compliance
standards and protect human health and the environment.
(U.S. Department of Interior, 074)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
COMMENT
• Incorporation Into State Law The Agency asserts that the proposed regulatory
revisions for scrap metal and circuit boards have not been issued under the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), and as non-HSWA provisions it will not take effect
in States until the State is authorized for those requirements. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 2365.
We believe that the Agency should consider ways to include the proposal, as modified by
the suggestions contained in these comments, to fall under HSWA so that the rule may
become immediately effective in all states. In the absence of this approach, regulated
entities impacted by the rule could face an unwieldy patchwork of state requirements as
states engage in the lengthy process of revising their- waste rules and/or authorizing
legislation and EPA reviews and approves the changes. This process would likely take
several years and would significantly delay the realization of the: environmental benefits
10
-------
that will be derived from this rule. At minimum, the Agency should consider ways of
providing incentives to states to ensure the prompt adoption of these regulatory revisions.
Our concern in this regard is illustrated by our ongoing participation in efforts to promote
state adoption of the so-called Universal Waste Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part, 273, in order to
facilitate a voluntary industry program for the collection and recycling of nickel-cadmium
batteries. Several states have succeeded in amending their hazardous waste statute or
regulations to conform with the Universal Waste Rule, and other states have issued letters
explaining that they will not initiate an enforcement action against entities involved with
the recycling batteries in accordance with the rule. Progress in this regard has been slow,
however, because of limited state resources and the need for states to address other
pressing environmental concerns, many of which are the subject of statutory or judicial
mandates. We are concerned that simply allowing states to exercise their discretion in
deciding whether to conform their regulations to this proposal, without providing any
additional incentive to do so, will 11 result in unnecessary delay in state adoption of these
important revisions. EPA should consider ways to promulgate this proposal under
HSWA or to devise appropriate incentives to encourage states to adopt these revisions in
a prompt manner.
(Electronics Industries As, 083)
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA appreciates the above comment regarding State Authorization
Streamlining. The U. S. EPA will respond to this comment in the upcoming Final HWIR
Media Rule.
11
-------
DCN PH4A058
COMMENTER NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 058
COMMENT
4. The UTS for Beryllium is Unachievable and Must be Modified EPA's
proposal to transfer the UTS for beryllium to mineral processing wastes
perpetuates the Agency's errors in setting that standard. For example, the
administrative record for the beryllium UTS fails to demonstrate that treatment of
beryllium even occurs with respect to the single waste stream (K061) which was
considered by EPA in establishing the standard, much less that such treatment can
be achieved "universally." The background documents for the 1994 UTS
rulemaking which present and summarize the HTMR performance data
considered by EPA do not contain any data which compare leachable beryllium
concentrations before and after HTMR processing. Thus, it appears that the
reduction in beryllium mobility as a result of HTMR was not even evaluated, let
alone statistically confirmed.
HTMR apparently does not even reduce the concentration of beryllium in
treatment residues. Rather, the very limited data indicate that total beryllium
concentration in the treated K061 is higher than in the untreated waste. In the
only data set accepted by EPA which compares beryllium concentrations of both
untreated and treated samples, the beryllium concentration in each treated sample
exceeded the beryllium concentration in each corresponding untreated sample.
See Table 1-12, Final Data Document for Characterization and Performance of
High Temperature Metals Recovery Treatment and Stabilization for Metal
Bearing Nonwastewaters.
RESPONSE
The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In response to public comment on
the beryllium treatment standard proposed in the second supplemental proposed rule, the Agency
conducted a review of the data set used to calculate the proposed standard. As a result, the
Agency agrees with the commenters that the performance data used to calculate the proposed
standard (0.02 mg/1) does not adequately account for the difficulty in treating even relatively
high concentrations of beryllium wastes. The Agency believes that the proposed UTS for
beryllium must be revised to reflect a more difficult-to-treat, high-concentration beryllium waste
in order to account for waste variability in particular. The Agency received stabilization data
from the commenter consisting of seven data points from the treatment of D008 rotary filter
sludge with cement kiln dust (CKD). These data show that beryllium concentrations (mg/L
TCLP) in the untreated waste were as follows: 95, 32, 49, 54, 97, 52. After treatment, the
beryllium concentrations (mg/L TCLP) were: 0.58, less than 0.05, 0.31, 0.07, 0.06, less than
0.05, and 0.2. Upon examination, the Agency determined that this waste stream reflects a
12
-------
difficult to treat beryllium waste and should be used in the calculation of the treatment standard.
(The use of this data also addresses a major concern of some of the commenters which was that
while the standard was acceptable, it would or may not be appropriate with higher levels of
beryllium in the waste stream.) The Agency believes that the data used in the Second
Supplemental is not representative of a "difficult to treat" beryllium-containing waste in that the
untreated waste concentrations were from two to four orders of magnitude less than the untreated
waste concentrations (mg/L TCLP) in the data submitted by the commenter. The Agency
believes that this data is more appropriate for the beryllium UTS and addresses the concerns
raised by the commenter. For additional information on the data reviewed, see the Background
Document for Metal Wastes in the Docket for this rule. As such, the Agency is today
promulgating a revised UTS for beryllium nonwastewaters of 1.22 mg/1 based on this newly
acquired data. All the data available to the Agency indicates that this standard can be met by
industry.
DCN PH4A059
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 059
COMMENT
INTRODUCTION
Brush Wellman Inc. ("Brush Wellman") submits these comments on EPA's proposal regarding
revising the universal treatment standard for beryllium and the adoption of the universal
treatment standards as the land disposal treatment standards for toxicity characteristic metal
wastes. 60 Fed. Reg. 43654 (August 22, 1995).
As the only fully integrated domestic producer of beryllium, beryllium alloys and beryllia
(beryllium oxide ceramic), Brush Wellman is uniquely qualified to comment on proposed
regulation of beryllium-containing materials. Brush Wellman has been in the forefront of the
efforts to study the human health and environmental effects of beryllium and is a leader in
developing sound management practices to ensure a safe work place and compliance with
federal, state and local environmental standards.
These comments are one of a series of comments being submitted by Brush Wellman Inc.
("Brush Wellman") on EPA's
proposed rulemaking relative to waste management in the mining
industry, 61 Federal Register 2337 (January 25,1996). In order
to facilitate their review by EPA staff members, these comments
13
-------
are being submitted in separate segments. These comments address
the description of beryllium extraction operations in EPA's
Identification and Description of Mineral Processing Sectors and
Waste Streams (December 1995) ("Report"). Additional comments on
the Report are contained in Brush Wellman's comments with
respect to the application of the Bevill Exclusion to wastes
generated at Brush Wellman's Delta, Utah mill. Brush Wellman
Inc. operates the only beryllium extraction mill in the United
States. Hence, Brush Wellman believes that the information with
respect to beryllium extraction operations as set forth in the
Report applies exclusively to its mill, which is located in
Delta, Utah, or to its manufacturing plant in Elmore, Ohio. At
the Delta mill, Brush Wellman extracts beryllium values from ore
to produce beryllium hydroxide which is shipped to Brush
Wellman's Elmore, Ohio facility. At Elmore, beryllium hydroxide
is processed into three forms ~ beryllium alloys, principally
beryllium copper; beryllium oxide or beryllia ceramic; and
metallic beryllium. These Brush Wellman engineered materials
each possess unique technical properties which make them the
cost-effective choice for many challenging uses.
Beryllium-containing alloys are selected for their unique
combination of properties which include electrical and thermal
conductivity, strength, hardness, corrosion resistance, fatigue
resistance and formability. Beryllia ceramic is specified for
its electrical insulating properties and its unusual ability to
conduct heat. Metallic beryllium offers light weight, high
strength and stiffness, specialized nuclear properties and the
ability to dissipate heat rapidly.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
DCN PH4A059
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 059
14
-------
COMMENT III. IF THE REPORT IS TO BE REVISED FOR ANY REASON, NUMEROUS
CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN THE BERYLLIUM SECTION If EPA chooses to
revise the report for any reason, such as to support a final
rulemaking, it should be revised to correct errors and update
information. Attached hereto is a copy of the beryllium section
of the report which has been edited to correct some errors and
to provide some updated information. Because of the belief that
the Report is not worth reissuing and because of the shortness
of time within which to comment on this rulemaking, Brush
Wellman has not undertaken a comprehensive update and correction
of the Report. However, set forth below are an identification of
some needed revisions. These and other revisions are noted in
the marked-up version of the beryllium section of the Report
which is attached to these comments. B. Generalized Process
Description 1. Typical Production Processes The mine is not
located in Delta. The mill is located about 10 miles north of
Delta and the mine is located about 50 miles west of the mill.
The mill treats bertrandite and beryl ore using a
counter-current leaching process. Exhibit 2 There are no public
drinking water wells within a 5-mile radius of the Delta mill.
Exhibit 3 Page 2: Eliminate the evaporation ponds and uranium
extraction portion of the flowsheet. Sump water in the solvent
extraction area is recycled back to solvent extraction instead
of routing to raffinate discard as shown. Barren filtrate is
recycled to the bertrandite thickeners and it not discarded to
the tailings pond as shown. Carbon dioxide from the beryllium
carbonate hydrolysis is recycled to the beryllium carbonate
hydrolysis step. Part 2 Production of Beryllium Hydroxide from
Beryllium Sulfate 3rd Para: The barren filtrate streams from the
two filtration operations are recycled to the bertrandite
thickeners and are not discharged directly to tailings as
described. The description of the uranium process should be
removed because this mill Process has been eliminated.
Bertrandite Ore Process This section should be revised to
conform to EPA's March 15, 1990 decision as to the application
of the Bevill Exclusion to these wastes. Beryl Ore Process This
section should be revised to conform to the EPA's March 15, 1990
decision as to the application of the Bevill Exclusion to these
wastes. Spent Raffinate It is not true that raffinate may
contain treatable concentrations of beryllium. [The commenter
submitted line edits to the beryllium section of the
Identification Document, including corrections and supplemental
15
-------
information for the process description, exhibits, and flow
diagrams.]
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
DCN PH4A060
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 060
COMMENT I. INTRODUCTION These comments are one of a series of comments
being submitted by Brush Wellman Inc. ("Brush Wellman") on EPA's
proposed rulemaking relative to waste management in the mining
industry, 61 Federal Register 2337 (January 25,1996). In order
to facilitate their review by EPA staff members, these comments
are being submitted in separate segments. These comments address
the issue of the application of the Bevill Exclusion to the
beryllium extraction wastes generated. Brush Wellman mines
bertrandite ore and extracts beryllium values from this ore and
imported beryl ore at Delta. This facility is the only beryllium
extraction facility in the United States. Hence, Brush Wellman
is uniquely knowledgeable about this segment of the mining
industry and uniquely interested in its regulation by EPA. In
addition to its interest in how the proposal would impact the
Delta facility, Brush Wellman is also interested in all aspects
of the environmental regulation of beryllium. Many mining
segments share this interest because beryllium is a naturally
occurring substance commonly found in ores.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
16
-------
DCN PH4A060
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 060
COMMENT In the uranium production industry, a mill using an acid leach
flowsheet is very similar to the Brush Wellman mill. In both
cases, the ground ore is leached with dilute sulfuric acid,
followed by solvent extraction of the leach solution., In both
cases, the solvent extraction circuits consist of: loading,
stripping, and recycling of the organic liquid to the loading
step. The mineral bearing strip solution in both cases is
treated to precipitate a chemical compound form of the mineral
value. In the case of the uranium industry, this precipitate is
called, "yellowcake", but it is comparable to the beryllium
hydroxide precipitate product for the Brush Wellman mill. For
the uranium mill operations, the EPA has determined that the
beneficiation/mineral processing line occurs following the
production of yellowcake and prior the subsequent conversion and
purification. Again, there are significant similarities between
the uranium industry flowsheet and the Brush Wellman mill
operation where the final product, beryllium hydroxide is
produced from the strip solution by chemical precipitation.
However, the EPA did not place the beneficiation/mineral
processing line in the same place for both flowsheets, choosing
17
-------
to place the line before leaching for Brush Wellman, instead of
following the beryllium hydroxide precipitation. For the reason
stated above, the line for the Brush Wellman operation should be
relocated. For information purposes, it should be noted that
solvent extraction, as practiced at Delta consists of the
following integrated steps, which include stripping and acid
conversion: 1. Leach solution from the bertrandite and beryl CCD
circuits is combined in a surge tank. It is then pumped to
another tank where sulfuric acid is added. The solution is then
pumped to a filter which is pre-coated with diatomaceous earth.
The clarified filtrate solution from the filter (called
extraction feed) is pumped to another surge tank before being
pumped to the solvent extraction circuit. The filter cake from
the filter is continuously scraped off, repulped with fresh
water and pumped to the leach output where it is recycled to the
CCD circuit for beryllium recovery. 2. Extraction feed solution
is pumped from the surge tank to the solvent extraction circuit.
Solvent extraction is a closed-loop circuit consisting of three
steps: Loading, stripping, and acid conversion. The loading step
of solvent extraction consists often pairs of mixer and settler
tanks. The extraction feed is mixed with a kerosene-based
organic liquid in each mixer tank. The mixture is then allowed
to separate by gravity in each settler tank with the organic
liquid floating to the top of the aqueous liquid. This is done
sequentially through all ten mixer/settler pairs with the
aqueous liquid moving down-current from the first extraction
mixer tank to the last settling tank while the organic liquid
moves up-current from the last mixer tank to the first settling
tank. The aqueous liquid leaving the end of the loading step of
the solvent extraction circuit has had the beryllium extracted
from it and is a wastewater known as raffinate. Raffinate is
pumped to a surge tank where any residual organic liquid is
allowed to separate before the raffinate is pumped to the water
collection tank where it is combined with other wastewater
streams. Water from the water collection tank is pumped to the
tailings disposal tank and then to the tailings pond. None of
the raffinate is recycled. 3. The organic liquid reporting out
of the loading step of the solvent extraction circuit is called
loaded organic. It is Pumped to a surge tank and then to two
pairs of mixer/settler tanks which comprise the stripping step
of the solvent extraction circuit. The loaded organic is
contacted with an aqueous ammonium carbonate solution in the
strip circuit in the mixer tanks and allowed to separate in the
18
-------
settler tanks. The ammonium carbonate solution strips the
beryllium and aluminum, iron, and uranium from the loaded
organic. This ammonium-beryllium carbonate solution is then
pumped to a surge tank before being introduced into the iron
hydrolysis step. The organic liquid reporting from the stripping
step is called stripped organic. 4. The stripped organic has a
basic pH from the strippings step and must be converted to an
acid pH for reuse in the loading step of the solvent extraction
circuit. This is done in the acid conversion step of the solvent
extraction circuit. In this step, the stripped organic is
treated in two pairs of mixer/settler tanks by contacting it
with an aqueous sulfuric acid solution. The acidified, or
converted, organic is pumped to two surge tanks prior to being
recycled to the loading step of the solvent extraction circuit.
The aqueous liquid from the acid conversion step is a wastewater
called converted aqueous feed (CAP) and its pumped to the
raffmate surge tank for discard. None of the CAP is recycled.
There are a number of inaccurate statements in the 1995 Report
regarding the solvent extraction circuit. These include: 1. The
"Spent Raffinate" description in the report indicates that
raffinate contains "treatable quantities of beryllium, other
metal impurities, total suspended solids and low levels of
organics ..." Raffinate, reporting from the raffinate surge
tank, does not contain treatable (recoverable) concentrations of
beryllium. 2. The same section of the report indicates that
raffinate may be partially recycled. This is not the case, no
raffinate is recycled. 3. The "Acid Conversion Stream"
description indicates that CAP consists of stripped organic
liquid that is not recycled to the solvent extraction circuit.
This is not accurate, CAP is the aqueous wastewater from the
acid conversion step of the solvent extraction circuit and
should contain minimal organic liquid. All of the converted
organic liquid is recycled to the loading step of the solvent
extraction circuit.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
19
-------
DCN PH4A060
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 060
COMMENT Commenter submitted copies of (1) a memorandum from a Nov. 30,
1989 meeting, (2) a letter from Bob Tonetti, (3) process flow
diagrams, (4) a State of Utah letter on the Bevill exclusions
for the Brush Wellman beryllium extraction process, (5) process
steps and Bevill applicability in 1990 and 1995.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
20
-------
DCN PH4A061
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 061
COMMENT I. INTRODUCTION These comments are one of a series of comments
submitted by Brush Wellman Inc. ("Brush Wellman") on EPA's
proposed rulemaking relative to waste management in the mining
industry, 61 Federal Register 2337 (January 25, 1996). In order
to facilitate their review by EPA staff members, these comments
are being submitted in separate segments. These comments address
certain technical and financial information with respect to
beryllium extraction appearing in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Supplemental Proposed Rule Applying Phase IV Land
Disposal Restrictions to Newly Identified Mineral Processing
Wastes (December 1995) ("RIA").
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
21
-------
DCN PH4A061
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 061
COMMENT Brush Wellman operates the only beryllium extraction mill in
the United States. Hence, Brush Wellman believes that the
technical and financial information with respect to beryllium
extraction as set forth in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
applies exclusively to its mill, which is located in Delta,
Utah. At the Delta mill, Brush Wellman extracts beryllium values
from ore to produce beryllium hydroxide which is shipped to
Brush Wellman's Elmore, Ohio facility. At Elmore, beryllium
hydroxide is processed into three forms ~ beryllium alloys,
principally beryllium copper; beryllium oxide or beryllia
ceramic; and metallic beryllium. These Brush Wellman engineered
materials each possess unique technical properties which make
them the cost-effective choice for many challenging uses.
Beryllium-containing alloys are selected for their unique
combination of properties which include electrical and thermal
conductivity, strength, hardness, corrosion resistance, fatigue
resistance and formability. Beryllia ceramic is specified for
its electrical insulating properties and its unusual ability to
conduct heat. Metallic beryllium offers light weight, high
strength and stiffness, specialized nuclear properties and the
ability to dissipate heat rapidly.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
22
-------
DCN PH4A061
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 061
COMMENT II. THE BASIS FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE BERYLLIUM
EXTRACTION WASTE STREAMS IS UNCLEAR AND VARIOUS STATEMENTS ARE
INCORRECT
Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 of the Report lists waste streams for the
beryllium sector under the category of "Potential Hazardous
Waste Streams". We have compared the analytical results that are
listed in these exhibits with the laboratory reports for the
1989 EPA-ICF sampling and there are the following significant
discrepancies: 1) The EPA is listing the EP Toxicity data from
the 1989 analytical results as TCLP data in the report exhibits.
The two analytical procedures are not equivalent and the data
from EP Toxicity analyses should not be reported as TCLP data.
2) Many of the analytical results in the 1989 data were reported
at the detection limits. These data have been listed in the
exhibits of the EPA report at 50% of the 1989 values with the
exception of the TCLP data for raffinate which is listed in the
exhibits the same as the 1989 reported values. This was
apparently done to show that raffinate may be TCLP toxic for
selenium. However, the 1989 data reported selenium at a
detection limit of 1.0 mg/1. The EPA has been inconsistent in
its interpretation of the 1989 data with an apparent bias to
show that raffinate is a toxic hazardous waste. 3) The 1989 data
report indicated that the detection limit for selenium in the
raffinate sample was too high, at 100 times the MCL. Comparison
of the total metals and TCLP data in the two exhibits of the EPA
report also show that the listed TCLP values are typically
higher than the listed total values. These data problems
invalidate the use of these data to characterize raffinate as a
23
-------
hazardous waste. Exhibit 3-5, Potentially Hazardous Mineral
Processing Waste Streams by Commodity Sector in the RIA lists
four wastes from Delta including: barren filtrate, bertrandite
thickener slurry, beryl thickener slurry, and spent raffinate.
The RIA does not indicate the basis of listing these particular
waste streams in this table. However, the EPA-ICF waste
characterization data from the 1989 sampling and analyses
indicate that barren filtrate, bertrandite slurry, and beryl
thickener slurry did not fail any EP Toxicity characteristic or
corrosivity. ICF Incorporated, Brush Wellman Mineral Processing
Waste Sampling Visit ~ Trip Report, August 1989. Therefore,
listing these wastes in Exhibit 3-5 is alone not consistent with
the EPA's own data. The 1989 data for raffinate indicate that
alone exhibited the hazardous characteristic corrosivity (pH =
1.38). Exhibit 3-8, Final Mineral Processing Waste Stream
Database - Baseline Analysis also includes inaccuracies in the
TC metals, RCRA characteristics, and current recycling practices
fields. 1. The TC metals field shows that barren filtrate and
raffinate exhibit TC toxicity for selenium. The EPA ICF 1989
waste characterization data for both of these wastes indicates
that this is not true. 2. The RCRA Characteristics field
indicates that bertrandite thickener slurry, beryl thickener
slurry, and raffinate all exhibit the characteristic of
corrosivity. The EPA-ICF 1989 data to not support this
conclusion for the bertrandite and beryl thickener slurries and
Brush Wellman data obtained since 1989 show that both of these
waste streams have pH values greater than 2.0. 3. The Current
Recycle field indicates that barren filtrate and raffinate are
recycled. This is not true, both waste streams are discarded.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
24
-------
DCN PH4A061
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 061
COMMENT III. EPA'S ASSUMPTION THAT SEVERAL WASTES ARE PARTIALLY
RECYCLED IS INCORRECT The Current Recycle column on Table 3-8 of
the RIA incorrectly indicates that certain wastes are recycled.
