United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-99-020J Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB99-155 913 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 10: Comments Related to Regulatory Impact Analysis for TC- Metals Hazardous Waste Issues Raised in Original Proposed Rule (August 22, 1995) and Second Supplemental Proposed (May 12, 1997) Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber ------- Response to Public Comments: Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions for TC Metals Final Rule RIA In August 1995 EPA completed its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Phase IV Land Disposal Restriction proposed rule for the proposed universal treatment standards (UTS) for TC metals wastewaters and nonwastewaters for eight toxicity characteristic (TC) metal wastes: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. The Agency stated that its analysis found the proposed UTSs for TC metals, wastewaters and nonwastewaters could be achieved through existing technology at a minimal cost. In April 1997 the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its RIA for the Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) for the Second Supplemental Proposed Rule. This RIA focuses on TC metal hazardous wastes and newly identified hazardous mineral processing'wastes. In response to the two RIAs, the Agency has received some comments from industry challenging the previous finding that the proposed UTS could be achieved at minimal cost. EPA has carefully considered the information provided by the public commenters to both RIAs, reviewed'the evidence on treatment methods, conducted additional analyses, and developed revised treatment standards judged protective of the environment and attainable with little or no adjustment in waste treatment methods from those needed to meet current requirements. This document reviews the public comments relevant to the TC metals requirements and provides the Agency's rationale for reaching its conclusion. (Note: EPA received two sets of comments in response to two proposals on the application of UTS to TC metal hazardous wastes, the original proposal in August 22, 1995 and the second supplemental proposal of May 12, 1997. Commenters in this document are identified by their comment number followed by the suffix "95" or "97" to indicate which proposal they responded to. Two lists of commenters to both the 95 and 97 proposals follow this document.) 1. Comment: Representatives for industries that treat their hazardous wastes on site, individual generators, commercial vendors of treatment reagents, and one commercial treatment company have argued that the UTSs for TC metals are not technically feasible or if they can be achieved they will require managers of these wastes to incur additional treatment costs either for on-site treatment or for commercial treatment. One commenter has specifically, singled out high chromium- and high lead-bearing wastes (i.e., greater than 1 percent total lead or chromium) as being particulary problematic. (Comm 26-95, Comm. 38-95, Comm 45-95, Comm 77-95 Comm 78-95,Comm 81-97,Comm 86-97) Response: The Agency has considered the issue of achieving the proposed UTSs for TC metal constituents without incremental treatment cost. The Agency has revised its proposed standards for lead from 0.37 to 0.75 mg/1. Further, the Agency has evaluated the effectiveness of current treatment methods and finds that the standard is achievable using those methods. * ------- Current treatment methods to meet the characteristic requirements typically include stabilization of the waste followed by disposal of the stabilized waste and reagent. Portland cement is usually the stabilization reagent of choice although in some cases phosphate chemicals are employed as an alternative or additional form of treatment to stabilization. A commercial waste treatment facility examined by EPA currently employs 20 to 25 percent portlafld cement in its treatment of hazardous wastes (i.e. binder to waste ration of 25%). The treated wastes are sampled to determine their compliance with the existing treatment standards. Only a very small share of the wastes fail to meet current standards. Batches that fail are then retreated, The company reports that they do not have any difficulty in reaching, with current treatment recipes, the previously proposed UTS level for lead of 0.37 mg/1 or 0.86 mg./l for chromium even when these wastes contain percent levels of these constituents. Indeed, they find that they often achieve levels an order of magnitude lower than that value. Thus, they would not expect to need to modify its existing treatment process to meet the proposed UTS.1 In addition, data that the Agency has reviewed from industries generating high-lead wastes show,that these wastes can be treated by on-site stabilization systems to below the final UTS for lead of 0.75 mg./l.2 Given the experience of both this commercial treatment firm and industries generating high-lead TC metal nonwastewaters, the Agency judges that similar results are achievable without incremental treatment costs by other managers of TC metals wastes. 2. Comment: One commenter stated that it is concerned that hazardous wastes generated by the foundry industry such as baghouse dust generated by ferrous foundries and sands generated by nonferrous foundries may be subject to significant costs and economic impacts to the foundry industry resulting from the application of the proposed UTS to foundry sand wastes. The commenter also stated that EPA had not prepared an adequate RIA because it was not based on data. The commenter stated that EPA had made its statement based on "guesswork" rather than empirical review of data. The commenter added that EPA lacked data to complete an RIA. (Comm 77-95) Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that there may be significant costs and economic impacts to the foundry industry resulting from the Phase IV LDR final rule. First, as discussed above, EPAs review of data from commercial treaters and generators of high lead-bearing hazardous waste using on-site stabilization systems indicates that these handlers can achieve the final UTS numbers promulgated in today's rule without modifying treatment recipes and incurring incremental treatment costs. 1 December 19, 1996 letter to Anita Cummings, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste from Michael G. Fusco, director of Regulatory Analysis, Rollins Environmental Inc., p.4 of edited draft EPA trip report letter to Rollins Highway 36 facility in Colorado. 2 October 9, 1996 letter to Anita Cummings, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste from Steve Emmons, Battery Council International Environmental Committee chair and Earl Cornerte, Chairman, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. ------- Second, as a result of the comments received from the foundry industry EPA reviewed and evaluated the impacts of the revised UTSs on this industry segment. Information provided by the American Foundrymen's Society (November 27, 1995) indicate hat as many as 528 foundries may be using iron filings to treat hazardous foundry sands for TC metals. The Agency's examination of this treatment method does find that it would not be suitable to meet the UTSs ~ it is an inappropriate type of treatment because it fails to minimize threats, given that the key constituent in the wastes (lead) will not have its mobility significantly reduced and cadmium mobility also will not be reduced—(and that there would be costs to the industry to substitute Portland cement. However, there are two important implications regarding the use of iron filings. First, and more important, iron filings do not appear to meet the Agency's current requirements for treating these wastes. Thus, any costs incurred to substitute, for example, Portland cement would not be attributable to the Phase IV rule but to meeting current requirements. Second, even assuming that the costs are attributable to this rule (not the Agency's view, as just noted),1 the Agency has quantified these costs and provided its analysis as an appendix to the RIA. This analysis finds that the costs of substituting portland cement for iron filings would represent about 2 percent of current industry revenues; and 8 per cent of profits. The industry would not be expected to absorb all these costs, however, as some share would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Thus, these represent extreme values in terms of their impact on the industry. Even so, the costs are fairly small, especially when considered in light of the normal industry fluctuations in revenues and profits. Third, EPA's disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the August 22, 1995 RIA statement on TC metals as "guesswork". The statements in the August 22, 1995 RIA for the proposed rule reflects the professional judgement, knowledge and experience of EPA environmental professionals with many years of experience in evaluating commercial and noncommercial hazardous waste treatment practices over a wide variety of industries. The specific statement that little incremental cost and economic impact would result from the proposed UTS is based upon the fact that many treaters of hazardous waste overtreat their wastes in order to account for the variability of their waste streams. Since the proposed UTS numbers were in many cases within or close to one order of magnitude of the current treatment standard, EPA officials believed that the overtreatment of wastes would result in compliance with the proposed UTS standards. As discussed previously, EPA has corroborated this statement with data provided by commercial hazardous waste treaters and other handlers of TC metal hazardous wastes. Finally, EPA has used data provided by the commenter and others to complete its RIA for today's rule. 3. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed UTS from the second supplemental proposal of 0.07 ppm for antimony in nonwastewaters would result in incremental costs for stabilization of its incinerator ash. The ash generated from several of the commenters incinerators is currently disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. The ash is not stabilized. However, treatment to meet the proposed UTSs would require, the commenter believes, stabilization either by the generator or by a commercial manager. The commenter questions the environmental benefits of this additional treatment. (Comm81-97) ------- Response: The Agency has revised the UTS for antimony nonwastewaters to 1.15 ppm. EPA has contacted the commenter. The commenter has stated that its incinerator ash can meet this level without stabilization and thus will not incur incremental costs from the Phase IV rule. (4/3/98 Memorandum from Paul A. Borst, USEPA Office of Solid Waste to RCRA Docket on Record of Communication with Eastman Chemical). •,_.'