EPA has assumed that the following percentages of the wastes are
recycled and do not have to be treated as hazardous wastes:
Raffmate 33%, Beryl Thickener Slurry 33%, Bertrandite Thickener
Slurry 33%, Barren Filtrate 50% None of these wastes are
recycled at the Delta mill.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
25
-------
DCN PH4A061
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 061
COMMENT IV. WASTE ESTIMATES IN THE RIA VARY SOMEWHAT FROM
WASTES
ACTUALLY GENERATED IN 1995 The tonnage of waste at the Delta
Mill varies, of course, from year to year. The waste tonnage
used by EPA in the RIA differ from 1995 actual tonnages as
follows: Wastestream EPA Estimate 1995 Actual
Barren Filtrate 88,000 55,000
Bertrandite Thickener Slurry 370,000 376,000
Beryl Thickener Slurry 3,000 1,000
Raffmate 380,000 367,000
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
26
-------
DCN PH4A061
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 061
COMMENT V. THE RIA'S ESTIMATES OF THE QUANTITY OF WASTES TREATED
BY DIFFERENT METHODS ARE INCORRECT In the RIA the EPA indicated
that certain wastes in the beryllium sector would need to be
neutralized. It assumes that a sludge would be developed by the
neutralization that would need to be dewatered prior to
stabilization with cement and on-site disposal in a lined
landfill. It is very difficult to correlate how the EPA's
general assumptions on these treatment concepts apply to the
individual Delta mill waste streams. However, the waste tonnage
determined by the EPA for the beryllium sector as a whole is as
follows:
Neutralized Waste 223,500 TPY
Dewatered Waste 33,525 TPY
Stabilized Waste 16,529 TPY
Waste Disposed 27,920 TPY
If one assumes, as EPA has, that the raffinate is
hazardous waste by the characteristics of corrosivity and TC
toxicity, Brush Wellman would have to neutralize all the
raffinate to a pH of 7 followed by removal and dewatering of the
27
-------
treatment sludge. This sludge would have a dry weight equal to
about 11% of the original weight of raffinate treated. The
sludge would then be stabilized with cement and conveyed to a
lined, on-site storage facility for disposal. A very preliminary
estimate of the treatment of only the raffinate stream, prepared
by Brush Wellman's consultant, JBR Consultants, are as follows:
Raffinate to be neutralized. Neutralized sludge to be dewatered
(30% solids) Dewatered sludge to be stabilized (dry weight)
Final waste to be disposed with 50% cement 367,000 TPY 121,110
TPY 40,370 TPY 60,555 TPY While these estimates are very
preliminary, but they indicate that the EPA estimates for the
potential scale of the waste treatment and handling impacts of
their proposed rules are significantly underestimated.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
DCN PH4A063
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 063
COMMENT II. EPA SHOULD NOT APPLY THE CURRENT OR PROPOSED UTS FOR
BERYLLIUM
A. EPA Lacks the Data to Show that its UTS Technology
Reduces Beryllium in Wastes. The application of the UTS
standards for beryllium to the mineral processing wastes would
replicate the Agency's flaws in setting the UTS standards
themselves. EPA has established a universal treatment standard
of 0.014 mg/1 TCLP for beryllium in non-wastewaters. 59 Federal
Register 47982 (September 19, 1994). In that rulemaking EPA
identified high temperature metal recovery ("HTMR") as the best
demonstrated available technology ("BOAT"). 59 Federal Register
at 47997-99. In a subsequent rule, EPA proposed to revise the
beryllium standard for non-wastewaters to 0.04 mg/1 TCLP. 60
Federal Register 43654, 43683 (August 22, 1995). In the preamble
28
-------
to the proposed revision EPA cites the receipt of additional
data showing that the HTMR cannot consistently achieve the
current UTS. However, even the proposal is flawed. The
administrative record for the beryllium UTS fails to demonstrate
even that treatment of beryllium occurs with respect to the
single waste stream (K061) which was considered by EPA in
promulgating the standard, much less that such treatment can be
achieved "universally." The background documents which present
and summarize the HTMR performance data considered by the Agency
do not contain any data which compare TCLP beryllium
concentrations for samples before and after HTMR processing.
Thus, it appears that the reduction in mobility of beryllium as
a result of HTMR was not even evaluated, let alone statistically
confirmed. Indeed, HTMR apparently does not even reduce the
concentration of beryllium in the treatment residues. Rather,
the very limited data indicate that the total beryllium
concentration in the treated K061 is higher than in the
untreated waste. In the only data set accepted by EPA which
compares beryllium concentrations of both untreated and treated
samples, the beryllium concentration in each treated sample
exceeded the beryllium concentration in each corresponding
untreated sample. See Table 1-12, Final Data Document for
Characterization and Performance of High Temperature Metals
Recovery Treatment and Stabilization for Metal-Bearing
Nonwastewaters (EPA July 1994). The premise underlying EPA's
reliance upon treatment data relating to a single type of waste
stream in promulgating a universal treatment standard applicable
to all regulated hazardous wastes is that HTMR is a matrix
independent process. According to EPA, the chemical and physical
composition of the waste stream being introduced in the process
do not have any material impact upon the achievability of any of
the treatment standards. While EPA may believe that it had
sufficient data to conclude that HTMR is matrix independent with
respect to recovery and treatment of zinc, this premise was not
demonstrated to be true with respect to other metals such as
beryllium through evaluation of any treatment data available to
EPA. Moreover, EPA's own statements acknowledge the extreme
variability in HTMR processes depending on a variety of factors,
including input composition. For example, on page 5-8 of the
Final BDAT Background Document (Addendum) for All Nonwastewater
Forms of K061 issued in July 1992, EPA states: Hence, the metal
distribution in the HTMR process is highly depending upon
parameters such as the operating temperature of the heat zones,
29
-------
the composition of metals and other elements hi the feed, zone
residence tunes, flow rates, oxidation/reduction conditions, and
mixing. . . . Based on these factors, the Agency concludes that
all metal-bearing materials (nonhazardous as well as hazardous)
placed into HTMR processes could affect the ultimate composition
and teachability of metals from HTMR nonwastewater residues. In
sum, Brush Wellman has serious doubts about the adequacy of the
data reviewed by the Agency and the Agency's reliance upon data
from a single waste stream in promulgating a treatment standard
to be applied universally. With its proposed expansion of the
application of the universal treatment standards to mineral
processing wastes, EPA has greatly increased the universe of
wastes which will be required to achieve the BDAT-based
standards. However, Brush Wellman is concerned that EPA's
reliance solely upon previously existing data relating to a
single waste stream (as least as far as beryllium is concerned)
accompanied by the Agency's failure to develop and consider
treatment data from different waste streams with significantly
different chemical and physical compositions constitutes an
inadequate technical basis for imposing such a significant
change upon the regulated community. While the universal
treatment standard for beryllium was derived from just to K061
wastes, EPA proposes to apply it to any hazardous mineral
processing waste which contains beryllium. Brush Wellman
believes it is inappropriate to take a treatment standard which
was derived solely from treatment data for a single
low-beryllium waste stream and apply such a standard to many
diverse waste streams which may contain significantly higher
concentrations of beryllium. EPA suggests that stabilization is
an alternative treatment technology that is available for use by
generators of toxicity characteristic metal wastes to meet the
universal treatment standards. Indeed, EPA's background document
evaluating available capacity for treating these wastes focuses
solely on stabilization capacity and does not present any
information regarding commercial capacity for HTMR. Brush
Wellman is not aware of a commercial HTMR process which is
available to treat beryllium-containing mineral processing
wastes in large quantities. It is not reasonable for the Agency
to promulgate a BDAT-based standard based on one technology and
expect compliance based on use of a different technology which
has not been thoroughly evaluated for performance and capacity.
Brush Wellman is not aware of any data in the administrative
record which demonstrate that the universal treatment standard
30
-------
for beryllium is attainable through stabilization of mineral
processing wastes or any other type of beryllium-bearing wastes.
RESPONSE
The Agency provided several opportunities for the commenters to submit additional
data on the treatability of beryllium using stabilization and HTMR technologies in the Phase IV
original proposal (60 FR 43654, August 22, 1995), the first supplemental Phase IV proposal
(61 FR 2338, January 25, 1996), and the most recently proposed Phase IV second
supplemental proposal (62 FR 26041, May 12, 1997). Since no information was provided by
the commenters, the Agency collected its own performance data (based on grab samples) from
commercial HTMR and stabilization facilities. EPA calculated the treatment standards based
on both HTMR and stabilization and selected the highest standard (less stringent) for each
metal to establish the UTS and allow for process variability and detection limit difficulties.
Based on these data, EPA re-proposed a beryllium treatment standard of 0.018 mg/1 TCLP
(actually, 0.02 mg/1 due to rounding) in the second supplemental proposed rule (62 FR 26045,
May 12, 1997).
In response to the second supplemental proposal several commenters stated that the
beryllium stabilization performance data used by the Agency was quite limited and reflected
the treatment of wastes having a very low beryllium content. Furthermore, commenters
questioned whether the proposed standard of 0.02 mg/1 TCLP could be met by conventional
stabilization techniques in the case of higher beryllium content wastes. Other commenters
stated that they could not support the treatment standards because EPA has not demonstrated
that existing commercial technologies were capable of achieving the proposed standards or that
technologies were otherwise available.
In response to the comments received on the beryllium treatment standard, the Agency
conducted a review of the data set used to calculate the proposed standard. The review
indicated that, consistent with the commenter's concerns, the data used by the Agency to
calculate the standard was based on wastes containing low concentrations of beryllium
(between 0.0050 and 0.5 mg/1 TCLP). As a result, the Agency agrees with the commenters
that the performance data used to calculate the proposed standard (0.02 mg/1) does not
adequately account for the difficulty in treating relatively high concentrations of beryllium
wastes. The Agency believes that the proposed UTS for beryllium must be revised to reflect a
more difficult-to-treat, high-concentration beryllium waste.
In response to public comment on the beryllium treatment standard proposed in the
second supplemental proposed rule, the Agency conducted a review of the data set used to
calculate the proposed standard. As a result, the Agency agrees with the commenters that the
performance data used to calculate the proposed standard (0.02 mg/1) does not adequately
account for the difficulty in treating relatively high concentrations of beryllium wastes. The
Agency believes that the proposed UTS for beryllium must be revised to reflect a more
31
-------
difficult-to-treat, high-concentration beryllium waste. The Agency received stabilization data
from Brush Wellman, Inc., consisting of seven data points from the treatment of D008 (lead-
containing) rotary filter sludge with cement kiln dust (CKD). These data show that beryllium
concentrations in the untreated waste were as follows (mg/L TCLP): 95, 32, 49, 54, 97, 52.
After treatment, the beryllium concentrations (mg/L TCLP) were: 0.58, less than 0.05, 0.31,
0.07, 0.06, less than 0.05, and 0.2. Upon examination, the Agency determined that this waste
stream reflects a difficult to treat beryllium waste and should be used in the calculation of the
treatment standard. (The use of this data also addresses a major concern of this commenter
and another commenter, which was that while the standard was acceptable, it would not or
may not be appropriate with higher levels of beryllium in the waste stream.) The Agency
believes that the data used in the Second Supplemental was not representative of a "difficult to
treat" beryllium-containing waste in that the untreated waste concentrations were from two to
four orders of magnitude less than the untreated waste concentrations (mg/L TCLP) in the data
submitted by Brush Wellman (0.016, less than 0.5, 0.008, less than 0.0050). The Agency has
determined that the data used to calculate the UTS for beryllium-containing nonwastewaters
was inadequate and not reflective of a difficult to treat beryllium waste. As such, that data has
been removed from the UTS data set used hi the Second Supplemental proposal and replaced
with the seven data points collected by Brush Wellman. The Agency believes that this data is
more appropriate fro the beryllium UTS and addresses the concerns raised by the commenters.
See the Background Document for Metal Wastes in the Docket for this rule). As such, the
Agency is today promulgating a revised UTS for beryllium nonwastewaters of 1.22 mg/1 based
on this newly acquired data.
With respect to the commenters concern on transferring treatment standards from K061
wastes, the Agency notes that the beryllium treatment standards promulgated in today's rule
are no longer based on K061 performance data and are based on newly collected performance
data from high-beryllium containing wastes. The Agency also would like to note that if a
particular waste possesses unique properties making it more difficult to treat than the waste on
which the standards are based, the affected party may petition the Agency for a treatability
variance as per 40 CFR 268.44 on a case-by-case basis.
32
-------
DCN PH4A063
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 063
COMMENT B. The UTS for beryllium must be revised to ensure that
treatment is not required beyond the point at which
beryllium-containing wastes cease to pose an unreasonable risk
to human health and the environment. Several facts demonstrate
that both the current and proposed beryllium UTSs are less than
that necessary to protect human health and the environment. 1.
Benchmark Values in the Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit
for Industrial Activities Just recently, EPA established .13
mg/1 as the concentration level for beryllium in stormwater
"that if below, a facility represents little potential for water
quality concern." 60 Fed. Real 50803, 50825 (September 29,
1995). In light of this determination by EPA, the universal
treatment standard for beryllium should not be less than . 13
mg/1. In fact, applying its rationale in the stormwater rule,
the Agency should set the universal treatment standard for
beryllium should be substantially higher. As explained by EPA in
the preamble to the rule establishing the Storm Water
Multi-Sector General Permit for Individual Activities,
"benchmark" concentrations were being established for pollutants
against which stormwater monitoring data were to be compared.
Benchmarks are values "which EPA has used to determine if a
stormwater discharge from any given facility merits further
monitoring to insure that the facility has been successful in
implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan." Id. at
50824. EPA's rationale in setting benchmark values demonstrates
why 0.04 mg/1 is less than that necessary to protect human
health and the environment: The "benchmarks" are the pollutant
concentrations above which EPA determined represents a level of
concern. The level of concern is a concentration at which a
stormwater discharge could potentially impair, or contribute to
impairing, water quality or affect human health from ingestion
of water or fish. The benchmarks are also viewed by EPA as a
level, that, if below, a facility represents little potential
for water quality concern. Id. at 50824-25. If stormwater
runoff, which can potentially enter a receiving stream in large
volumes at 0.13 mg/1, is not a level of concern, leachate in
33
-------
much smaller volumes should not be a concern at a lower level.
Indeed, the tremendous difference in potential volumes between
stormwater discharges and leachate point to the fact that the
level of concern should be much higher for leachate than for
stormwater. 2. Drinking Water Standard The proposed universal
treatment standard for beryllium is ten times the drinking water
standard for beryllium of 0.004 mg/1, expressed as a maximum
contaminant level (MCL). Considering the impact of a dilution
factor of only ten times the MCL, one must conclude that the
universal treatment standard for beryllium is very conservative
with respect to protection of human health and the environment.
When this conservative assumption is combined with the
conservative nature of the drinking water standard for beryllium
(and the erroneous computation of that MCL, as demonstrated in
the following section), the result is a universal treatment
standard value that is beyond the point at which there is no
threat to human health.
RESPONSE
The Agency recognizes the concerns raised by the commenter, however, EPA under the
statutory requirements of the RCRA Sec. 3004(m) is legally obligated to establish treatment
standards using the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) for RCRA hazardous
wastes. The Agency considers all the factors under Sec. 3004(m) when determining technology-
based treatment standards and sets the standards at levels that minimize threats to human health
and the environment. In addition, the Agency notes that the beryllium treatment standard of 0.04
mg/1 TCLP proposed in the Phase IV original proposal (60 FR 43683, August 22, 1995) was
based on composite data. Recognizing that the use of composite data was not consistent with the
BDAT methodology, the Agency re-calculated the treatment standard for beryllium based on
available performance data from HTMR, using grab samples, and re-proposed a treatment
standard of 0.018 mg/1 TCLP (actually, 0.02 mg/1 due to rounding) in the second supplemental
proposed rule (62 FR 26045, May 12,1997). The Agency made the data and the methodology
used to calculate this new standard available to the public as part of the second supplemental
proposal and provided sufficient time for the commenters to review the data and submit
comments.
The Agency acknowledges the commenters concerns. In response to public comment on
the beryllium treatment standard proposed in the second supplemental proposed rule, the Agency
conducted a review of the data set used to calculate the proposed standard. As a result, the
Agency agrees with the commenters that the performance data used to calculate the proposed
standard (0.02 mg/1) does not adequately account for the difficulty in treating even relatively
high concentrations of beryllium wastes. The Agency believes that the proposed UTS for
beryllium must be revised to reflect a more difficult-to-treat, high-concentration beryllium waste
34
-------
in order to account for waste variability in particular. The Agency received stabilization data
from the commenter consisting of seven data points from the treatment of D008 rotary filter
sludge with cement kiln dust (CKD). These data show that beryllium concentrations (mg/L
TCLP) in the untreated waste were as follows: 95, 32, 49, 54, 97, 52. After treatment, the
beryllium concentrations (mg/L TCLP) were: 0.58, less than 0.05, 0.31, 0.07, 0.06, less than
0.05, and 0.2. Upon examination, the Agency determined that this waste stream reflects a
difficult to treat beryllium waste and should be used in the calculation of the treatment standard.
(The use of this data also addresses a major concern of some of the commenters which was that
while the standard was acceptable, it would or may not be appropriate with higher levels of
beryllium in the waste stream.) The Agency believes that the data used in the Second
Supplemental is not representative of a "difficult to treat" beryllium-containing waste in that the
untreated waste concentrations were from two to four orders of magnitude less than the untreated
waste concentrations (mg/L TCLP) in the data submitted by the commenter. The Agency
believes that this data is more appropriate for the beryllium UTS and addresses the concerns
raised by the commenter. For additional information on the data reviewed, see the Background
Document for Metal Wastes in the Docket for this rule. As such, the Agency is today
promulgating a revised UTS for beryllium nonwastewaters of 1.22 mg/1 based on this newly
acquired data.] All the data available to the Agency indicates that this standard can be met by
industry.
DCN PH4A063
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 063
COMMENT III. EPA SHOULD NOT APPLY THE MCL FOR BERYLLIUM, WHICH IS
OVERLY conservative. AS A GROUND WATER PROTECTION STANDARD EPA proposes
to apply the MCL as a groundwater protection standard for
processing units containing secondary materials. 61 Federal
Register at 2372. The current MCL for beryllium is .004 mg/1.
The current MCL for beryllium of .004 mg/1 is overly
conservative. In computing the .004 mg/1 drinking water
standard, EPA applied an uncertainty factor often on top of all
the other safety factors that are typically in every calculation
of a drinking water standard. 57 Fed. Real 31776, 31785 (July
17, 1992). The overly-conservative nature of the .004 mg/1
standard is further demonstrated by the studies of Dr. Kenneth
Morgareidge and his collaborators. These studies exposed animals
to levels of beryllium that were considerably higher than that
used by the Schroeder and Mitchener study on which the MCL is
based. These studies establish a higher NOAEL than 0.5 mg/kg/day
35
-------
dose used by Schroeder and Mitchener. This higher NOAEL should
be used by EPA in evaluating the risk to human health when
ingesting beryllium. Morgareidge et al. examined the incidence
of tumor rates among rats exposed to beryllium in food at levels
of 0, 5, 50 and 500 ppm. Like Schroeder and Mitchener,
Morgareidge et al. found no differences in tumor rates between
exposed and unexposed animals. Morgareidge et al.'s results for
males are graphed in Figure A, and tests for statistical
significance of differences in tumor rates among different
exposure groups are given in Figure B. The corresponding graph
and tests of significance for females are given in Figures C and
D. Among the male rats, the incidence of tumors declined with
increasing levels of beryllium after 5 ppm. Among females the
pattern was not as consistent. Tumor rates among the 5 ppm group
were higher than rates among the 50 and 500 ppm groups, but the
500 ppm group had slightly higher rates than the 50 ppm group.
In any event, none of these differences were statistically
significant. Morgareidge also considered a host of toxicologic
endpoints and found no observable effects at any dose level.
Figure E is a calculation of a reference dose for beryllium
using the Morgareidge data in lieu of the Schroeder and
Mitchener data. The result is an MCL of 1.6 mg/1. This standard,
in turn, would result in a universal treatment standard which
minimized threat of 16 mg/1 TCLP after taking'into account EPA's
dilution factor of 10.
RESPONSE
The Agency notes to the commenter that the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) program is
based on the premise that regulated constituents are to be treated using the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) to minimize threats to human health and the environment,
because of the absence of certainty as to levels at which threats are minimized. The Agency
considers all the factors under Sec. 3004(m) when determining technology-based treatment
standards and sets the standards at levels that minimize threats to human health and the
environment. In addition, the Agency notes that the beryllium treatment standard of 0.04 mg/1
TCLP proposed in the Phase IV original proposal (60 FR 43683, August 22,1995) was based on
composite data. Recognizing that the use of composite data was not consistent with the BDAT
methodology, the Agency re-calculated the treatment standard for beryllium based on available
performance data from HTMR, using grab samples, and re-proposed a treatment standard of
0.018 mg/1 TCLP (actually, 0.02 mg/1 due to rounding) in the second supplemental proposed rule
(62 FR 26045, May 12, 1997). The Agency made the data and the methodology used to calculate
this new standard available to the public as part of the second supplemental proposal and
provided sufficient time for the commenters to review the data and submit comments.
36
-------
In response to public comment on the beryllium treatment standard proposed in the
second supplemental proposed rule, the Agency conducted a review of the data set used to
calculate the proposed standard. As a result, the Agency agrees with the commenters that the
performance data used to calculate the proposed standard (0.02 mg/1) does not adequately
account for the difficulty in treating relatively high concentrations of beryllium wastes. The
Agency believes that the proposed UTS for beryllium must be revised to reflect a more difficult-
to-treat, high-concentration beryllium waste. Therefore, the Agency collected additional
treatment performance data on high beryllium containing wastes (from Brush Wellman, Inc.) and
re-calculated the BDAT treatment standard for beryllium (for additional information on the data
reviewed, see the Background Document for Beryllium Wastes in the Docket for this rule). As
such, the Agency is today promulgating a revised UTS for beryllium nonwastewaters of 1.22
mg/1 based on this newly acquired data.
DCN PH4A063
COMMENTER Brush Wellman, Inc.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 063
COMMENT [The commenter attaches their 1994 comments on the Proposed EPA
multi-sector storm water general permit that discusses the
toxicity of Beryllium.] Attached as Attachments B and C are the
Morgareidge reports of the rat study. Also attached as
Attachment D is the report of another study (Gallo et al. 1976)
in which Morgareidge participated. This report study, a chronic
feeding study using dogs and reporting a maximum tolerated dose
of between 50 and 500 ppm, further supports the conclusion that
the .004 mg/1 standard is overly conservative. [The commenter
includes several data references related to the Morgeareidge rat
study: dose-response charts for males and females; Comparison
charts of response rates among animals exposed to various levels
of beryllium for males and females; and a table of Reference
Dose, drinking water equivalent level, and maximum contamination
level goal calculations.]
RESPONSE
37
-------
The Agency recognizes the concerns raised by the commenter, however, EPA under the
statutory requirements of the RCRA Sec. 3004(m) is legally obligated to establish treatment
standards using the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). The Agency considers all
the factors under Sec. 3004(m) when determining technology-based treatment standards and sets
the standards at levels that minimize threats to human health and the environment. In addition,
the Agency notes that the beryllium treatment standard of 0.04 mg/1 TCLP proposed in the Phase
IV original proposal (60 FR 43683, August 22, 1995) was based on composite data.
Recognizing that the use of composite data was not consistent with the BDAT methodology, the
Agency re-calculated the treatment standard for beryllium based on available performance data
from HTMR, using grab samples, and re-proposed a treatment standard of 0.018 mg/1 TCLP
(actually, 0.02 mg/1 due to rounding) in the second supplemental proposed rule (62 FR 26045,
May 12,1997). The Agency made the data and the methodology used to calculate this new
standard available to the public as part of the second supplemental proposal and provided
sufficient time for the commenters to review the data and submit comments.
In response to public comment on the beryllium treatment standard proposed in the
second supplemental proposed rule, the Agency conducted a review of the data set used to
calculate the proposed standard. As a result, the Agency agrees with the commenters that the
performance data used to calculate the proposed standard (0.02 mg/1) does not adequately
account for the difficulty in treating relatively high concentrations of beryllium wastes. The
Agency believes that the proposed UTS for beryllium must be revised to reflect a more difficult-
to-treat, high-concentration beryllium waste. Therefore, the Agency collected additional
treatment performance data on high beryllium containing wastes (from Brush Wellman, Inc.) and
re-calculated the BDAT treatment standard for beryllium (for additional information on the data
reviewed, see the Background Document for Beryllium Wastes in the Docket for this rule). As
such, the Agency is today promulgating a revised UTS for beryllium nonwastewaters of 1.22
mg/1 based on this newly acquired data.
38
-------
DCN PH4A064
COMMENTER Utah Mining Association
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT BERY
SUBJNUM 064
COMMENT In addition, the Utah Mining Association references below the
following specific comments on the SLDR prepared by Brush
Wellman and concerning their beryllium facility near Delta,
Utah: Brush Wellman's greatest concern with the above referenced
proposed rulemaking -and the supporting documents is that the
EPA has significantly redefined the applicability of the Bevill
Amendment to the Brush Wellman, Delta mill wastestreams. The
proposed changes would cause the beneficiation/mineral
processing line to be drawn much earlier in the production
flowsheet than was previously determined by the EPA. This would
cause almost all mill production wastestreams to be regulated as
mineral processing wastes. The EPA has not shown why these
proposed changes are justified. In addition, the EPA's estimates
of the potential impacts of these proposed changes on the Brush
Wellman operations have been significantly underestimated. The
December 1995 EPA report entitled, "Identification and
Description of Mineral Processing Sectors and Waste Streams",
contains a number of significant errors, including: 1) The EPA
has indicated that the beneficiation/mineral processing line
occurs in the bertrandite and beryl extraction operations where
the ores are contacted with the sulfuric acid leaching reagent.
The stated reason for this is that this is the step where a
"chemical substitution reaction occurs". This assertion by the
EPA is not consistent with the September 1, 1989 final
regulations on mining waste where acid leaching is clearly
indicated to be a beneficiation step. It is also not in concert
with a written regulatory determination written to Brush Wellman
on March 15,1990 by Robert Tonetti, Acting Deputy Director, EPA
Waste Management Division in which the EPA clarified that all
39
-------
production steps employed at the Delta mill upstream of iron
hydrolysis were considered to be beneficiation activities.
Finally, the EPA's proposed beneficiation/mineral processing
line is not consistent with a regulatory determination written
to Brush Wellman by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste in which they also indicated that all production steps
upstream of iron hydrolysis are beneficiation activities. 2) The
beryllium sector description indicates that bertrandite
thickener slurry may be hazardous because of a toxicity
characteristic. However, this conclusion is not supported by the
EPA's own data which shows that this wastestream does not
exhibit any hazardous characteristic. 3) The EPA's conclusion
that all Brush Wellman production steps downstream of the acid
leaching are mineral processing is incorrect and not consistent
with the inclusion of bertrandite thickener slurry in the
September 1, 1989 final rule as a beneficiation waste. 4) The
conclusion that the beryl thickener slurry has a pH of 2 and,
"therefore . .. exhibits the hazardous characteristic of
toxicity", is a gross misinterpretation of the EPA hazardous
waste regulations on characteristics of hazardous wastes.
Because a waste has a low pH does not automatically mean that it
will exhibit a toxicity characteristic. The EPA's own data on
this particular wastestream proves this fact in that there are
no TC metals above the regulatory levels. 5) Spent raffmate is
described as exhibiting the hazardous waste characteristics of
corrosivity and TC metals toxicity for selenium. The EPA 1989
data does not support the selenium toxicity conclusion. 6)
Barren filtrate is described as exhibiting the hazardous waste
characteristic of TC metals toxicity for selenium. The EPA 1989
data shows that this waste stream did not exhibit any such
characteristic. 7) The description of the recycling of the
various wastestreams at the Brush Wellman Delta mill are
incorrect. None of the subject wastestreams are recycled. In
general, there are so many significant errors in this support
document that its relevance to the proposed LDR regulations is
questionable at best. The support document should not be used as
a part of the rulemaking, nor should it be used as a guideline.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
40
-------
41
-------
DCN PH4A003
COMMENTER The Ferroalloys Association
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT CHRM
SUBJNUM 03
COMMENT
The Ferroalloys Association wishes to respond to the above proposed rule which appeared in the
Federal Register on January 25,1996. We are very much in favor of your proposal to revoke the
listings for and not to relist emission control dust and sludge from ferrochromium-silicon
production (K090) and from ferrochromium production (K091). If these wastes exhibit the
characteristic of a hazardous waste via the TCLP test, they would fall into the group referred to
as "newly identified" hazardous wastes, i.e. D007 and would be covered by these proposed rules
for safe recycling and exclusion as a solid waste.
At the present time, there is only one generator of D007. It is our understanding that they treat
the material by slurrying with water, adding ferrous sulphate to reduce the soluble chromium in
the TCLP extract to less than 1.0 mg/1 (which is well below the UTS of 5.0 mg/1) prior to
placement in a surface impoundment where some stabilization eventually occurs. This company
is presently regulated under Subtitle C as a generator of a characteristic hazardous waste. They
generate approximately 2500 tons of this electrostatic precipitator dust per year with one of their
two furnaces presently operating. They have no Part "B" RCRA permit because the treatment is
done in a 90 day accumulation tank.
In addition, there is the potential of recycling current generation into a briquetting facility for fine
chromite ores as it has a pozzolanic characteristic which makes it an excellent binder. This
would add value to the ore, reduce treatment and disposal costs, improve metal recovery, and
further reduce dust generation in the smelting process. This process represents the best known
treatment for chromium wastes, i.e. a high temperature metal recovery (HTMR) process. In this
case, the amount of chromium oxide in the dust is relatively low, in the area of 5-6% as Cr2O3
compared with 35-45% in the virgin ores. Chromium is recoverable although the major value is
due to the presence of other minerals.
We agree with the application of universal treatment standards (UTS) to these newly identified
hazardous wastes prior to land disposal as well as the requirements to show that: *recycling is
actually occurring; *the material serves a legitimate function in the process; * no waste disposal
is involved; * the material is not being stored speculatively; * the suggested one-time
notification; and * storage and treatment be done only in process tanks as opposed to land-based
facilities which would still be allowed under certain conditions. Finally, we also concur that
"land placement of wastes and prevention of resulting harms" should be a prime focus of the
proposed rules.
RESPONSE
42
-------
[The Agency thanks the commenter's support for the Phase IV rule.]
DCN PH4A081
COMMENTER OxyChem
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT CHRM
SUBJNUM 081
COMMENT Outside laboratory data on one of our mineral processing
wastes is as follows: TCLP Values w/ Stabilization Prop. NWW
Std (mql) Chromium(total) 0.86
0.410 0.265 0.065 1.85 0.105 Vanadium
0.23 0.9450.520 0.075 0.080 0.095 Initial
ph(su) 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.211.0
Final ph(su) 6.0 6.0 6.2 5.4
6.3 This data indicates that additional time will be required to
conduct optimization studies and process modifications. 4.1.1.4
3) The Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)
should be allowed on a case-by-case basis, a) As stated by
EPA, co-disposal of mineral processing wastes in municipal
landfills is theoretically possible. However, this is very
unlikely if wastes; are managed on-site. All wastes going
offsite should continue to be evaluated via the TCLP test.
Mineral processing residues managed on-site should be allowed to
use the SPLP provided approval is received from an authorized
state solid waste agency. 4.5 SPLP data for the above waste
stream is as follows: SPLP Values w/ Stabilization mg/1
Chromium(total) 0.465 0.640 0.220
0.225 0.310 Vanadium 0.275 0.325
0.200 0.070 0.200 Initial pH (su) 11.0
10.9 10.8 9.9 10.8 Final pH (su)
10.8 10.8 10.6 9.8 10.7
SPLP Values w/o Stabilization mg/1 Chromium(total) 0.470
0.240 0.220 0.570 0.155 Vanadium
0.075 0.050 0.035 0.030 0.025 Initial
pH(su) 9.3 9.0 9.2 9.0
9.0 Final pH (su) 9.3 9.0 9.0
8.8 8.8 TCLP Values w/o Stabilization mg/1 Chromium(total)
Range: 3.0 to 10.0 (34 1992 data points) Vanadium
No Data Available b) OxyChem's data indicates stabilization
with cement fines can cause the solubility of metals to
increase. This is confirmed by established textbook solubility
data for heavy metals, including chromium and vanadium. Data
from our disposal impoundment taken from the period prior to
stabilization indicated average chromium levels of 0.010 mg/I.
43
-------
Since stabilization with cement fines, average chromium levels
have increased to 0.120 mg/I. In addition, recent cement fines
analyses indicate vanadium levels of 78 ppm and 93 ppm.
Reducing cement fines addition would result in measurable
benefits to the environment by reducing available metals levels
and producing a more neutral pH.
RESPONSE
The commenter has provided the Agency with some stabilization treatment data. These
data consist of six data points for chromium and six data points for vanadium. The data show
that stabilization could achieve the following: 0.86, 0.410, 0.265, 0.065, 1.85, and 0.105 mg/L
TCLP. The Agency is unable to throughly evaluate the data for several reasons: 1) no
information on treatment was provided; 2) no information was provided on the untreated waste.
The results however show that of the six data points, 4 could meet the final treatment standard
for chromium nonwastewaters. The Agency believes, in the absence of any additional data or
information from the commenter, that the standard can be achieved by the commenter. There has
been no indication made by the commenter that they have explored an exhaustive number of
stabilization "recipes" or failed to get even close to the treatment standard. The results of the
vanadium treatment are not germaine to this rulemaking in that vanadium is not regulated as an
underlying hazardous constituent in characteristic waste, it is only regulated in PI 19 or P120.
For a response to the mineral processing component of this comment the reader is referred to the
"Comments and Response Document on Issue Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the
RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
44
-------
HWIR COMMENTS TO THE 1ST SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE IV PROPOSAL,
JANUARY 25,1996
DCN PH4A030
COMMENTER Chemical Waste Management
RESPONDER SS
SUBJECT HWIR
SUBJNUM 030
COMMENT On behalf of Chemical Waste Management, Inc. I am writing to
highlight the potential impact of "contingent management"
methods under the proposed Hazardous Waste Identification rule
for process wastes (60 Fed. Reg. at 66,344, Dec. 21,1995) on a
series of other upcoming proposed and final Agency rules.
Specifically, these are: Phase III and IV Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR); and supplemental Phase IV LDR proposal for
mining wastes. The central concern is that the contingent
management provisions under the proposed HWIR will undercut the
demand for performance-based treatment capacity that is driven
by the Phase III and IV LDR rules for a number of newly
identified wastes (e.g. carbamates, K088. etc.). Thus, if the
Agency moves forward under its current schedule for finalizing
Phase III and IV LDRs (Feb '96 and June '96, respectively) the
HWIR rule, when finished in December of 1996, could cancel or
greatly diminish the need for treatment capacity by allowing
contingent management options. Consequently, companies that
invest capital to permit, construct, and operate waste treatment
capacity for Phase III and IV LDR wastes could face immediate
losses when the HWIR rules are finalized during the second half
of 1996 and risk-based approaches counteract the previously
established technology-based standards. CWM does not believe it
to be in the best interest of the EPA or the regulated community
to create a situation that would result in the promulgation of
final hazardous waste management methods only to replace them a
few months later with a completely different approach.
Therefore, CWM suggests that the Agency coordinate the
implementation of final treatment standards for newly identified
wastes with the HWIR process waste rule. This approach will
ensure that the implications of contingent management,
performance-based treatment standards, and risk-based exit
levels are fully understood and implemented in a consistent
manner that is not unduly disruptive to business. This
recommendation is not without precedent. Recently the Agency
45
-------
proposed standards for mineral processing wastes that strikes a
balance between LDR requirements and the need to regulate in
ways that encourage recycling. This approach will lift many
regulatory obstacles and ensure the proper management of
discarded materials. In addition, this rule would clarify the
distinctions between excluded recycling and waste management.
Clearly, EPA was contemplating expected reform in the Definition
of Solid Waste rulemaking scheduled for this year. By
comparison, the process waste rule would provide risk-based exit
levels for listed hazardous wastes to exit the Subtitle C
management requirements and enter Subtitle D or other approved
state programs. Contingent management is one of the options
offered by the Agency in its HWIR proposal that would provide
opportunities to safely manage certain hazardous wastes as
non-hazardous if certain criteria are met to ensure adequate
risk reduction. CWM urges the Agency to explore ways in which
the newly identified wastes under the Phase III and IV LDRs can
be aligned with the HWIR process to prevent disruption to the
regulated community. If you have any questions or would like
to discuss this matter further, please call me at (708)218-1612.
RESPONSE
EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of close coordination on the decision-
making and scheduling of the LDR rules and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
for process wastes. Since the comment was submitted to EPA, two events have occurred which
prevent the coordination problems the commenter foresaw. First, the sections of the Phase IV
original proposal on August 22, 1995 pertaining to equivalent treatment for decharacterized
wastewaters in surface impoundments (controls of leaks, sludges, and air emissions) were
removed from this rule due to the Land Disposal Flexibility Act of 1996. That Act reinstated the
exemption from the dilution prohibition for these wastes and required EPA to conduct a study to
determine if regulation is necessary. Second, the timetable on the HWIR rule has been extended
well beyond the required promulgation date of the Phase IV final rule, which removes concern
about implementation problems. The new treatment standards in the Phase IV final rule will go
into effect well before the complex work on the HWIR rule is complete. The HWIR provisions
are being developed in conjunction with the Land Disposal Restrictions rules.
DCN PH4A070
COMMENTER FMC Corporation
RESPONDER SS
SUBJECT HWIR
SUBJNUM 070
COMMENT III. The Agency Should Finalize HWIR Before The Phase IV LDR
46
-------
And Phase IV Supplemental Rules Become Effective, And Should
promulgate The Phase IV LDR And Phase IV Supplemental Rules With
A Common Effective Date. EPA has proposed three separate RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations that are closely
interrelated. Indeed, these four regulations are so closely
interrelated that if they are not promulgated in the proper
order, significant compliance problems and confusion will
result. The three rules are the Phase IV LDR. Phase IV
Supplemental and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
("HWIR") - process waste LDR rules. In Phase IV, EPA is
considering whether to impose: additional requirements on the
same surface impoundments addressed in Phase III 8 with respect
to potential leaks, air emissions, and sludges. 9 In the Phase
IV Supplemental rule, EPA will address LDRs for mineral
processing wastes. Finally, in the HWIR rule, EPA will establish
risk-based concentration levels for many hazardous constituents,
below which levels wastes will no longer be subject to
regulation as hazardous wastes, including the LDRS. FMC believes
that if these rules are promulgated without regard to
interrelationships, the resulting disruption of the regulated
community will be severe, and unnecessary. As explained in
detail below, the HWIR rule could make significant changes in
the LDR program, nullifying the substantial capital expenditures
that will be necessary to comply with Phase IV LDR regulations.
Thus, EPA should establish a single effective date for the Phase
IV LDR and Phase IV Supplemental rules, which should be after
the HWIR rule is finalized. The Agency possesses ample
authority to take such steps, a. EPA Should Not Set An Effective
Date For Phases IV LDR Or Phase TV Supplemental Until After The
HWIR Regulations Are Finalized. FMC strongly believes that EPA
should not establish effective dates for any additional LDR
regulations until after the HWIR regulation is finalized,
especially if EPA chooses Option 2 or Option 3 in the Phase IV
LDR rule. If the final HWIR rules resemble the versions that EPA
has proposed, it will have a significant effect on the LDR
program, and will render significant parts of the upcoming LDR
rules moot. EPA has long recognized that the existing Subtitle C
regulations are overly broad, covering many wastes that present
no significant threat to human health or the environment. The
regulated industry has been seeking a correction to this
over-inclusiveness for years. The HWIR regulation is the first
real attempt by the Agency to address this problem. Since the
changes brought about by HWIR may occur in a matter of months,
47
-------
it makes no sense to go forward with complex LDR rules at this
time. To the extent EPA's schedule is dictated by court orders,
EPA should take steps to have those orders modified. 1 First, it
is clear that significant disruptions to regulated industry
could result if the Phase IV LDR and Phase IV Supplemental
regulations are made effective before the HWIR rule is
finalized. The Phase IV LDR and Phase IV Supplemental
regulations will cause the expenditure of vast sums to add,
replace or modify existing treatment systems. Many of these
expenditures could be in vain if the HWIR rule sets exit levels
above the current UTS levels (particularly if the HWIR levels
can be met before placement in surface impoundments).! Because
the HWIR levels will be risk-based, modifications to existing
systems or over design of new systems to achieve more stringent
standards will be wasteful by definition because they will not
be necessary to address any environmental risk. Indeed, the
"exit" levels chosen under HWIR could determine the most
cost-effective method of achieving the LDR treatment standard
(which presumably will be, in many cases, the same as the exit
level). If the exit level is different from the prior LDR
treatment standard, the most effective treatment method could be
different as well. If companies have already modified their
treatment processes or are adding new units to achieve the lower
level, the result is, again, needless expenditures and efforts.