.•• 4. Comment: One commenter stated that additional reagents would be required to meet the proposed UTS for silver of 0.11 ppm. The commenter stated that this would result in larger waste disposal volumes without additional environmental benefit. (Cornm 86-97) Response: As stated above, available data suggests that no incremental treatment reagent is required to achieve the proposed UTS levels for TC metal -wastes. EPA's revised UTS for silver of 0.14 should be achievable without the need for additional treatment reagent. The Agency also notes that the commenter failed to providing supporting documentation of what treatment levels and volumes of its silver-bearing TC metal wastes are currently be managed. 5. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed UTS standards for TC metal wastes (in particular lead and selenium) would result in severe economic burden to the secondary lead industry resulting from incremental costs to treat and dispose of secondary lead slags and contaminated soils. These commenters state that these costs would result from either having to procure additional stabilization equipment for on-site treatment or ship their lead-bearing D008 wastes off-site for commercial treatment at higher costs. (Comm. 38-95, Comm 78-95, Cornm 45-95) Response: As stated under Comment 1, based on data provided by the commenters, one of whom is a secondary lead smelter and the other a one commercial treatment facility, all D008 process waste can and is currently being treated to the final lead and selenium standards of 0.75 ppm and 5.7 ppm respectively. Lead contaminated soils identified by the commenters will be subject to less stringent alternative standards previously proposed under the HWIR media rule. These alternative standards will allow the clean up of these lead-contaminated soil to either 90 percent reduction in total concentration of hazardous constituents or ten times the UTS standards finalized in today's rule. Because all of the TC metal UTS standards except silver are more than one tenth of the TC level, ten times the UTS number is less stringent than the current metal treatment standards promulgated in the "Third-Third" LDR rulemaking. Those treatment standards are identical to the current characteristic level for D004 through D011 wastes. 6. Comment: One commenter to EPA's original proposal commented that the proposed UTS of 0.025 ppm for non-retorting mercury residues would be technology forcing thus delaying the clean up of mercury-contaminated soils proximate to natural gas pipelines. (Comm. 86-95) Response: Mercury-contaminated soils identified by the commenter will be subject to less stringent alternative standards previously proposed under the HWIR media rule,, These alternative standards will allow the clean up of these mercury-contaminated soils to either 90 percent reduction in total concentration of hazardous constituents or ten times the UTS standards finalized in today's rule. Because all of the TC metal UTS standards except silver are more than ------- one tenth of the TC level, ten times the UTS number is less stringent than the current metal treatment standards promulgated in the "Third-Third" LDR rulemaking. Those treatment standards are identical to the current characteristic level for D004 through D011 wastes. 7. Comment: One commenter to EPA's original proposal commented that the presence of organic underlying hazardous constituents in TC metal wastes would result in large volumes of. these wastes to be incinerated rather than stabilized . (Comm. 48-95) Response: EPA has analyzed data from its National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey to assess the likelihood of organic underlying hazardous constituents being present above UTS levels in TC metal wastes. The results of this analysis demonstrate that it is very unlikely that TC metal wastes will contain organic underlying hazardous constituents in levels sufficient to require combustion. Of 181 waste streams examined, only 3 contained organic constituents - above UTS levels. Of those 3, none was present in levels sufficiently high to warrant combustion. . In addition, EPA notes that it is permissible to drive organics off during the stabilization process provided the organics are captured and destroyed (for example, as a result of compliance with the subpart CC standards). It also may be appropriate to obtain a treatment variance in the case of wastes which are predominantly inorganic and treatment of organic underlying hazardous constituents otherwise would require combustion (particularly if the organic hazardous constituents are in low concentrations, are not volatile, and might have lower mobility as a result of treatment). See 62 FR at 64505 (Dec. 5, 1997). 