There would be similar disruptions if the Phase IV Supplemental
rule were to be made effective before the HWIR rule is
finalized. Assuming that EPA will decide that wastes exiting the
hazardous waste system under HWIR are no longer subject to the
LDR, companies may decide, based on the Phase IV Supplemental
rule, to treat mineral processing wastes to meet LDRs (possibly
including capital investment for new or modified treatment
systems), only to discover later that under HWIR, some or all of
their mineral processing wastes, if treated or managed in a
particular manner, are no longer considered hazardous and do not
require treatment under the LDR. As with the disruptions
discussed above, this could impose substantial needless costs on
the mining industry. In addition to the capital costs described
above, if EPA sets effective dates for Phase IV LDR and Phase IV
Supplemental before the HWIR rule is finalized, many companies,
including FMC, will be forced to apply for case-by-case capacity
variances and extensions in order to comply with the new
requirements. The preparation of such applications is costly in
both money and time. Additionally, the preparation of these
48
-------
applications require significant lead times and thus companies,
such as FMC, would need to incur the application costs well in
advance of the promulgation of the final HWIR rule. All of
those costs could be wasted if the HWIR significantly changes
the universe of wastes subject to LDR requirements, or
significantly changes the applicable LDR treatment standards.
The money and personnel time that would be so wasted could more
effectively be used for waste minimization and pollution control
efforts — efforts that could have a real impact on risks, as
opposed to efforts to meet standards that may soon disappear
because they are not necessary to address real risks. Finally,
FMC's comments and plans regarding leaks from CWA surface
impoundments are predicated on the current UTS levels.
Significant changes in these levels will result in a major
disruption within the regulated community. FMC believes that
EPA should at the least delay the whole Phase IV LDR rulemaking
including Phase IV Supplemental (if Option 2 is chosen and leak
controls are imposed) until after promulgation of HWIR in order
to allow time to evaluate the impact level of the revised UTS
standards. In addition, FMC believes it would be more prudent
of EPA to extend the Phase IV LDR comment period with respect to
leak controls until after the HWIR levels are finalized.
Alternatively, EPA should consider reproposing Phase IV LDR if
the HWIR rule makes significant changes to UTS levels. This
problem is even further exacerbated by the expected lag of the
adoption of the HWIR rule standards by delegated states. Because
HWIR is not a HWSA rulemaking, the states will need to adopt the
revised HWIR levels to supercede the existing UTS levels found
in 40 C.F.R. _268.43. In sum, HWIR should be finalized before
the Phase IV LDR and Phase IV Supplemental rules become
effective, especially if EPA imposes leak control measures to
set forth in the Phase IV LDR proposal. Such an approach would
reduce the universe of hazardous wastes subject to the Phase IV
LDR and Phase IV Supplemental LDR rules, and avoid forcing
companies to treat their decharacterized wastewaters or mineral
processing wastes to meet LDR standards that will be superceded
or revised only months later.
RESPONSE
EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of close coordination on the decision-
making and scheduling of the LDR rules and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
for process wastes. Since the comment was submitted to EPA, two events have occurred which
49
-------
prevent the particular coordination problems the commenter foresaw. First, the sections of the
Phase IV original proposal on August 22, 1995 pertaining to equivalent treatment for
decharacterized wastewaters in surface impoundments (controls of leaks, sludges, and air
emissions) were removed from this rule due to the Land Disposal Flexibility Act of 1996. That
Act reinstated the exemption from the dilution prohibition for these wastes and required EPA to
conduct a study to determine if regulation is necessary. Second, the timetable on the HWIR rule
has been extended well beyond the required promulgation date of the Phase IV final rule, which
removes concern about implementation problems. The new treatment standards in the Phase IV
final rule will go into effect well before the complex work on the HWIR rule is complete. The
HWIR provisions are being developed in conjunction with the Land Disposal Restrictions rules.
50
-------
DCN PH4A069
COMMENTER Unocal Molycorp.
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT METL
SUBJNUM 069
COMMENT Our comments are confined to the portion of the background
document which pertains to molybdenum: 1. page 507, Exhibit 3 -
the production of low carbon ferromolybdenum does not require a
furnace, only a sand bed 2. page 508, second paragraph, last
sentence: - Typically, beneficiation wastes are earthen in
character, whereas mineral processing wastes are derived from
melting or chemical changes, and • second-last paragraph: -
Based on the review of the process, there are no mineral
processing operations involved in the production of either
ammonium molybdate or pure molybdic oxide, are in contradiction
3. page 508, fourth paragraph, first sentence: - should reed
'molybdenum disulfide" instead of molybdic sulfate 4. page 508,
last paragraph: - should make clear that the reference to
furnace is restricted to high carbon ferromolybdenum production
5. page 510, headings for second and fourth paragraphs: - we do
not believe there is a difference between roaster gas blowdown
solids and flue dust 6. page 510, third paragraph: - we have
never detected mercury in molybdic oxide refining waste at our
facility in Washington, Pennsylvania; therefore we disagree with
EPA's statement that this waste may exhibit the characteristics
of toxicity for mercury 7. page 510, fourth paragraph, last
sentence: this waste is not recycled. - we recycle flue dust at
our facility in Washington 8. page 510, last paragraph, first
sentence: - the word generated should be changed to "collected"
9. page 511, second paragraph: - this section should be expanded
to reflect the fact that some of the wastes listed herein are
regulated under RCRA and some are regulated under TSCA By way of
historical background, Molycorp has owned and operated a
metallurgical products plant at Washington, Pennsylvania since
1920. Molybdenum roasting, which converts molybdenum disulfide
to molybdenum oxide, was started in 1922 and continued into 1991
when processing of this material was suspended. The plant also
produced ferrocolumbium and other ferroalloys. Ferromolybdenum
production by electric furnace reduction was discontinued in
1975. The single multiple hearth roasting furnace facility at
Washington was expanded with a second furnace addition in 1936,
which increased the molybdenum roasting capacity to 10 million
pounds per year. In 1978, the older unit was replaced with a new
51
-------
20 million pound per year unit with state of the art
environmental controls, including a sulfuric acid plant.
Currently, the 20-acre facility at Washington is in an
extended-standby mode with purchasing and reselling of alloys,
and plant maintenance being the principal site activities. The
Questa mine, also owned and operated by Molycorp in northern New
Mexico, has been the source of molybdenum disulfide for the
Washington plant.
RESPONSE
For EPA's response on this issue, see the "Comments and Responses Document for
Issues Related to Mineral Processing Wastes," in the RCRA docket for today's rulemaking.
52
-------
DCN PH4A008
COMMENTER Arizona Public Service Co
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 008
COMMENT
Arizona Public Service Company ("APS") submits the following
comments in response to the US Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed rulemaking for Land Disposal Restrictions—Supplemental
Proposal to Phase IV: Clarification of Bevill Exclusion for
Mining Wastes, Changes to the Definition of Solid Wastes,
Treatment Standards for Characteristic Mineral Processing
Wastes, and Associated Issues; Proposed Rule (61 Fed. Reg. 2338
January, 25, 1996) (the "Supplemental Proposal"). APS is the
largest electric utility in Arizona, serving more than 700,000,
customers throughout the state. In order to serve its large
customer base, APS operates a number of large power plants,
including two coal-fired plants and has a significant interest
in a third coal fired plant. These plants generate substantial
volumes of fossil fuel combustion wastes in the course of
operations. As permitted under the Bevill Amendment (42 USC
6921(b)(3)(A)(I)), APS disposes of fly ash, bottom ash and
other high and low volume fossil fuel combustion-related wastes
in on-site disposal facilities. Additionally, APS is currently
managing several Manufactured Gas Plant ("MGP") remediation
sites. Accordingly, APS is keenly interested in EPA's proposed
rule and wishes to respond to a number of EPA's requests for
comment on particular aspects of the proposal. 14.0 APS is a
member of the Edison Electric Institute ("EEI"), a national
association of investor-owned electric power and light utility
companies. EEI is a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group ("USWAG") who is also submitting extensive comments on the
proposed rule. As a member of EEI, APS strongly endorses and
affirms the USWAG Comments and therefore will limit its comments
to issues of particular importance to APS.
RESPONSE
The Agency thanks the commenter for responding to EPA's proposal.
53
-------
DCN PH4A011
COMMENTER NY State Dept. of Environ
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM
COMMENT
Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Wastes On page 2360 of the January
25, 1996 Federal Register, EPA notes that MGP wastes are mineral
processing wastes, although somewhat anomalously classified.
The anomaly becomes more pronounced once it is understood that
MGP wastes-are almost exclusively encountered in remediation
situations at former MGP sites and not as newly generated
wastes. Most commonly, this Department encounters MGP wastes
mixed with soil. When such material is found to be hazardous,
it is normally through failing the TCLP for benzene. It should
also be noted that it is common practice to decharacterize
MGP-contaminated soils by mixing them with activated carbon
sawdust, and other soil. We would like EPA to clarify if LDRs
when applicable, would be violated by the staging of such
contaminated soils in waste piles, subsequent to
decharacterization, noting that this is presently a common
practice.
RESPONSE
The Agency recognizes that it is a common practice to decharacterize MGP soils by
mixing them with activated carbon, sawdust, and other soil. As noted in EPA's MGP site
remediation strategy (Memorandum, dated April 26,1993, entitled "Remediation of Historic
MGP Sites," form Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste, to EPA Regional Waste
Management Division Directors), decharacterization can be accomplished in of 90-day tanks,
containers, or containment buildings covered by 40 CFR Section 262.34(a). Waste may be
treated in such units during the 90-day accumulation period without a permit, and if the waste
thereafter no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic, any further management of the waste
would not be subject to Subtitle C regulations, with the possible exception of LDR standards.
Regarding the application of the land disposal restrictions to staging of decharacterized
MGP soil. As the Agency has noted in the 1996 HWIR-Media proposal, land disposal
restrictions attach at the point that any given waste (or contaminated media) is generated and
continue to apply until threats to human health and the environment are minimized. Therefore,
in the case of contaminated media that is considered hazardous at its point of generation, e.g.,
because it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the LDRs have attached and LDR
54
-------
treatment standards must be met prior to land disposal. Under current regulations, placement of
waste in a waste pile is considered a form of land disposal. Note that there are a number of types
of RCRA units which are not land disposal units. For example, materials could be staged in a
corrective action management unit without triggering a duty to first comply with LDRs.
Similarly, contaminated soils that are never "generated" for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions are not subject to LDRs. For example, if contaminated soils were decharacterized in
situ, within an area of contamination, and then staged in that same area of contamination, LDRs
would generally not be triggered. This issue of LDR applicability to contaminated soils is
discussed in detail in the preamble to today's final rule.
DCN PH4A016
COMMENTER Public Service Electric &
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 016
COMMENT
PSE&G provides energy services to approximately 5.5 million
residents in the state of New Jersey and is the third largest
combined electric and gas energy provider in the United States.
PSE&G's Interest In The Proposed Rulemaking Historically, PSE&G
has contributed comments on most RCRA-related rulemakings
through organizations to which we have been a member. As a
practical matter, while our focus is on reducing hazardous
wastes and promoting recycling through up-front planning and
procurement, PSE&G recognizes the importance of commenting on
the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR's), a fundamental element of
RCRA.
RESPONSE
The Agency thanks the commenter for responding to EPA's proposal.
55
-------
DCN PH4A016
COMMENTER Public Service Electric &
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 016
COMMENT
In addition, this rulemaking addresses several issues of
importance to PSE&G. As an initial point, the rulemaking
proposes a number of changes to the RCRA program that PSE&G
supports. Secondly, the proposed rulemaking seeks to apply LDR's
on soils resulting from the remediation of historic manufactured
gas plant (MGP) sites. This issue is a concern to PSE&G in that
imposition of LDR's on MGP waste soils imposes restrictive
treatment approaches without additional treatment standards
offering equivalent environmental benefit. MGP Remediation
Wastes LDR's and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule PSE&G
is concerned with the Agency's efforts to impose LDR's on MGP
remediation wastes without looking at the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) media rulemaking and its impact on
contaminated media. PSE&G's understanding is that, among many
items, HWIR is addressing contaminated media resulting from
remediation activities. Our MGP wastes, which result from
remediation of historic coal gasification manufacturing
processes, some of which date back to the turn of the century,
are in fact contaminated media, and almost exclusively soil. As
such, these soils, some of which may exhibit a toxicity
characteristic, differ dramatically from the process wastes for
which LDR's were developed. Furthermore, the administrative
requirements of the LDR process will not promote the remediation
of MGP sites and will do nothing to expedite the remediation
process. PSE&G urges the Agency to consider first the HWIR
process for the management of contaminated media prior to the
imposition of LDR's and defer the imposition of LDR's on MGP
56
-------
soils at a minimum, until the HWIR media rulemaking process is
complete. Alternative Treatment Standards PSE&G also encourages
the Agency to consider alternative treatment standards for MGP
remediation wastes. Treatment of MGP remediation wastes by any
single technology to meet a technology-based Universal Treatment
Standard (UTS) is both impractical and inappropriate. As was
noted previously, MGP remediation wastes, most of which are
soils which are derived from historic activities, are found to
be non-homogeneous. As such, they are not amenable to any
single treatment technology. Furthermore, some technologies,
while not treating the residual's to meet and LDR, may in fact
treat the sod significantly enough to ensure its safer
management throughout on-site management and transportation.
Lastly, PSE&G is concerned the imposition of LDR's and the
treatment of MGP wastes to meet a UTS, will not benefit the
environment and may in fact be a disincentive to voluntary
remediation initiatives, which are already costly and extensive
in their scope. PSE&G recommends the Agency take one of three
approaches to insuring the proper management of MGP remediation
wastes in lieu of treatment to meet a UTS. These are: 1.
Examine closely the HWIR media rulemaking for opportunities to
enhance the treatment of MGP remediation wastes; or 2.
Consider numerical alternatives to the UTS as put forth in the
LDR Phase 11 proposal {(58 Fed. Reg. 48092) (September 14,
1993)}. Such an approach would be consistent with EPA's later
acknowledgment that treatment standards for generated wastes are
not appropriate for contaminated media and thus contaminated
media are presumptively eligible for a site treatability
variance. {(59 FedReg. 47980, 47985-86)(September 19, 1994)}
Using numerical alternatives by rule would promote efficiency in
the remediation process by obviating the need to obtain a
variance for each site. Given the high degree of variability
likely to be found in MGP remediation waste, PSE&G encourages the
Agency to adopt the most flexible alternative under the Phase II
proposal, that being the higher often times the UTS or a 90%
concentration reduction. Such a standard is not only protective
of human health and the environment, but presents the most
options for wastes just above the concentration threshold; or 3.
Establish specified technologies as alternative treatment
standards. In this regard, PSE&G recognizes as has EPA, that
"The technology-based soil standards should not be based
exclusively on incineration ...innovative technologies are
particularly appropriate to treat large volumes of low and
57
-------
moderately contaminated sods." (58 Fed.Reg. 48124) PSE&G
supports the use of flexible and cost effective MGP waste
management technologies with a variety of beneficial uses. For
example, thermal treatment technologies such as thermal
desorption and combustion as alternative treatment standards
would preclude the need for analysis of the treatment residual
with a numerical standard as the treatment method is specified
as the standard. (40 C.F.R.268.40 (a)(3)). Such technologies,
when established as treatment standards, would promote recycling
of MGP wastes for its intrinsic fuel values, something that
would not be permitted if LDR's were established. In addition,
PSE&G supports the designation of certain recycling technologies
and their application as alternative treatment standards.
Recycling of MGP wastes into usable materials such as asphalt,
brick or concrete, as a substitute for virgin raw materials in
these products, would actually promote the remediation of MGP
sites and conserve valuable resources. Temporary Storage of MGP
Remediation Wastes - Qualification for No Migration Variance
PSE&G recognizes that imposition of LDR's to MGP remediation
wastes could pose unnecessary restriction on the ability to
manage site excavated soils, due to the prohibition on the
storage of waste in land based units that have not received a
"no migration variance" 40 C.F.R..268.1(c)(2). In remediating
MGP sites, which are highly variable in size, there is frequent
need to temporarily stage the excavated soils for management,
including sampling and analysis. Such temporary staging, for
practical reasons, is managed by placing the soils in bermed,
lined areas, which are covered preclude the migration of
contaminants off site. Temporary staging may also be required
if the soil is decharacterized on site prior to another
treatment technology at an off-site location. PSE&G, from
practical experience, recognizes the flexibility of various
management scenarios is important at MGP sites. We believe that
temporary storage (i.e., less than 60 days) of MGP soils in
bermed, lined areas, and covered, represents an adequate storage
practice for preventing the migration of hazardous constituents.
We believe mandatory storage of MGP soils in a tank or
container, or construction of concrete slabs for soil staging,
would unnecessarily add to the cost of a remediation which may
be a limiting factor in a cost-effective remediation strategy.
If EPA continues in its intention to impose LDR's on MGP soils,
PSE&G requests the Agency to consider the added burden of the
LDR storage requirements on the quantity of soils managed and
58
-------
issue guidance that supports the temporary staging of MGP soils
in bermed, lined units qualifies for a "no migration variance".
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for soils,
including soils contaminated with MGP wastes. The soil-specific standards adopt the approach
advocated by the commenter: the higher of 90% reduction of hazardous constituent
concentrations or 10 times the universal treatment standard. EPA believes these standards are
achievable. The supporting data for these standards are based on the performance of non-
combustion technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination,
soil washing, thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). EPA
notes that organics in soil also can be treated via combustion to satisfy the soil-specific treatment
standards if an owner/operator desires. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April 1998,
USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment
standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling) as treatment standards
rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers practices such as using
hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the ground to be use constituting
disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20, which states that recyclable
materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical means, and the products
meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final product. Given that the end
disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency believes that the treatment
standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment technologies are needed to
assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is minimized. Also, EPA does not see
the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with other types of remediation remedies.
For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain subject to the UTS, not the soil-specific
treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use constituting disposal. Therefore, EPA
believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such practices as treatment standards, since to
do so would remove the assurance provided by numerical treatment standards that treatment
reflecting best demonstrated available technology has taken place.
Regarding the application of the land disposal restrictions to staging piles, as the Agency
has noted in the 1996 HWIR-Media proposal, land disposal restrictions attach at the point that
any given waste (or contaminated media) is generated and continue to apply until threats to
human health and the environment are minimized. Therefore, in the case of contaminated media
that is considered hazardous at its point of generation, e.g., because it exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste, the LDRs have attached and LDR treatment standards must be met prior to land
disposal. Under current regulations, placement of waste in a waste pile is considered a form of
land disposal. Note that there are a number of types of RCRA units which are not land disposal
units. For example, materials could be staged in a corrective action management unit without
59
-------
triggering a duty to first comply with LDRs. Similarly, contaminated soils that are never
"generated" for purposes of the land disposal restrictions are not subject to LDRs. For example,
if contaminated soils were decharacterized in situ, within an area of contamination, and then
staged in that same area of contamination, LDRs would generally not be triggered. This issue of
LDR applicability to contaminated soils is discussed in detail in the preamble to today's final
rule.
DCN PH4A026
COMMENTER Jersey Central Power and
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 026
COMMENT
The following comments on the subject proposed regulation are submitted by Jersey Central
Power & Light Company (JCP&L). JCP&L is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities
Corporation, an investor-owned electric utility headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.
JCP&L serves an area which encompasses approximately 43% of the State of New Jersey, with
an estimated population of two million people. JCP&L is currently involved in various phases of
investigation/remediation of 18 former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites located throughout
the State of New Jersey. JCP&L is committed to complying with all environmental laws and
regulations, and as a corporate policy, to comment on proposed regulations, legislation, and
policies that could affect our ongoing environmental compliance and remediation activities.
EPA SHOULD DEFER IMPOSING THE LDRs ON MGP REMEDIATION WASTES
PENDING COMPLETION OF THE HWIR REMEDIATION WASTES RULEMAKTNG
JCP&L strongly urges the EPA to defer imposition of the RCRA and
disposal restrictions (LDRs) on MGP remediation wastes until the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), which will address
the regulation of contaminated media, is completed. The EPA has
acknowledged in the HWIR media rulemaking discussions that RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, including the LDRs, are often
inappropriate when applied to contaminated media generated
during a remediation. This acknowledgment is clearly applicable
to MGP remediation wastes, and to apply LDRs to MGP remediation
wastes prior to the conclusion of the HWIR contaminated media
rulemaking is counterproductive and unnecessary. 2.2.1 EPA
SHOULD CLARIFY THAT ITS PROPOSED NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE
60
-------
BEVILL COPROCESSING EXEMPTION APPLIES ONLY TO WASTES MANAGED IN
LAND BASED MINERAL PROCESSING UNITS
A commonly used remediation
strategy for MGP sites is the decharacterization of MGP
remediation wastes which exhibit a hazardous characteristic,
followed by combustion of the coal and MGP waste mixture in a
coal fired utility boiler. This strategy was developed jointly
by an EPA work group and the Edison Electric Institute, which
JCP&L is a member. At 61 Fed. Reg. 2351, the EPA proposes to
limit the Bevill exclusion for exempt mineral processing and
benefication UNITS that co-process hazardous waste to UNITS that
process at least 50 percent normal raw materials; and in which
the hazardous waste is being legitimately recycled. JCP&L
requests that the EPA confirm that this proposed
reinterpretation does not apply to the combustion of MGP waste
with coal in electric utility boilers and that residuals from
such co-combustion remains subject to the Bevill exclusion as
long as the boiler is burning at least 50 percent coal. As
written, the proposed rule does not provide a clear statement on
this issue and, as a result, a misinterpretation could occur.
EPA SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR MGP
REMEDIATION WASTES
JCP&L believes that a requirement to meet the
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for all MGP remediation
wastes would add significantly to the cost of managing MGP
wastes without any significant gain in environmental protection.
The increased cost that imposition of LDRs to MGP remediation
wastes will be a significant disincentive to conducting
voluntary cleanups of contaminated MGP sites. JCP&L believes
that the EPA has failed to consider the heterogeneity of MGP
remediation wastes, the majority of which is in the form of
contaminated soil. To alleviate this problem JCP&L requests the
EPA to defer imposition of the LDRs on MGP remediation wastes
pending completion of the HWIR contaminated media rulemaking, or
establish specified recycling and combustion technologies as
alternative treatment standards. JCP&L requests that EPA specify
thermal treatment in a utility boiler or thermal desorption
unit, and recycling in asphalt, brick or cement manufacture as
alternative treatment standards for MGP remediation waste. These
treatment options have been shown to be effective on MGP
61
-------
remediation wastes and in their designation as alternative
treatment standards will remove some of the impediments to
remediation which will otherwise result from the imposition of
LDRs on MGP remediation wastes.
EPA SHOULD ESTABLISH THAT CURRENT PRACTICES FOR THE SHORT TERM
STORAGE OF MGP REMEDIATION WASTES MEET THE EPAs NO MIGRATION
STANDARD
Typical short term temporary storage of MGP remediation wastes at a remediation
site is accomplished by placing the remediation wastes In a
bermed area (berm made of soil or lumber, typical) which is
covered with a 6 mil plastic liner. The remediation wastes are
then placed in the bermed area and covered with plastic. This
proves to be an effective methodology which prevents the
migration of hazardous constituents from the excavated materials
and is cost effective. JCP&L requests that EPA provide a
determination that the practices currently in use for the short
term temporary storage of MGP remediation wastes would be
acceptable and would readily quality for a no migration
variance. In conclusion, JCP&L urges the EPA to fully evaluate
our comments on the subject proposed rulemaking. In addition,
JCP&L fully endorses the comments on this proposal provided to
the EPA by the Utility Solid Waste Activity Group (USWAG) and
the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule does reflect
the HWIR media effort, as requested by the commenter). The soil-specific treatment standards
require 90% reduction of hazardous constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal
treatment standard, whichever is higher. EPA believes these standards are achievable. The
supporting data for these standards are based on the performance of non-combustion
technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination, soil washing,
thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that
organics in soil can be treated via combustion to satisfy today's soil-specific treatment standards.
See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April 1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA
believes these soil standards will remove the disincentives cited by the commenter. The Agency
believes that these soil-specific treatment standards will provide adequate flexibility and
62
-------
encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
The Agency's 1993 interpretative memorandum on MGP site remediations remains
unaffected by today's rule. The memorandum excludes from RCRA jurisdiction the ash that
results from burning MGP remediation wastes along with coal in utility boilers. These residuals
are considered to be covered by the Bevill Amendment because they result primarily from the
combustion of coal. As discussed in the memorandum, prior to burning MGP remediation waste,
the waste must be rendered non-hazardous before it leaves the generation site. The waste may be
decharacterized in 90-day tanks, containers, or containment buildings covered by 40 CFR
Section 262.34(a). Waste may be treated in such units during the 90-day accumulation period
without a permit, and if the waste thereafter no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic, any
further management if the waste would not be subject to Subtitle C regulations, with the possible
exception of LDR standards.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling) as treatment standards
rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers practices such as using
hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the ground to be use constituting
disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20, which states that recyclable
materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical means, and the products
meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final product. Given that the end
disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency believes that the treatment
standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment technologies are needed in
order to assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is minimized. Also, EPA does
not see the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with other types of remediation
remedies. For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain subject to the UTS, not the
soil-specific treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use constituting disposal.
Therefore, EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such practices as treatment
standards, since to do so would remove the assurance provided by numerical treatment standards
that treatment reflecting best demonstrated available technology has taken place.
Regarding the application of the land disposal restrictions to staging of decharacterized
MGP soil. As the Agency has noted in the 1996 HWIR-Media proposal, land disposal
restrictions attach at the point that any given waste (or contaminated media) is generated and
continue to apply until threats to human health and the environment are minimized. Therefore,
in the case of contaminated media that is considered hazardous at its point of generation, e.g.,
because it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the LDRs have attached and LDR
treatment standards must be met prior to land disposal. Under current regulations, placement of
waste in a waste pile is considered a form of land disposal. Note that there are a number of types
of RCRA units which are not land disposal units. For example, materials could be staged in a
corrective action management unit without triggering a duty to first comply with LDRs.
Similarly, contaminated soils that are never "generated" for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions are not subject to LDRs. For example, if contaminated soils were decharacterized in
63
-------
situ, within an area of contamination, and then staged in that same area of contamination, LDRs
would generally not be triggered. This issue of LDR applicability to contaminated soils is
discussed in detail in the preamble to today's final rule.
DCN PH4A028
COMMENTER South Carolina Electric &
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 028
COMMENT
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) appreciates this
opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed rule concerning land disposal restrictions.
SCE&G is the principal subsidiary of SCANA Corporation, an
energy-based holding company with 12 direct wholly owned
subsidiaries engaged in electric and natural gas utility
operations and other energy related businesses. SCE&G provides
electric and natural gas service in the central and southern
parts of South Carolina. The company's generating facilities
include six fossil plants, six hydroelectric plants including
one pumped storage, one nuclear plant, and 17 internal
combustion (natural gas) turbines. The company provides
electric service to approximately 484,000 customers in a service
area that extends into 24 of South Carolina's 46 counties and
covers more than 15,000 square miles in the central, southern
and southwestern portions of the state. SCE&G respectfully
submits the following comments in response to EPA's request for
comments on its supplemental proposal to the Phase IV Rule
relative to Land Disposal Restrictions. Our comments result
from the potential adverse impact of EPA's proposed rulemaking
on the remediation of former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) sites.
EPA should clarify that its proposed new interpretation of the
Bevill co-processing exemption applies only to wastes managed in
land based mineral processing units. In order for utilities,
such as ourselves, to make use of the remediation strategy
developed jointly by an EPA work group and Edison Electric
Institute (EEI), the EPA must make clear that this proposed new
64
-------
interpretation is not intended to apply to the combustion of MGP
waste with coal in electric utility boilers and that the
residuals from such co-combustion remain subject to the Bevill
exclusion as long as the boiler is burning at least 50 percent
coal. Typically, the actual concentration of coal in the
co-burning process is about 95 percent or more. EPA should
develop alternative treatment standards for MGP remediation
wastes. Although EPA believes that MGP remediation wastes could
be treated to achieve Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for
the contained organic hazardous constituents, it is the electric
utility industry's experience that different technologies are
more appropriate for certain sites either because of the nature
or volume of the waste, or the site's location. Nonetheless,
these other technologies may minimize the potential threat of
the waste even though the residuals may not achieve the
technology-based UTS for all constituents of concern.
Therefore, UTS requirements for all MGP remediation wastes would
add significantly to the cost of managing the waste without any
significant gain in environmental protection. Additionally, this
increased cost would be a disincentive to voluntary cleanup
actions, and would impede the redevelopment of sites under
programs such as the Brownfields Initiative. To avoid these
problems, EPA is urged to either: 1. Defer imposition of the
LDR's on MGP remediation wastes pending completion of the HWIR
media rulemaking as requested above; 2. Establish specified
recycling and combustion technologies as alternative treatment
standards (preferred alternative as discussed below). EPA should
promulgate recycling in asphalt, brick, or cement manufacture,
combustion, and thermal desorption as alternative treatment
standards for MGP remediation wastes. These technologies have
been used by a number of utilities with well-documented success.
Establishing these technologies as alternative treatment
standards would allow the recycling of material or fuel values
in the MGP remediation wastes in ways that would not otherwise
be permissible under the LDRS. Moreover, the Agency's Superfund
Office is considering identifying these technologies as
presumptive strategies for MGP sites. It would be counter
productive for the Agency's RCRA Office to erect barriers to the
use of these environmentally sound technologies by imposing
treatment standards on MGP remediation wastes. EPA should
establish that current practices for the short term storage of
MGP remediation wastes meet the Agency's no migration standard.
Because of the quantity of contaminated material generated
65
-------
during a remediation, it is often impractical to store this
material in a tank or container. Therefore, application of LDR's
would create severe barriers to the remediation of contaminated
MGP sites by prohibiting the storage of wastes in land based
units that have not received a no migration variance.
Additionally, current practices by utilities at MGP sites should
satisfy the standard for a no migration variance without
requiring separate submittals from each site. 2.2.1 EPA should
clarify that its proposed new interpretation of the Bevill
co-processing exemption applies only to wastes managed in land
based mineral processing units. In order for utilities, such as
ourselves, to make use of the remediation strategy developed
jointly by an EPA work group and Edison Electric Institute
(EEI), the EPA must make clear that this proposed new
interpretation is not intended to apply to the combustion of MGP
waste with coal in electric utility boilers and that the
residuals from such co-combustion remain subject to the Bevill
exclusion as long as the boiler is burning at least 50 percent
coal. Typically, the actual concentration of coal in the
co-burning process is about 95 percent or more.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule does reflect
the HWIR media effort, as requested by the commenter). The soil-specific treatment standards
require 90% reduction of hazardous constituent concentrations or 10 tunes the universal
treatment standard. The Agency believes these standards are achievable. The supporting data for
these standards are based on the performance of non-combustion technologies, that include
biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination, soil washing, thermal desorption, soil
vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that organics in soil can (as the
commenter requested) be treated via combustion to satisfy today's soil-specific treatment
standards. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April 1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's
rule. This should remove the disincentives referred to in the comment. The Agency believes that
these soil-specific treatment standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of
contaminated sites.
The Agency's 1993 interpretative memorandum on MGP site remediations remains
unaffected by today's rule. The memorandum excludes from RCRA jurisdiction the ash that
results from burning MGP remediation wastes along with coal in utility boilers. These residuals
are considered to be covered by the Bevill Amendment because they result primarily from the
combustion of coal. As discussed in the memorandum, prior to burning MGP remediation waste,
66
-------
the waste must be rendered non-hazardous before it leaves the generation site. The waste may be
decharacterized in 90-day tanks, containers, or containment buildings covered by 40 CFR
Section 262.34(a). Waste may be treated in such units during the 90-day accumulation period
without a permit, and if the waste thereafter no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic, any
further management of the waste would not be subject to Subtitle C regulations, with the possible
exception of LDR standards.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling) as treatment standards
rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers practices such as using
hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the ground to be use constituting
disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20, which states that recyclable
materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical means, and the products
meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final product. Given that the end
disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency believes that the treatment
standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment technologies are needed in
order to assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is minimized. Also, EPA does
not see the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with other types of remediation
remedies. For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain subject to the UTS, not the
soil-specific treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use constituting disposal.
Therefore, EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such practices as treatment
standards, since to do so would remove the assurance provided by numerical treatment standards
that treatment reflecting best demonstrated available technology has taken place.
The commenter did not submit any data to support its request for a no migration variance.
Furthermore with regard to the application of the land disposal restrictions to staging of
decharacterized MGP soil. As the Agency has noted in the 1996 HWIR-Media proposal, land
disposal restrictions attach at the point that any given waste (or contaminated media) is generated
and continue to apply until threats to human health and the environment are minimized.
Therefore, in the case of contaminated media that is considered hazardous at its point of
generation, e.g., because it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the LDRs have attached
and LDR treatment standards must be met prior to land disposal. Under current regulations,
placement of waste in a waste pile is considered a form of land disposal. Note that there are a
number of types of RCRA units which are not land disposal units. For example, materials could
be staged in a corrective action management unit without triggering a duty to first comply with
LDRs. Similarly, contaminated soils that are never "generated" for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions are not subject to LDRs. For example, if contaminated soils were decharacterized in
situ, within an area of contamination, and then staged in that same area of contamination, LDRs
would generally not be triggered. This issue of LDR applicability to contaminated soils is
discussed in detail in the preamble to today's final rule.
67
-------
DCN PH4A050
COMMENTER New Jersey Natural Gas Co
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 050
COMMENT
We represent New Jersey Natural Gas Company ("NJNG") and on
behalf of NJNG, we are submitting the following comments with
respect to the Supplemental Phase IV Proposal. 1. Deferral of
LDR Regulation of MGP Wastes Pending HWIR NJNG recommends that
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") postpone the
imposition of the land disposal restrictions ("LDR") on
manufactured gas plant ("MGP") remedial wastes until completion
of the rulemaking under the proposed Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule ("HWIR") listed at 40 CFR Parts 260, 261,
266 and 268. Coverage under that rule may exclude MGP wastes
from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") Subtitle C
regulation and, thus, make moot the imposition of the LDRs on
MGP wastes at this time. Further imposition of the LDRs and MGP
wastes prior to the completion of the HWIR contaminated media
rulemaking is likely to lead to inconsistencies and result in a
waste of the EPA's and the public's resources, both human and
financial. Therefore, imposition of the LDRS on MGP wastes
should be deferred. 1. 2. LDR Treatment Standards for MGP Wastes
In the absence of a deferral of the imposition of the LDRs on
MGP wastes, NJNG recommends the development of alternate
treatment standards for such wastes. The proposed rule requires
that MGP wastes that exhibit a hazardous characteristic as
generated meet the LDR treatment standards prior to land
disposal even if the wastes are rendered non-hazardous. The
proposed rule requires that MGP wastes meet the Universal
Treatment Standards ("UTS"), listed at 40 CFR part 268.48, for
every constituent present in the waste as generated. The rules,
as proposed, may restrict the remedial treatment of MGP wastes'
organic constituents solely to combustion. The rules cannot be
considered practical if they result in eliminating or even
limiting the viability of alternatives other than combustion.
The availability of alternatives and the resulting competition
are major factors in lower overall costs of treatment. In this
regard, NJNG proposes that the EPA: A) define, in consultation
with utility representatives, a treatability group of
68
-------
characteristic wastes defined as "Manufactured Gas Plant Wastes"
and specify certain technologies as alternative treatment
standards; and B) develop alternative numerical standards for
contaminated soil. A. Technologies As Alternative Treatment
Standards The technologies specified as alternative treatment
standards should include, but not only utility boilers or
incineration, but should also include the following: I)
recycling through asphalt, cement, or brick production; and ii)
thermal desorption. Two points are worth noting in regard to
this proposal. First, the de-characterized MGP waste processed
in utility boilers is already currently recycled in various ways
and, thus, this proposal does not represent a departure from
current practice. Second, thermal desorption if properly
operated can achieve numerical standards and should be
recognized as a viable treatment option. Given the limited
number of combustion sites, a combustion-only standard would
increase not only cost, but the additional transportation and
handling would result in a substantial increase in risk. B.
Alternative Soil Standard With regard to the development of an
alternative soil standard, it clearly would be best if the EPA
postponed any rulemaking until the conclusion of the HWIR rules
which are being specifically developed to address the issue of
contaminated media. The EPA has previously acknowledged that
treatment standards applicable to "as generated" wastes are not
generally appropriate for contaminated soil. Although the EPA
has indicated that MGP soils could be dealt with by treatability
variances on a site-by-site basis, this will produce an undue
burden on individual companies and retard the remediation of the
sites. The EPA should develop, in consultation with utility
representatives, an alternative soil standard for MGP wastes
and, thus, enhance the expedience with which such sites are
remediated. There also needs to be a recognition by the EPA that
treatment should not be required for the natural background
levels in soils of metals and NJNG urges the EPA to insure that
reasonable and cost effective methods are allowed to determine
such background levels. Among the methods which should be
recognized are literature values, offsite sampling in the area
of the site, and a previous background investigation by another
party in the same area. These approaches would be consistent
with New Jersey's proposed amendments to the technical
requirements for site remediation, NJAC 7:26E, set forth at 28
N.J.R. 1098 et seq. C. Alternative Treatment Standards NJNG
believes that the development of the above alternative treatment
69
-------
standards is justified for at least three reasons. First, the
enormous costs resulting from the incineration of large volumes
of soil is disproportionate and is completely unjustified based
upon the modest level of risk reduction which might result.
Further, the financial burden which such a requirement would
impose would present an economic disincentive and would
discourage, rather than encourage, the active remediation of MGP
sites. This is contrary to previous initiatives promulgated by
the EPA, such as Brownfields and presumptive remedies, which
were designed to provide incentives, flexibility and timeliness
for companies remediating sites. Second, the suggested
technologies are currently being considered as presumptive
strategies for MGP sites by the EPA's Superfund Office. Third,
as noted above, although the EPA has recognized that
contaminated soils frequently cannot meet the treatment
standards established for other materials which came under
regulation by the same waste treatment rules and is willing to
issue treatability variances, such a case-by-case approach is
extremely burdensome both for the EPA and the public. 3.
Capacity Variance Even if the EPA determines that there is
adequate treatment capacity for the volume of waste that would
require additional treatment to meet LDR treatment standards,
such capacity would not necessarily be available in many
geographic areas and transportation costs could be significant.
Treatment costs would, therefore, be increased not only as a
result of the absence of alternative methods of treatment, but
also the increased cost of transportation and handling. The EPA
should, therefore, delay the effective date of the LDR
requirements for MGP waste for at least an initial two years in
order to allow for both a general increase in capacity and the
availability of capacity in geographic areas currently lacking
such capacity. This would lessen the increased cost otherwise
associated with the imposition of the LDR requirements for MGP
waste. 4. Temporary Storage of MGP Waste It is NJNG's
understanding the EPA does not seek to prevent or unduly
restrict the temporary storage on-site of MGP waste during site
remediation. However, "land disposal" has been defined to
include the storage of waste in waste piles and such storage is
prohibited unless the waste meets LDR treatment standards. 40
CFR Section ~268.2(c). This requirement could present a
significant problem for the management of excavated MGP waste
generated during the remediation of such sites, which frequently
are in large quantities, since storage in tanks, containers or
70
-------
containment buildings is impractical. 5. Multiple Shipments of
Waste Multiple shipments of waste from a single site to the same
receiving facility should require only a single notification.
This would avoid additional unnecessary paper work and cost,
while not presenting any additional public risk. 11.1.1.2.1 6.
Regulatory Impact Even though it may be difficult to presently
quantify the additional costs entailed, the imposition of the
LDRs on MGP wastes, in particular a combustion-only standard,
will clearly increase the costs of remediating MGP sites. It
has been NJNG's own experience that thermal treatment such as
utility co-boiling and thermal desorption are generally forty to
sixty percent more expensive than disposal in hazardous waste
landfills. NJNG is not aware of any documentation that any
significant increased costs, let alone increased costs of that
magnitude, is justified by a potential reduction in risk to the
public since such a reduction in risk would be either minor or
nonexistent. NJNG suggests that the EPA uniformly enforce waste
handling practices for contaminated soil under this Rule
regardless of the size or type of the ultimate waste
disposal/recycling facility.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule does reflect
the HWIR media effort, as requested by the commenter). The soil-specific treatment standards
require 90% reduction of hazardous constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal
treatment standard, whichever is higher. EPA believes these standards are achievable. The
supporting data for these standards are based on the performance of non-combustion
technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination, soil washing,
thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that
organics in soil can (as the commenter requested) be treated via combustion to satisfy today's
soil-specific treatment standards. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April 1998, USEPA) in
this docket to today's rule. EPA believes these soil standards will remove the disincentives
referred to by the commenter. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment standards
will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
The Agency's 1993 interpretative memorandum on MGP site remediations remains
unaffected by today's rule. The memorandum excludes from RCRA jurisdiction the ash that
results from burning MGP remediation wastes along with coal in utility boilers. These residuals
are considered to be covered by the Bevill Amendment because they result primarily from the
combustion of coal. As discussed in the memorandum, prior to burning MGP remediation waste,
71
-------
the waste must be rendered non-hazardous before it leaves the generation site. The waste may be
decharacterized in 90-day tanks, containers, or containment buildings covered by 40 CFR
Section 262.34(a). Waste may be treated in such units during the 90-day accumulation period
without a permit, and if the waste thereafter no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic, any
further management of the waste would not be subject to Subtitle C regulations, with the possible
exception of LDR standards.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling) as treatment standards
rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers practices such as using
hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the ground to be use constituting
disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20, which states that recyclable
materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical means, and the products
meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final product. Given that the end
disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency believes that the treatment
standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment technologies are needed in
order to assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is minimized. Also, EPA does
not see the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with other types of remediation
remedies. For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain subject to the UTS, not the
soil-specific treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use constituting disposal.
Therefore, EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such practices as treatment
standards, since to do so would remove the assurance provided by numerical treatment standards
that treatment reflecting best demonstrated available technology has taken place.
Regarding the application of the land disposal restrictions to staging of decharacterized
MGP soil. As the Agency has noted in the 1996 HWIR-Media proposal, land disposal
restrictions attach at the point that any given waste (or contaminated media) is generated and
continue to apply until threats to human health and the environment are minimized. Therefore,
in the case of contaminated media that is considered hazardous at its point of generation, e.g.,
because it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the LDRs have attached and LDR
treatment standards must be met prior to land disposal. Under current regulations, placement of
waste in a waste pile is considered a form of land disposal. Note that there are a number of types
of RCRA units which are not land disposal units. For example, materials could be staged in a
corrective action management unit without triggering a duty to first comply with LDRs.
Similarly, contaminated soils that are never "generated" for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions are not subject to LDRs. For example, if contaminated soils were decharacterized in
situ, within an area of contamination, and then staged in that same area of contamination, LDRs
would generally not be triggered. This issue of LDR applicability to contaminated soils is
discussed in detail in the preamble to today's final rule
Finally, for response to the commenter's capacity issue see the capacity section of the
response to comments document.
72
-------
DCN PH4A050
COMMENTER New Jersey Natural Gas Co
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 050
COMMENT
We represent New Jersey Natural Gas Company ("NJNG") and on
behalf of NJNG, we are submitting the following comments with
respect to the Supplemental Phase IV Proposal. 1. Deferral of
LDR Regulation of MGP Wastes Pending HWIR NJNG recommends that
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") postpone the
imposition of the land disposal restrictions ("LDR") on
manufactured gas plant ("MGP") remedial wastes until completion
of the rulemaking under the proposed Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule ("HWIR") listed at 40 CFR Parts 260, 261,
266 and 268. Coverage under that rule may exclude MGP wastes
from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") Subtitle C
regulation and, thus, make moot the imposition of the LDRs on
MGP wastes at this time. Further imposition of the LDRs and MGP
wastes prior to the completion of the HWIR contaminated media
rulemaking is likely to lead to inconsistencies and result in a
waste of the EPA's and the public's resources, both human and
financial. Therefore, imposition of the LDRS on MGP wastes
should be deferred.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule does reflect
the HWIR media effort, as requested by the commenter). The soil-specific treatment standards
require 90% reduction of hazardous constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal
treatment standard, whichever is higher. EPA believes these standards are achievable. The
supporting data for these standards are based on the performance of non-combustion
technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination, soil washing,
thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that
organics in soil can be treated via combustion to satisfy today's soil-specific treatment standards.
See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April 1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA
believes these soil standards will remove the disincentives cited by the commenter. The Agency
believes that these soil-specific treatment standards will provide adequate flexibility and
encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
73
-------
DCN PH4A051
COMMENTER South Jersey Gas Company
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 051
COMMENT
We represent South Jersey Gas Company ("SJG") and on behalf of
SJG, we are submitting the following comments with respect to
the Supplemental Phase IV Proposal. 5.2.9 1. Deferral of LDR
Regulation of MGP Wastes Pending HWIR SJG recommends that the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") postpone the imposition
of the land disposal restrictions ("LDR") on manufactured gas
plant ("MGP") remedial wastes until completion of the rulemaking
under the proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule ("HWIR")
listed at 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 266 and 268. Coverage under
that rule may exclude MGP wastes from Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act ("RCRA") Subtitle C regulation and, thus, make moot
the imposition of the LDRs on MGP wastes at this time. Further
imposition of the LDRs and MGP wastes prior to the completion of
the HWIR contaminated media rulemaking is likely to lead to
inconsistencies and result in a waste of the EPA's and the
public's resources, both human and financial. Therefore,
imposition of the LDRs on MGP wastes should be deferred. 1.
Deferral of LDR Regulation of MGP Wastes Pending HWIR SJG
recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
postpone the imposition of the land disposal restrictions
("LDR") on manufactured gas plant ("MGP") remedial wastes until
completion of the rulemaking under the proposed Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule ("HWIR") listed at 40 CFR Parts 260, 261,
266 and 268. Coverage under that rule may exclude MGP wastes
from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") Subtitle C
regulation and, thus, make moot the imposition of the LDRs on
MGP wastes at this time. Further imposition of the LDRs and MGP
wastes prior to the completion of the HWIR contaminated media
rulemaking is likely to lead to inconsistencies and result in a
waste of the EPA's and the public's resources, both human and
financial. Therefore, imposition of the LDRs on MGP wastes
should be deferred. 2. LDR Treatment Standards for MGP Wastes In
the absence of a deferral of the imposition of the LDRs on MGP
wastes, SJG recommends the development of alternate treatment
standards for such wastes. The proposed rule requires that MGP
74
-------
wastes that exhibit a hazardous characteristic as generated meet
the LDR treatment standards prior to land disposal even if the
wastes are rendered non-hazardous. The proposed rule requires
that MGP wastes meet the Universal Treatment Standards ("UTS"),
listed at 40 CFR part 268.48, for every constituent present in
the waste as generated. The rules, as proposed, may restrict
the remedial treatment of MGP wastes' organic constituents
solely to combustion. The rules cannot be considered practical
if they result in eliminating or even limiting the viability of
alternatives other than combustion. The availability of
alternatives and the resulting competition are major factors in
lower overall costs of treatment. In this regard, SJG proposes
that the EPA: A) define, in consultation with industry
representatives, a treatability group of characteristic wastes
defined as "Manufactured Gas Plant Wastes" and specify certain
technologies as alternative treatment standards; and B) develop
alternative numerical standards for contaminated soil. A.
Technologies As Alternative Treatment Standards The technologies
specified as alternative treatment standards should include, but
not necessarily be limited to, the following: I) recycling
through asphalt, cement, or brick production; and ii) thermal
desorption. Two points are worth noting in regard to this
proposal. First, the de-characterized MGP waste processed in
utility boilers is already currently recycled in various ways
and, thus, this proposal does not represent a departure from
current practice. Second, thermal desorption if property
operated can achieve numerical standards and should be
recognized as a viable treatment option. Given the limited
number of combustion sites, a combustion-only standard would
increase not only cost, but the additional transportation and
handling would result in a substantial increase in risk. B.
Alternative Soil Standard With regard to the development of an
alternative soil standard, it clearly would be best if the EPA
postponed any rulemaking until the conclusion of the HWIR rules
which are being specifically developed to address the issue of
contaminated media. The EPA has previously acknowledged that
treatment standards applicable to "as generated" wastes are not
generally appropriate for contaminated soil. Although the EPA
has indicated that MGP soils could be dealt with by treatability
variances on a site-by-site basis, this will produce an undue
burden on individual companies and retard the remediation of the
sites. The EPA should develop, in consultation with industry
representatives, an alternative soil standard for MGP wastes
75
-------
and, thus, enhance the expedience with which such sites are
remediated. C. Alternative Treatment Standards SJG believes
that the development of the above alternative treatment
standards is justified for at least three reasons. First, the
enormous costs resulting from the incineration of large volumes
of soil is disproportionate and is completely unjustified based
upon the modest level of risk reduction which might result.
Further, the financial burden which such a requirement would
impose would present an economic disincentive and would
discourage, rather than encourage, the active remediation of MGP
sites. Second, the suggested technologies are in the process of
consideration as presumptive strategies for MGP sites by the
EPA's Superfund Office. Third, as noted above, although the EPA
has recognized that contaminated soils frequently cannot meet
the treatment standards established for other materials which
came under regulation by the same waste treatment rules and is
willing to issue treatability variances, such a case-by-case
approach is extremely burdensome both for the EPA and the
public. 6.1.6 3. Capacily Variance Even if the EPA determines
that there is adequate treatment capacity for the volume of
waste that would require additional treatment to meet LDR
treatment standards, such capacity would not necessarily be
available in many geographic areas and transportation costs
could be significant. Treatment costs would, therefore, be
increased not only as a result of the absence of alternative
methods of treatment, but also the increased cost of
transportation and handling. The EPA should, therefore, delay
the effective date of the LDR requirements for MGP waste for at
least an initial two years in order to allow for both a general
increase in capacity and the availability of capacity in
geographic areas currently lacking such capacity. This would
lessen the increased cost otherwise associated with the
imposition of the LDR requirements for MGP waste. 11.1.1.2.1 4.
Regulatory Impact Even though it may be difficult to presently
quantify the additional costs entailed, the imposition of the
LDRs on MGP wastes, in particular a combustion-only standard,
will clearly increase the costs of remediating MGP sites. Such
additional costs are not justified by a potential reduction in
risk to the public since such a reduction in risk would be
either minor or nonexistent.
RESPONSE
76
-------
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule does reflect
the HWIR media effort, as requested by the commenter). The soil-specific treatment standards
require 90% reduction of hazardous constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal
treatment standard, whichever is higher. EPA believes these standards are achievable. The
supporting data for these standards are based on the performance of non-combustion
technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination, soil washing,
thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). These non-
combustion technologies are capable of treating soils contaminated with hard-to-treat organic
hazardous constituents, such as dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polynuclear
aromatics to today's soil-specific levels. EPA notes that organics in soil can be treated via
combustion to satisfy today's soil-specific treatment standards. See Soil Treatability Analysis
Report (April 1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA believes these soil standards will
remove the disincentives cited by the commenter. The Agency believes that these soil-specific
treatment standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated
sites.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling) as treatment standards
rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers practices such as using
hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the ground to be use constituting
disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20, which states that recyclable
materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical means, and the products
meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final product. Given that the end
disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency believes that the treatment
standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment technologies are needed in
order to assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is minimized. Also, EPA does
not see the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with other types of remediation
remedies. For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain subject to the UTS, not the
soil-specific treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use constituting disposal.
Therefore, EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such practices as treatment
standards, since to do so would remove the assurance provided by numerical treatment standards
that treatment reflecting best demonstrated available technology has taken place.
Finally, for response to the commenter's capacity issue see the capacity section of the
response to comments document.
DCN PH4A056
COMMENTER Utility Solid Waste Activ
RESPONDER RC
77
-------
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 056
COMMENT
Second, this proposal would impose the LDRs on wastes generated
during the management of historic manufactured gas plant ("MGP")
sites. US WAG is concerned that the application of the LDRs
to these wastes, without taking into account the special
difficulties associated with remediation wastes, will
substantially impede the ability of utilities to manage and
redevelop sites containing these wastes.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule reflects the
HWIR media effort). The soil-specific treatment standards require 90% reduction of hazardous
constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal treatment standard, whichever is higher.
EPA believes these standards are achievable. The data supporting these standards are based on
the performance of non-combustion technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical
extraction, dechlorination, soil washing, thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and
stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that organics in soil can be treated via combustion to
satisfy today's soil-specific treatment standards. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April
1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA believes these soil standards will remove the
disincentives referred to in the comment. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment
standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
DCN PH4A056
COMMENTER Utility Solid Waste Activ
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
78
-------
SUBJNUM 056
COMMENT
111. EPA SHOULD DEFER IMPOSITION OF THE LDRS ON MGP
REMEDIATION WASTES PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE HWIR MEDIA
RULEMAKING.
Unlike the other mineral processing wastes addressed
by this proposal, MGP remediation wastes are not being
generated by an ongoing industrial process, but are instead
generated entirely from the remediation of historic sites. As
a result, most of the MGP remediation wastes that would become
subject to the LDRs under this proposal are contaminated media,
particularly contaminated soil. However, the Agency is
comprehensively addressing the regulation of contaminated media
in the recently proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
("HWIR"), and, because most MGP remediation wastes are
contaminated media, they may qualify for the special management
options for contaminated media proposed in that rulemaking.
Therefore, the LDR standard for MGP remediation wastes
proposed in this rulemaking may soon be superseded. It would
be a waste of time and resources for both the Agency and the
electric utility industry to develop LDR standards for MGP
remediation wastes when these standards are likely to be
superseded by HWIR. Accordingly, USWAG urges the Agency to
defer imposition of the LDRs on MGP remediation wastes until
it completes the HWIR media rulemaking. In undertaking the
HWIR media rulemaking the Agency acknowledged that the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, including the LDR S, are often
inappropriate when applied to contaminated media generated
during a remediation due both to the nature of the waste and to
the circumstances of the remedial process itself. E.g., 58 Fed.
Reg. 8658, 8660 (Feb. 16,1993) ("EPA has found that Subtitle C
requirements when applied to remediation wastes, can act as a
disincentive to more protective remedies, and can limit the
flexibility of a regulatory decision maker in choosing the most
practicable remedy at a specific site.") This reasoning is
clearly applicable to MGP remediation wastes. While a small
percentage of MGP remediation wastes exhibit the toxicity
characteristic, because these wastes are primarily contaminated
soil they differ substantially in form from the process wastes
upon which the LDR treatment standards are based. Imposing
process waste LDR treatment standards on MGP remediation
79
-------
wastes, along with the administrative requirements associated
with the LDRS, will increase the cost of remediation without
significantly enhancing environmental protection. The net
effect will be to discourage voluntary action to address such
contaminated sites, which, in turn, will impede the ability of
the site to be redeveloped under such programs as the
Brownfields initiative. The Agency has recognized the problems
caused by Subtitle C regulation of remediation wastes and is
attempting to address them through the HWIR process. Imposing
the LDRs on MGP remediation wastes will merely exacerbate
these problems, and therefore, USWAG urges the Agency to defer
imposition of the LDRs on MGP remediation wastes until it
completes the HWIR rulemaking.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule reflects the
HWIR media effort). The soil-specific treatment standards require 90% reduction of hazardous
constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal treatment standard, whichever is higher.
EPA believes these standards are achievable. The data supporting these standards are based on
the performance of non-combustion technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical
extraction, dechlorination, soil washing, thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and
stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that organics in soil can be treated via combustion to
satisfy today's soil-specific treatment standards. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April
1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA believes these soil standards will remove the
impediments cited by the commenter. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment
standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
DCN PH4A056
COMMENTER Utility Solid Waste Activ
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 056
COMMENT
IV. THE AGENCY SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR MGP REMEDIATION WASTES.
Although the co-combustion strategy
80
-------
for MGP wastes and coal is an attractive and cost-effective
option for managing MGP wastes generated at remediation sites,
it is not a practical option for all utilities responsible for
MGP site management. First, the technical feasibility of this
option often depends on boiler design; some coal-burning
utilities are not equipped with boilers capable of burning
mixtures of coal and coal tar materials. Second, some electric
utilities responsible for MGP sites are not coal burning
utilities, and these companies cannot avail themselves of the
co-combustion strategy. Third, as a practical matter, the gas
industry is also unable to employ this strategy unless the gas
utility is affiliated with a coal burning electric utility, but
even such a corporate relationship cannot always overcome
transportation and other technical barriers to co-combustion.
There is an emerging commercial service provided by a New York
coal burning utility that accepts MGP materials for co-burning
from unaffiliated MGP remediation waste generators (including
gas utilities), but high transportation costs limit the
geographic area from which MGP wastes will be sent to a
co-burning power plant. It is evident, therefore, that some MGP
wastes will be affected by LDR requirements, and the applicable
treatment standards for MGP wastes remain an issue of great
concern to utilities. In the preamble to the Supplemental Phase
IV proposal, EPA recognizes that the proposed rule would subject
MGP remediation wastes to the LDR S, and the Agency states that
"EPA sees no reason that these wastes could not be treated to
achieve UTS for the contained organic hazardous constituents."
61 Fed. Reg. at 2360. Yet, the Agency has performed no analysis
of the treatability of MGP remediation wastes and has not
considered MGP remediation wastes in either its capacity
analysis or its Regulatory Impact Analysis. (While the Agency's
background documents refer to coal gasification wastes, they, in
fact, analyze only one aqueous wastestream from a single
currently operating coal gasification plant and do not consider
the much larger volume of wastes from the remediation of
historic MGP sites.) The electric utility industry's
experience with the remediation of MGP sites has demonstrated
that, while combustion technologies may be appropriate for the
management of certain wastes at certain sites, in other
circumstances different technologies may be more appropriate,
either because of the nature of the waste or the site's
location. At these sites, other technologies may "minimize the
threat" posed by the waste (when factors such as transportation
81
-------
risks are included) even though the residuals may not achieve
the technology-based UTS for all constituents of concern. In
some cases the inability to achieve the UTS results from
constituents derived from sources other than the MGP
remediation wastes themselves (such as background levels of
certain constituents in the soil). The heterogeneity of MGP
remediation wastes arises from the fact that they are not being
produced in an ongoing industrial process but instead are being
generated today solely through the remediation of contaminated
sites. As a result, while some of the wastes generated during a
remediation are relatively "pure" wastes, (e.g.., coal tars),
most of the waste generated at a site is in the form of
contaminated soil and other environmental media. Accordingly,
USWAG believes that a requirement to meet the UTS standards for
all MGP remediation wastes would, at least in some cases, add
significantly to the cost of managing the waste without any
significant gain in environmental protection. Indeed, this
increased cost could be a significant disincentive to voluntary
action to address contaminated sites, thereby impeding the
redevelopment of the site under programs such as the Brownfields
initiative. To alleviate these problems, USWAG urges EPA to
either: (1) defer imposition of the LDRs on MGP
remediation wastes pending completion of the HWIR media
rulemaking, as discussed in section III supra; (2) establish
alternative numerical standards for MGP remediation wastes as
proposed for contaminated soil in the Phase 11 rulemaking and
the recently signed HWIR media proposal; or (3) establish
specified recycling and combustion technologies as alternative
treatment standards.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for hazardous
contaminated soils, including MGP soils. The soil-specific standards were initially proposed in
1993 and reproposed in the April 29, 1996 HWIR media rule (so that this final rule reflects the
HWIR media effort). The soil-specific treatment standards require 90% reduction of hazardous
constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal treatment standard, whichever is higher.
EPA believes these standards are achievable. The data supporting these standards are based on
the performance of non-combustion technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical
extraction, dechlorination, soil washing, thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and
stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that organics in soil can be treated via combustion to
satisfy today's soil-specific treatment standards. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April
82
-------
1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA believes these soil standards will remove the
impediments referred to in the comment. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment
standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling) as treatment standards
rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers practices such as using
hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the ground to be use constituting
disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20, which states that recyclable
materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical means, and the products
meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final product. Given that the end
disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency believes that the treatment
standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment technologies are needed in
order to assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is minimized. Also, EPA does
not see the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with other types of remediation
remedies. For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain subject to the UTS, not the
soil-specific treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use constituting disposal.
Therefore, EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such practices as treatment
standards, since to do so would remove the assurance provided by numerical treatment standards
that treatment reflecting best demonstrated available technology has taken place.
DCN PH4A056
COMMENTER Utility Solid Waste Activ
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 056
COMMENT
USWAG provided several attachments providing information on MGP
remedial waste treatment technologies.
RESPONSE
The Agency has reviewed the information submitted by the commenter for the final
Phase IV rule, and thanks the commenter for providing the information.
83
-------
DCN PH4A056
COMMENTER Utility Solid Waste Activ
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 056
COMMENT
A. The Agency Should Develop Alternative Numerical
Treatment Standards for MGP Remediation Wastes In the LDR Phase
11 proposal, EPA acknowledged that the treatment standards
applicable to "as generated" wastes are generally not
appropriate for contaminated soil. 58 Fed. Reg. 48092, 48122-27
(Sept. 14 , 1993). EPA, therefore, proposed three alternative
methods for establishing treatment standards for hazardous
soils: 1) The level at which 90% of the constituents of
concern had been treated, with a floor of the UTS and a ceiling
often times the UTS; 2) Ten times the UTS with no
percentage treatment requirement; 3) The higher of the UTS or
the 90% treatment level. at 48122-33. The Agency deferred
acting on this proposal because of the pendency of the HWIR
media rulemaking (as it should defer imposition of the LDRs on
MGP waste). 59 Fed. Reg. 47980, 47985-86 (Sept. 19, 1994).
However, the Agency has continued to acknowledge that the
treatment standards for as generated wastes are generally not
appropriate for contaminated media and that such wastes are
presumptively eligible for a treatability variance. The same
rationale applies to MGP remediation wastes. Those MGP
remediation wastes that are hazardous waste are generally
hazardous because they exhibit the toxicity characteristic for
benzene, the treatment standard for which is based on
incineration. However, the Agency has recognized that the
incineration of large quantities of contaminated soil is neither
environmentally nor economically desirable. 58 Fed. Reg. at
48124 ('the technology-based soil standards thus should not be
based exclusively on incineration... Innovative technologies are
particularly appropriate to treat the large volumes of low and
moderately contaminated soil.") Moreover, the Agency has
established a presumption that contaminated soils are eligible
for a treatability variance. 59 Fed. Reg. at 47985-86.
Therefore, under the Agency's policy, MGP remediation wastes
are presumptively eligible for site-by-site treatability
variances. Given that there are more than 1500 MGP sites, it
84
-------
would be an imprudent waste of both EPA's and the utility
industry's resources to go through the process of obtaining a
variance for each site at which MGP remediation wastes are
generated. It would be more efficient for both the Agency and
the affected utilities to establish an alternative set of
treatment standards by rule that would apply to all MGP sites.
Of the three options in the Phase 11 proposal, US WAG believes
that the third option (ie., the higher often times the UTS or
a 90% concentration reduction) is the most appropriate approach
because it gives utilities the greatest flexibility. This is
also the approach that EPA has taken in the HWIR proposal. By
requiring significant reductions in the level of contaminants
such a standard provides ample protection of human health and
the environment while the alternative ceiling prevents
difficulties with wastes that are just above the concentration
threshold and may not be able to achieve a 90% reduction.
RESPONSE
In the Phase IV LDR final rule, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for soils,
including soils contaminated with MGP wastes. The soil-specific standards adopt the approach
advocated by the commenter: the higher of 90% reduction of hazardous constituent
concentrations or 10 times the universal treatment standard. EPA believes these standards are
achievable. The data supporting these standards are based on the performance of non-
combustion technologies, that include biological treatment, chemical extraction, dechlorination,
soil washing, thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and stabilization (only for metals). EPA
notes that organics in soil also can be treated via combustion to satisfy the soil-specific treatment
standards if an owner/operator desires. See Soil Treatability Analysis Report (April 1998,
USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment
standards will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
DCN PH4A056
85
-------
COMMENTER Utility Solid Waste Activ
RESPONDER RC
SUBJECT MGP
SUBJNUM 056
COMMENT
B.The Agency Should Specify Treatment Technologies as
Alternative Treatment Standards for MGP Remediation Wastes,
RCRA authorizes EPA to specify either levels or methods of
treatment as the treatment standard for a given waste. RCRA
3004(m), 42 U.S.C. 6924(m). If a treatment method is
specified as the standard, treatment of the waste with the
method constitutes compliance with the LDRs and there is no
need to analyze the treatment residual for compliance with any
numerical treatment standard. 40 C.F.R. 268.40(a)(3). EPA
has established treatment methods as the treatment standard when
it sought to encourage recycling of a particular waste stream or
where the performance of a method for a particular waste stream
is well established and there is no need to analyze the
residuals on a case-by-case basis. See, ea., 55 Fed. Reg.
22520 , 22570 (June 1, 1990) (preference for treatment standards
based on recovery); 54 Fed. Reg. 48372 , 48457 (Nov. 22, 1989)
(establishing high temperature metals recovery as treatment
standard because it furthers statutory goals of recycling and
materials recovery). USWAG believes that EPA should establish
several technologies as alternative treatment standards for MGP
remediation wastes. Establishing these technologies as
alternative treatment standards would allow the recycling of
material or fuel values in the MGP remediation wastes in ways
that would not otherwise be permissible under the LDRs either
because the level of hazardous constituents in the recycled
products without the use of MGP remediation wastes exceeds the
UTS or because analysis of the residues is impracticable.
Specifically USWAG requests that the Agency identify recycling
in asphalt, brick or cement manufacture as alternative treatment
standards and thermal treatment in a utility boiler or thermal
desorption unit as additional options. Those methodologies have
been proven effective on MGP remediation wastes and their
establishment as alternative treatment standards will remove
some of the barriers to remediation of these sites otherwise
created by imposition of the LDRs on MGP remediation wastes. I
, Recycling in Asphalt, Brick, or Cement Manufacture. The
86
-------
recycling of MGP waste into asphalt, brick or cement is a
remediation strategy that has been used by a number of
utilities. The soil and other solid material in the MGP
remediation wastes substitute for the normal raw material in
these products while the organic constituents of concern are
either bound up in the product or destroyed in the manufacturing
process. These options would be foreclosed if compliance with
the UTS is the sole treatment standard either because the
products, as produced without the use of MGP remediation
wastes, contain hazardous constituents above the UTS, or
because testing is impracticable given the nature of the
commercial process. Therefore, in order to preserve these
valuable treatment options, the Agency should designate them as
an alternative treatment standard. Moreover, the Agency's
Superfund Office is considering identifying these technologies
as presumptive strategies for MGP sites. It would be
counterproductive for the Agency's RCRA Office to erect
barriers to the use of these environmentally sound technologies
by imposing numerical treatment standards on MGP remediation
wastes. Asphalt has become the common name for bituminous
concrete, a material consisting of sand and aggregate and a
liquid hydrocarbon. The liquid hydrocarbon is derived from the
distillation of petroleum and consists of such other chemicals
as aliphatics, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("MAHs"), and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs").0 MGP residuals
consisting primarily of MAHs and PAHs can be incorporated into
the asphalt production process and can partially replace the
liquid hydrocarbons and the aggregate in the mixture. 1
Once this step has occurred, the hydrocarbons and soils will be
chemically and physically bound with the asphalt product.2
Cold-mix asphalt is typically used as a sub-base for primary and
secondary roads and parking lots and is produced by mixing
aggregate with an asphalt-water emulsion at ambient temperature.
Cold-mix asphalt can be produced at the remediation site.3
Hot-mix asphalt, which is typically used in paving roads, is
produced by mixing hot aggregate and melted asphalt at up to 500
"F.4 Although hot mix plants are typically fixed locations and
MGP materials must be shipped to those plants for incorporation
into the production process (although often at closer proximity
to MGP sites than other treatment, storage and disposal
facilities), portable mixing plants can be located on-site if
sufficient volumes of soil to be processed make it cost effective
to do so. Production of hot-mix asphalt has been done both on a
87
-------
laboratory and field-scale basis. The MGP materials are first
heated in a thermal desorption unit before mixing with the
liquid hydrocarbon. Where strength of the product is the
primary specification, soil particle size becomes critical. In
such circumstances, soils that are primarily gravel and sand and
contain liftle silts and clay are the primary candidates for
recycling. These material requirements are not as strict in the
case of cold-mix asphalt. Soil with a broader grain size
distribution can be used due to the use of the material or areas
requiring less stringent structural specifications. Experience
with asphalt product manufactured with MGP residuals has shown
that the product strength compares favorably with product using
only virgin mixes. Hot-mix asphalt batching using MGP soils
has been successfully done by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,
Wisconsin Power & Light Company, and Duke Power. Niagara
Mohawk sent 12,000 tons of contaminated soil to a South Carolina
facility that treated the soils in a thermal desorption unit and
then incorporated them into, hot-mix asphalt. The Wisconsin
utility produced 50 tons of hot-mix asphalt that was used as
pavement at one of its power plant properties. A partial list
of hot-batch asphalt facilities includes: Southeastern Soil
Recovery, Payne and Dolan, Soil Safe, Inc., Kedesh, Inc., and
Mobile Facilities. Utilities that have successfully recycled
MGP soils in cold-mix asphalt production include Southern
California Edison Company, PacifiCorp, and Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation. This last company has recently completed an on-site
demonstration of the use of MGP soils in cold-mix batching
under the oversight of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. The report on this demonstration
will be made available to the Agency when it is completed. The
recycling of MGP residuals into bricks has been demonstrated as
an environmentally sound and cost effective remedy for MGP
sites that results in the recycling of contaminated soil, the
production of an economically viable product that meets ASTM
specifications for bricksS and the destruction of MGP
constituents due to high temperature firing for three to five
days . Bricks are produced from a "mud" consisting of powdered
shale, firing clay, sawdust and water. This combination is
compressed into brick molds that are first dried and then fired
in a kiln at temperatures of between 1600 and 2000 F.6 The MGP
residuals that can be used effectively in manufacturing brick in
lieu of natural materials are purifier box wastes (in lieu of
sawdust) that assist in the molding process and contaminated
88
-------
soil and sediment (in lieu of shale and clay). Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation has successfully used this remediation
strategy at its Gloversville, Rome and Harbor Point sites.
Emissions tests during the brick manufacturing process using
MGP materials showed no detectable BTEX compounds or cyanide in
the work areas. The final product met all usual ASTM brick
standards for strength, absorption, suction rate, and
efflorescence. The finished brick analysis showed no detectable
BTEX or PAH compounds and no detectable total cyanide. Sulfur
content was less than 0.05 percent.? Richland Molded Brick
Company of Richland, Ohio has successfully recycled MGP
residuals in the brick manufacturing process. This firm was
given a permit for processing MGP materials following testing
that was monitored by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
MGP residuals that can provide energy, calcium, aluminum, silica
or iron to cement processing operations are appropriate
materials for combustion in a cement kiln. Purifier box wastes
from MGP sites are candidates for this remedy because of their
high content of iron and limestone. The high temperatures in
cement kilns greater than 2700'F ~ are comparable to those in
utility boilers and commercial incinerators. 8 The destruction
efficiencies are greater than 99.99 percent. Cement kiln
processing is a proven technology that recycles contaminated
soil, produces an economically viable product, and destroys the
constituents present in MGP residuals. The soil residues
become chemically bound to the clinker and are incorporated into
the Portland cement. Several USWAG and EEI member companies
have successfully employed this strategy, including Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power Company, Iowa
Illinois Gas & Electric Company, and IBS Utilities. Cement
manufacturers that accept MGP residuals for processing in
cement kilns include Giant Resource Recovery Company, Inc.
(Harleysville, South Carolina), Heartland Cement Company
(independence, Kansas), Lafarge Corporation (Buffalo, Iowa),
and Continental Cement (Hannibal, Missouri). The inclusion of
cement kiln combustion as an alternative treatment standard for
MGP remediation wastes would make a proven cost-effective remedy
available for MGP residues throughout the country where site
conditions make excavation and combustion of the residuals the
strategy of choice.
89
-------
2. Thermal Treatment Technology
The Agency should also
designate combustion and thermal desorption as alternative
treatment standards. Because the hazardous wastes generated at
MGP sites are characteristic wastes, they may lawfully be
treated in a non-hazardous waste thermal treatment unit after
they have been decharacterized. Because the constituents of
concern for MGP remediation wastes are primarily organic, these
technologies provide an effective and cost effective management
method that, at a minimum, achieves the soil treatment standards
proposed in Phase 11 Because these technologies have been proven
effective in treating MGP remediation wastes, there is no need
to impose the burdensome and expensive LDR testing requirements
on residues from these processes, a. Combustion EPA has
designated a treatment method of CMBST as a treatment standard
or alternative treatment standard for a number of
organic-containing hazardous wastes including low TOC ignitable
wastes. 40 C.F.R. 268.40. The method includes high
temperature combustion in incinerators and boilers and
industrial furnaces. Because this technology is well suited to
the management of MGP remediation wastes, the Agency should
adopt this technology as an alternative treatment standard for
MGP remediation wastes. EPA and the electric utility industry
have developed a remediation strategy for MGP remediation
wastes that is based on the combustion of decharacterized MGP
remediation wastes in coal-fired electric utility boilers. Aft.
A. Because such boilers are included within the CMBST standard,
adoption of the standard is consistent with this prior
determination that combustion in these units is an
environmentally sound management method for MGP remediation
wastes.9 Moreover, adoption of the CMBST standard is consistent
with the Agency's determination that combustion is an
appropriate management method for MGP remediation wastes, for
which the primary constituents of concern are organic. Because
the boilers operate at such a high temperature (25000-3000 OF)
destruction of the constituents of concern is assured, and the
cost of implementation is far below that of commercial
incineration. MGP contaminated soils have been successfully
co-burned with coal in cyclone, stoker, and pulverized
coal-fired boilers.O MidAmerican Energy Company (formerly
Midwest Gas) is conducting a series of trial burns of MGP soils
from its Waterloo, Iowa, site (an NPL site) in, its pulverized
90
-------
coal-fired boiler in Sioux City, Iowa. The initial trial burn
was overseen by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and
later trial burns are being overseen by EPA Region VII.
Rochester Gas and Electric Company also has successfully burned
MGP soils and tar in a pulverized coal-fired boiler. Similar
successful combustion has been accomplished by New York State
Electric & Gas Corporation in a stoker boiler. Utilities that
have successfully employed this strategy at MGP sites using a
cyclone boiler include MidAmerican Energy Company (formerly
Midwest Gas), which co-processed MGP soils from the Peoples
Natural Gas site in Dubuque, Iowa, also an NPL site, Illinois
Power Company, Northern States Power Company, Duke Power, and
Northern Indiana Public Service Company. The use of utility
boilers to comply with LDR standards has the potential to
significantly expand the capacity available to mange MGP
remediation wastes. For example, New York State Electric and
Gas was one of the early coal-fired utilities to implement this
strategy for remediating its own MGP sites, and has since been
licensed by the State of New York to co-process MGP materials
at two coal-burning power generation stations near Binghamton,
New York, including MGP residuals sent to those power plants by
other companies remediating MGP sites. The MGP materials that
have been co-processed with coal include contaminated soils,
tars, and purifier wastes. The contaminated soils generally
represent approximately 2 to 5 percent of the fuel feed, while
tars represent between 1 and 2 percent of the feed, and purifier
wastes constitute between 1 and 2 percent of the feed. The waste
streams generated by the combustion process include fly ash,
boftom ash and off-gas. As noted earlier, EPA's Phase 11 RCRA
Bevill Amendment study of residues from the combustion of coal
and other fossil fuels will examine the environmental impacts,
if any, from co-burning nonhazardous remediation wastes with
coal, and EPA will make a regulatory determination by April
1998. See 58 Fed. Reg. at 42469. In the meantime, several of
the companies identified above have compared the composition of
these waste streams when generated from co-processing MGP soils
with coal and when generated from burning coal alone and have
found no significant change in the composition of the ash when
co-processing occurs and that gas concentrations were generally
reduced during the co-processing. Similarly, no change was
found in the composition of wastewaters generated at a power
plant that coprocesses MGP residuals and coal. EPRI has been
collaborating with many of these companies to collect and
91
-------
analyze data on the impacts of the co-burning process, and these
data will be furnished to EPA as part of the Phase 11 Bevill
study, b. Thermal Desorption EPA should also designate thermal
desorption as an alternative treatment standard. The Agency has
recognized that thermal desorption is an effective method for
managing contaminated soils. EPA's Engineering Bulletin on
Thermal Desorption Treatment describes thermal desorption as "an
ex situ means to physically separate volatile and some
semivolatile contaminants from soil, sediments, sludges, and
filter cakes. For wastes containing up to 1 0% organics or less,
thermal desorption can be used alone for site remediation."
EPA, Engineerina Bulletin: Ther-mal Desorption Treatment, EPA
/540/2-91/008, p. 1 (May 1991). The bulletin notes that
"[fjhermal desorption has been proven effective in treating
contaminated soils, sludges, and various filter cakes." Ibid.
Of particular significance is the statement in the Bulletin that
thermal desorption is applicable for the separation of organic
from several specified waste categories including coal tar
wastes. Ibid. This technology has been employed at numerous
MGP sites with the approval of EPA Regions and state regulatory
authorities. One particular advantage of this technology is
that it is often feasible to implement this remedy at the
remediation site. EPA itself has identified thermal desorption
as a presumptive remedy for CERC LA sites with VOC -contaminated
soil. @ EPA Directive No. 9355.0 -48FS. Several utilities,
including Northwestern Public Service and Southern California
Gas Company, have successfully employed thermal desorption at
MGP sites. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation conducted a field
demonstration on the use of thermal desorption in remediating
MGP sites under the oversight and testing by the EPA SITE
program. The EPA SITE Technology Capsule on this demonstration
is appended as Attachment B. Utility industry data show that
the concentration of volatile organics can be reduced by greater
than 99 percent using thermal desorption, leaving residual
concentration of less than 1 0 mg/kg. This treatment technology
will also achieve concentration reductions of PAHs of greater
than 95 percent, leaving residual concentrations of less than 10
mg/kg, and cyanide concentration reductions of greater than 90
percent. Thus the technology, at a minimum, meets the
aftemative treatment standards proposed for contaminated soil in
the Phase 11 rulemaking, and therefore should be designated as
an alternative treatment standard. See section IV.A, su pra.
92
-------
RESPONSE
EPA notes that the commenter evidently does not believe that combustion is not
necessarily an inappropriate method of treatment for these soils. Be that it may, today's finalized
soil-specific treatment standards are achievable by both non-combustion, i.e., thermal desorption,
and combustion technologies. Note, that these soil-specific standards are based, in part, on the
performance of thermal desorption. The soil-specific treatment standards require 90% reduction
of hazardous constituent concentrations or 10 times the universal treatment standard, whichever
is higher. EPA believes these standards are achievable. The data supporting these standards are
based on the performance of non-combustion technologies, that include biological treatment,
chemical extraction, dechlorination, soil washing, thermal desorption, soil vapor extraction, and
stabilization (only for metals). EPA notes that organics in soil also can be treated via combustion
to satisfy the soil-specific treatment standards if an owner/operator desires. See Soil Treatability
Analysis Report (April 1998, USEPA) in this docket to today's rule. EPA believes these soil
standards will remove the disincentives referred to in the comment. These numerical standards
provide more flexibility to the regulated community than a specified method treatment standard.
This is the case because any technology except impermissible dilution can be used to meet these
numerical concentration values. The Agency believes that these soil-specific treatment standards
will provide adequate flexibility and encourage cleanup of contaminated sites.
With respect to the issue of specified methods (e.g., recycling in asphalt, brick, and
cement) as treatment standards rather than numerical concentration values, the Agency considers
practices such as using hazardous wastes in asphalt, bricks, or cement that is placed on the
ground to be use constituting disposal. Such activities are regulated by 40 CFR part 266.20,
which states that recyclable materials are not subject to regulation only if they have undergone a
chemical reaction in the course of producing products so as to become inseparable by physical
means, and the products meet the LDRs for each hazardous constituent present in the final
product. Given that the end disposition of the material is completely uncontrolled, the Agency
believes that the treatment standards reflecting performance of the most aggressive treatment
technologies are needed in order to assure that threats posed by land disposal of the wastes is
minimized. Also, EPA does not see the same incentive to promote this end result as it does with
other types of remediation remedies. For these reasons, the contaminated soils would remain
subject to the UTS, not the soil-specific treatment standards, if the end disposition is to be a use
constituting disposal. Therefore, EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to designate such
practices as treatment standards, since to do so would remove the assurance provided by
numerical treatment standards that treatment reflecting best demonstrated available technology
has taken place.
The commenter cites that at one brick manufacturing facility the final product analysis
met the ASTM brick and standards. This would show that legitimate recycling is occurring (see
Marine Shale Processors v. United States EPA 81 F. 3d at 1384). However, since such ASTM
specifications do not address permissible concentrations of hazardous constituents, satisfying
such brick standards could not be reasonably invoked to show that threats to human health and
93
-------
the environment from land disposal are being minimized. If the commenter is correct and the
final product showed no detectable BTEX or PAH compounds or detectable cyanides then the
final product meets the UTS and thus, also the use constituting disposal regulations.
Finally, the Agency's 1993 interpretative memorandum on MGP site remediations
remains unaffected by today's rule. The memorandum excludes from RCRA jurisdiction the ash
that results from burning MGP remediation wastes along with coal in utility boilers. These
residuals are considered to be covered by the Bevill Amendment because they result primarily
from the combustion of coal. As discussed in the memorandum, prior to burning MGP
remediation waste, the waste must be rendered non-hazardous before it leaves the generation site.
The waste may be decharacterized in 90-day tanks, containers, or containment buildings covered
by 40 CFR Section 262.34(a). Waste may be treated in such units during the 90-day
accumulation period without a permit, and if the waste thereafter no longer exhibits a hazardous
characteristic, any further management of the waste would not be subject to Subtitle C
regulations, with the possible exception of LDR standards.
94
-------
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE IV
PROPOSAL, JANUARY 25,1996
DCN PH4A058
COMMENTER National Mining Association
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT MSTD
SUBJNUM 058
COMMENT
2. The UTS Must be Revised to Ensure that Treatment is not Required Beyond the Point at
which Wastes Containing those Constituents Cease to Pose an Unreasonable Risk to Human
Health and the Environment
In the proposed Phase II LDR rule, which resulted in the establishment
of the UTS, EPA explained its position concerning the
relationship between those standards and its efforts to redefine
what constitutes a "hazardous waste" in the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule ("HWIR") then under development. 58 Fed.
Reg. at 48,095. EPA reiterated its long-standing position that
"its ultimate policy preference is to establish risk-based
levels that represent minimize threat levels and so cap the
extent of hazardous waste treatment." Id. (55 Fed. Reg. 6640,
6641 (Feb. 26, 1990)). See also 51 Fed. Reg. 1602, 161 1.
(Jan. 14, 1986). EPA further noted that an issue under active
consideration in the HWIR discussions was the use of risk-based
hazardous constituent levels to "cap" BDAT in those instances
where technology is capable of achieving treatment levels below
what is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
58 Fed. Reg. at 48,095. On December 21,1995, EPA issued its
proposed HWIR rule. 60 Fed. Reg. 66,344. In that proposed
rule, the Agency has developed risk-based concentration exit
levels for numerous constituents, including many of the metals
for which UTS previously have been established. In some cases,
the risk-based exit level is greater than (i.e., less stringent
than) the existing UTS standard. For example, the calculated
HWIR risk-based concentration level for leachable lead in
non-wastewaters is 12 parts per million (ppm), which is an order
of i-nagnitude greater than the UTS for lead in non-wastewaters
of 0.37 ppm, and is even greater than the RCRA characteristic
level for leachable lead of 5 ppm. In the final Phase IV rule,
EPA must adjust the UTS standards to "cap" them by risk where
95
-------
the risk-based levels have been determined to be less stringent
than the UTS. A risk-based approach to the establishment of LDR
treatment standards is necessary to ensure "that EPA [not]
promulgate standards requiring treatment for treatment's sake."
51 Fed. Reg. at 161 1. Indeed', as the D.C. Circuit has noted,
EPA is not: free ... to require generators to treat their waste
beyond the point at which there is no "threat" to human health
or the environment. That Congress's concern in adopting °
3004(m) was with health and the environment would necessarily
make it unreasonable for EPA to promulgate treatment standards
wholly without regard to whether there might be a threat to man
or nature. Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F.2d
355, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1989). cert, denied, HIS. Ct. 139 (1989)
("HWTC III"). In that case, the Court of Appeals remanded to
EPA the so-called "LDR framework" rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 40,572
(Nov. 7, 198(i), in which the Agency decided to establish
treatment standards for restricted hazardous wastes based on
levels that are achievable using BOAT, rather than on risk-based
levels that are necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The Court held that EPA had failed to adequately
explain its choice of BDAT-based treatment standards over
risk-based treatment standards. HWTC III, 886 F.2d at 366. EPA
has acknowledged that, in light of HWTC III, "[i]t is now
established that section 3004(m) does not dictate that treatment
standards be either technology-based or risk-based." 55 Fed.
Reg. at 6641. The Agency to date has nevertheless declined to
establish risk-based treatment standards due to concerns about
the alleged inadequacy of existing tools for assessing the risks
that may be posed by wastes. Id. at 6642. EPA has
acknowledged, however, that the problems associated with
existing tools are "not insurmountable," and has stated that it
will continue to utilize a technology-based approach for
establishing treatment standards "until it develops
concentration thresholds for determining when wastes are
hazardous." Id. The HWIR rulemaking represents the culmination
of EPA's efforts to address perceived problems with existing
risk-assessment tools. That rulemaking will result in the
establishment of risk-based thresholds of hazardousness that EPA
has long envisioned for use in defining what wastes are
hazardous wastes for purposes of RCRA Subtitle C. Those
risk-based levels should, at a minimum, be used to "cap" BDAT
for purposes of the LDR program in those cases where BDAT can
achieve a level of treatment that surpasses the risk-based
96
-------
threshold.
RESPONSE
EPA finds, for purposes of this rule, that none of the treatment standards are established
below levels at which threats to human health and the environment are minimized. See 55 FR at
22652 (June 1, 1990); 51 FR at 21648 (June 13, 1986); 55 FR 11798 (March 29, 1990). This
finding stems from the Agency's inability at the present time to establish concentration levels for
hazardous constituents which represent levels at which threats to human health and the
environment are minimized. Unless the Agency determines nationally applicable risk-based
concentration levels that achieve the "minimized threat" requirement for a particular
wastestream, the Agency believes that BDAT treatment (as reflected by the UTS levels) fulfills
the statutory charge. Technology-based standards have been upheld as a permissible means of
implementing RCRA 3004(m) (see Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F.2d 345
D.C. Cir. 1989, cert, denied 11 IS. Ct 139 (1990). The approach of setting standards below the
characteristic level was upheld in Chemical Waste Management v. EPA (976 F.2d 2).
The schedule for the HWIR rulemaking is being extended to allow the Agency time to
address the substantive technical comments on the risk assessment by the Science Advisory
Board and others. Due to the court-order schedule for the Phase IV rule, it was not possible to
wait for the HWIR process to be complete before setting treatment standards on the Phase IV
wastes.
DCN PH4A070
COMMENTER FMC Corporation
RESPONDER SS
SUBJECT MISC
S.UBJNUM 070
COMMENT b. EPA Has Authority Under RCRA To Delay The Effective Dates Of
The Phase IV LDR And Phase IV Supplemental Rules. Subject to
court-approved schedules for developing the LDR and HWIR rules
(which can, of course, be changed with leave of court),3 EPA has
ample authority to establish a common effective date for the
Phase IV LDR and Phase IV Supplemental rules, and to delay that
effective date until after promulgation of the final HWIR rule.
First, the Phase IV LDR rule does not set-new treatment
standards or prohibitions which are subject to the immediate
effective date under RCRA 3004(h).4 RCRA 3004 (h) provides
that prohibitions from land disposal shall become effective
immediately upon promulgation, and RCRA 3004(m)(2) provides
that treatment standards are to become effective "on the same
date" as the corresponding prohibition. In the case of the
wastes addressed in the Phase IV LDR proposal, EPA has already
97
-------
promulgated the prohibition in the Third Third LDR rule .5
Furthermore, EPA has already promulgated currently applicable
treatment standards that apply to these wastes. 6 EPA has stated
clearly that treatment standards are currently in place for
these wastes, and that the Phase IV LDR rules will merely amend
these standards .7 Accordingly, it is not possible for the Phase
IV regulation to become effective on the same date as the
prohibitions to which they will correspond, because those
prohibitions occurred in the past. The statute does not say
that amendments to treatment standards must be effective
immediately, and there is no reason that they should be.8 In
fact, as noted above, EPA should ensure that the regulations do
not become effective until after the HWIR rule is finalized .9
Furthermore, the Phase IV LDR rules, if Option 2 is chosen,
would not be subject to the LDR timing requirements in 3004 at
all, because they would not be LDR rules. RCRA 3004(h) and
(m) refer to "prohibitions' and "treatment standards,"
respectively. The requirements that are contemplated in Option
2 of the Phase IV proposed rule are neither one. The proposed
requirements, addressing air emissions, sludges, and leaks from
CWA wastewater surface impoundments, would be neither
prohibitions from land disposal under RCRA 3004(d) through (g),
nor treatment standards pursuant to RCRA 3004(m). If there is
any authority in RCRA for such requirements, it does not come
from the LDR provisions.O The technical surface impoundment
requirements in Option 2 of the Phase IV proposal are clearly
not "prohibitions," because, as noted above, the hazardous
wastes involved are already prohibited from land disposal. The
proposed Option 2 requirements cannot be treatment standards,
because they are not "levels" or "methods" of treatment as set
out in 3004(m) of RCRA. The Option 2 requirements would not be
prohibitions or treatment standards, and thus are not subject to
the LDR timing requirements in RCRA 3004.1 The Phase IV
Supplemental rule will be a new prohibition and treatment
standard and, as such, is required to be effective within six
months of mineral processing wastes being listed or identified
.2 Because the relevant six month period has already expired,
the Agency clearly cannot comply with this requirement. As a
result, the Agency should promulgate the rule at a time that
makes sense from a policy perspective. In this case, that means
that the Agency should issue the Phase IV Supplemental with an
effective date after that of the HWIR rule. As noted above, EPA
has sufficient authority and discretion to promulgate all three
98
-------
of the rules described above in an order that prevents waste and
confusion. However, it should be added that EPA also has
authority to grant National Capacity Variances under RCRA _
3004(h)(2) for the Phase IV LDR and Phase IV Supplemental rules
so that the ultimate effective dates will fall after the
effective date of the HWIR.
RESPONSE
EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of close coordination on the decision-
making and scheduling of the LDR rules and the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
for process wastes. Since the comment was submitted to EPA, two events have occurred which
prevent the coordination problems the commenter foresaw. First, the sections of the Phase IV
original proposal on August 22, 1995 pertaining to equivalent treatment for decharacterized
wastewaters in surface impoundments (controls of leaks, sludges, and air emissions) were
removed from this rule due to the Land Disposal Flexibility Act of 1996. That Act reinstated the
exemption from the dilution prohibition for these wastes and required EPA to conduct a study to
determine if regulation is necessary. Second, the timetable on the HWIR rule has been extended
well beyond the required promulgation date of the Phase IV final rule, which removes concern
about implementation problems. The new treatment standards in the Phase IV final rule will go
into effect well before the complex work on the HWIR rule is complete. The HWIR provisions
are being developed in conjunction with the Land Disposal Restrictions rules.
DCN PH4A08
COMMENTER Molten Metal Technology
RESPONDER SS
SUBJECT MISC
SUBJNUM 080
COMMENT We also believe there is a need for greater coordination of
rulemaking activities to allow cross-fertilization of approaches
to encourage waste minimization. For example in light of the
Agency's attempts to promote recycling in this proposal and in
the petroleum rule, as well as the evolving and growing emphasis
on waste minimization in the Agency's recent policy statements,
we were surprised that the recent Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR) proposal contains virtually no mention of recycling,
let alone any direct incentives for waste ' minimization. We
believe the Agency may be neglecting waste minimization issues
in its ongoing rulemaking activities in anticipation of the
forthcoming proposal on the Redefinition of Solid Waste. While
that will no doubt be a seminal rulemaking, we do not believe
that important waste minimization issues can be ignored in the
meantime, or that rulemaking obviates the need for strong
99
-------
incentives for waste minimization in other rulemakings. In
comments on a variety of rulemakings over the past three years,
MMT has consistently recommended that the Agency take a
holistic, multimedia approach to environmental management. This
can be best accomplished by close coordination and integration
among those working on the various proposals, and working to
consistently include incentives for waste minimization in all
rulemaking activities.
RESPONSE
EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of waste minimization, and includes
incentives for it in rulemakings whenever possible.
100
-------
DCN PH4A042
COMMENTER Phosphorous Producers Environmental Council
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT VAND
SUBJNUM 042
COMMENT
These comments are submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency by the
Phosphorus Producers Environmental Council ("PPEC"). The PPEC consists of four companies:
FMC Corporation, Monsanto Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemical Company, and
Occidental Chemical Company. Collectively, these companies produce one hundred percent of
the elemental phosphorus manufactured in the United States. The PPEC welcomes this
opportunity to comment on the "Land Disposal Restrictions—Supplemental Proposal to Phase IV:
Clarification of Bevill Exclusion for Mining Wastes, Changes to the Definition of Solid Waste
for Mineral Processing Wastes, Treatment Standards for Characteristic Mineral Processing
Wastes, and Associated Issues, January 25, 1996."
Per the agency's request, I am submitting an original and two copies, along with a diskette
containing a Word Perfect 5.1+ version of the document. Please give me a call if you have any
questions.
X. Based upon the plain language of the CFR and proposed LDR
rules, the universal treatment standards for zinc and vanadium
are inapplicable to waste that is characteristic for cadmium
(D006). Generators of characteristic waste are directed by 40
CFR 268.9 to determine the "underlying hazardous constituents."
"Underlying hazardous constituents" are defined under
268.2(1), as: a constituent listed in 268.48 (UTS), except
vanadium and zinc which can reasonably be expected to be present
at the point of generation of the hazardous waste, at a
concentration above the constituent-specific UTS treatment
standards. Subsection 268.40(e) provides that for characteristic
wastes subject to (the 268.40) treatment standards, all
underlying hazardous constituents (as defined in 268.2(1)) must
meet the universal treatment standards ("UTS") (268.48) prior
to land disposal. However, the exclusion of zinc and vanadium is
again noted in footnote 5 to the UTS table, stating "vanadium
and zinc are not "underlying hazardous constituents" in
characteristic wastes, according to the definition at 268.2(1).
Based on the plain language, the UTS for zinc and vanadium do
not apply to characteristic waste which is otherwise subject to
101
-------
the UTS. Language in the Phase IV, Part II proposal to amend
268.32(e) has been identified a possible source of ambiguity
concerning this conclusion. It provides as follows: To determine
whether . . . [mineral processing operations waste] exceeds the
applicable treatment standards specified in 268.40, the
initial generator must test a sample of the waste ... If the
waste contains constituents (including underlying hazardous
constituents in characteristic wastes that have been diluted to
remove the characteristic) in excess of the applicable Universal
Treatment Standard levels of 268.48, the waste is prohibited
from land disposal, and all requirements of this part are
applicable ... (emphasis supplied). It has been suggested that
the use of the term "including" could indicate that constituents
other than the "underlying hazardous constituents" must meet the
UTS. However, as stated in the proposed regulation, the purpose
of the provision is to prescribe how to determine whether waste
exceeds applicable standards, not to define which standards
apply. Thus, the intent of the phrase commencing with
"including" is to require that even with respect to diluted
waste (which consequently no longer exhibits a characteristic)
underlying hazardous constituents must be measured and treated.
Zinc and vanadium are not underlying hazardous constituents in
characteristic waste.
RESPONSE
The Agency agrees with the commenter that vanadium and zinc are not UHCs in characteristic
wastes. Currently, vanadium is regulated in two listed wastes — PI 19 and PI20, and zinc is
regulated in K061 wastes. The Agency will clarify this in the Phase IV final rule.
DCN PH4A070
COMMENTER FMC Corporation
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT VAND
SUBJNUM 070
COMMENT a. EPA Needs To Delete Vanadium And Zinc From The UTS Table
In 40 C.F.R. 268,48, There is some confusion in the regulated
community on the status of Vanadium and Zinc regarding
Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHC's) and the Universal
Treatment Standards; (UTS). The regulations? clearly states that
Vanadium and Zinc are not UHC's but in the UTS treatment table58
102
-------
, both constituents clearly appear. This leads to some
contusion with the generating industry, the treatment and
disposal industries, as well as the regulating authorities.
FMC's interpretation of the regulations is that these two
substances are not UHC'S, and that the UTS levels listed for
these substances, therefore, do not need to be achieved. EPA
should confirm this interpretation in the final Phase IV LDR
rulemaking. FMC believes that to correct this problem, the
Agency should delete Vanadium and Zinc from the UTS table in the
40 C.F.R. 268.48.
RESPONSE
The Agency agrees with the commenter that vanadium and zinc are not UHCs in characteristic
wastes. Currently, vanadium is regulated in two listed wastes — PI 19 and PI20, and zinc is
regulated in K061 wastes. The Agency will clarify this in the Phase IV final rule.
DCN PH4A084
COMMENTER Chemical Manufacturers Association
RESPONDER ACC
SUBJECT VAND
SUBJNUM 084
COMMENT EPA needs to delete Vanadium and Zinc from the UTS Table in 40
103
-------
C.F.R. 268.48 There is some confusion in the regulated community
on the status of vanadium and zinc regarding Underlying
Hazardous Constituents (UHC's) and the Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS). The regulations clearly state that vanadium
and zinc are not UHC'S; however, both constituents clearly
appear in the UTS treatment table. This leads to some
confusion. CMA believes that to correct this problem, the Agency
should delete vanadium and zinc from the UTS table in 40 C.F.R.
268.48.
RESPONSE
The Agency agrees with the commenter that vanadium and zinc are not UHCs in characteristic
wastes. Currently, vanadium is regulated in two listed wastes ~ PI 19 and PI20, and zinc is
regulated in K061 wastes. The Agency will clarify this in the Phase IV final rule.
104
-------
DCN PH4A070
COMMENTER FMC Corporation
RESPONDER AC
SUBJECT ZINC
SUBJNUM 070
COMMENT a. EPA Needs To Delete Vanadium And Zinc From The UTS Table
In 40 C.F.R. 268,48, There is some confusion in the regulated
community on the status of Vanadium and Zinc regarding
Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHC's) and the Universal
Treatment Standards; (UTS). The regulations? clearly states that
Vanadium and Zinc are not UHC's but in the UTS treatment table58
, both constituents clearly appear. This leads to some
confusion with the generating industry, the treatment and
disposal industries, as well as the regulating authorities.
FMC's interpretation of the regulations is that these two
substances are not UHC'S, and that the UTS levels listed for
these substances, therefore, do not need to be achieved. EPA
should confirm this interpretation in the final Phase IV LDR
rulemaking. FMC believes that to correct this problem, the
Agency should delete Vanadium and Zinc from the UTS table in the
40 C.F.R. 268.48.
RESPONSE
The Agency agrees with the commenter that vanadium and zinc are not UHCs in characteristic
wastes. Currently, vanadium is regulated in two listed wastes — PI 19 and PI20, and zinc is
regulated in K061 wastes. The Agency will clarify this in the Phase IV final rule.
105
-------
DCN PH4A084
COMMENTER Chemical Manufacturers Association
RESPONDER ACC
SUBJECT ZINC
SUBJNUM 084
COMMENT EPA needs to delete Vanadium and Zinc from the UTS Table in 40
C.F.R. 268.48 There is some confusion in the regulated community
on the status of vanadium and zinc regarding Underlying
Hazardous Constituents (UHC's) and the Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS). The regulations clearly state that vanadium
and zinc are not UHC'S; however, both constituents clearly
appear in the UTS treatment table. This leads to some
confusion. CMA believes that to correct this problem, the Agency
should delete vanadium and zinc from the UTS table in 40 C.F.R.
268.48.
RESPONSE
The Agency agrees with the commenter that vanadium and zinc are not UHCs in characteristic
wastes. Currently, vanadium is regulated in two listed wastes — PI 19 and PI20, and zinc is
regulated in K061 wastes. The Agency will clarify this in the Phase IV final rule.
106
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
|l
1
1
1
4. Title and Subtitle
Response to Comments Document:
Report No.
EPA530-R-99-020C
Land Disposal Restrictions-Phase IV:
12.
1
1
3. Recipient's Accession No.
PB99-155848
I
| 5. Report Date
Final Rule Promulgating Treatment I April 1 998
Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes; Mineral Processing Secondary Materials and Bevill 16.
Exclusion Issues; Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils, and Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastes;
Volume 3: Comments Related to First Supplemental Proposed Rule, January 25,1996
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract © or Grant (G) No.
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Response to Public Comment
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
Responds to public comments related to state authorization; beryllium, chromium, vanadium, zinc, and general metals treatment standards;
and manufactured gas plant issues. Addresses land disposal restrictions and the hazardous waste identification rule.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field Group
18. Availability Statement
RELEASE UNLIMITED
19. Security Class (This Report) 121. No. of Pages
| UNCLASSIFIED | .,
120. Security Class (This Page) 22. Price
| UNCLASSIFIED |
(SeeANSI-Z39.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
------- |