8. Two commenters to EPA's original proposal stated that the Agency's regulatory impact assessment (RIA) violates E.O. 12866 because they claim it was not developed through reasoned decision making, rather through guesswork. These commenters state that the RIA is not based on data and fails to account for incremental costs to the iron and steel industry from the Phase TV rule. The commenters state that Phase IV costs to the iron and steel industry include extensive R&D on wastes and waste treatment technologies, additional expenditures for waste treatment and stabilization technologies used to treat underlying hazardous constituents and the potential shutdown of operations for those facilities that cannot afford R&D and waste treatment costs. (Comm. 83-95, Comm. 84-95, Comm. 104-95, Comm. 105-95) Response: EPA disagrees these commenters that the RIA was developed through guesswork rather than reasoned decision making. The Agency's carefully considered basis for assigning no treatment cost to TC metal wastes in the 1995 proposal RIA was that the UTS levels proposed for TC metals were often within one order of magnitude of the TC /3rd 3rd standard levels. EPA believed that commercial treaters and generator treating their own waste typically overtreat these wastes in order to assure compliance with existing LDR treatment standards. EPA has since verified this assumption empirically (see Response to Comment 1 above). ------- EPA also disagrees with the commenters' unsupported assertion that the Phase IV LDR rule will impose a "dramatic adverse impact" on the steelmaking industry. First, EPA notes that the commenters failed to provide any data to support their claim demonstrating that the steelmaking industry generates large volumes of TC metal hazardous waste. Second, as noted above in the response to Comment 1 both R&D costs and incremental treatment costs are unlikely because the standards being promulgated in today's final rule can easily be achieved through existing Portland cement stabilization. 9. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed universal treatment standard for chromium for nonwastewaters of 0.86 mg./l would impose $11 million of incremental cost to a ferrochromium producer without commensurate environmental benefit. The commenter stated that the ferrochromium producer would incur these one time costs as a result of having to retreat 40,000 tons of chromium wastes that were previously treated to below the characteristic level and current treatment level for chromium of 5.0 mg./l. The commenter states that this material must be relocated to a new land disposal site pursuant to a consent decree with the state of South Carolina. (Comm. 55-97) Response: The Agency notes that the commenter failed to provide data about what level the chromium wastes were treated to below the characteristic level as well as the treatment reagent used. The commenter also failed to state the basis for the estimated $11 million in treatment costs. Notwithstanding these omissions, EPA notes that one commercial treatment facility was able to consistently achieve treatment levels exceeding one order of magnitude below the proposed universal treatment standard of 0.86 mg./l.3 even the wastes contained high total levels of chromium or other TC metal constituents. (Note: the final UTS for chromium of 0.60 mg./l. is slightly lower than the proposed level of 0.86 mg./l.. Nevertheless, the treatment levels obtained by the commercial treater were also well below the final chromium UTS level for nonwastewaters). EPA also notes that the chromium wastes described in the comment would probably not be required to be retreated under federal law as a result from the UTS finalized in today's rule. This is so because the wastes originally treated to below the characteristic level would not be considered to be hazardous by virture of exhibiting the characteristic previously unless they exhibited the characteristic at the point when they were actively managed for relocation to the new landfill. 3 December 19, 1996 letter to Anita Cummings, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste from Michael G. Fusco, director of Regulatory Analysis, Rollins Environmental Inc., p.4 of edited draft EPA trip report letter to Rollins Highway 36 facility in Colorado. ------- LIST OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Original Phase IV proposal. August 22.1995 (This list was typed from a hardcopy of the Docket Tracking Log) Comment # Commenter ; 00001 Grady-White Boats 00002 Olympic Boat Company , 00003 Sunfish Laser 00004 Larson Boats 00005 Arctco,Inc. 00006 Regal Marine Industries, Inc. 00007 Godfrey Marine 00008 Dept. Of Environmental Protection 00009 Nat'l Marine Manuf. Association 00010 Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes 00011 Blue Water Boats, Inc. 00012 Coastal Corp. : 00013 NY State DEC 00014 Silver Coalition 00015 BPOil 00016 Universal Forest Products, Inc. 00017 Eastman Kodak Co. 00018 Mobile Oil Corp. ; 00019 ASARCO 00020 Exxon Company 00021 Georgia Pacific Corp. 00022 Phelps Dodge Corp. 00023 Beazer East, Inc. 00024 Union Comp. 00025 Magma Copper Co. 00026 TDI Group Inc. 00027 Rollins Env'l Inc. 00028 TU Services 00029 AN Group 00030 Nat'l Petroleum Refiner Assoc. 00031 Deptof Energy 00032 Penta Task Force 00033 CMA/Carbon Disulfide Panel 00034 CMA/Undergrd. INJ. Control 00035 Utility Solid Waste Activities Grp. ------- 00036 American Iron and Steel Inst. 00037 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. Of Amer. 00038 Association of Battery Recyclers 00039 American Wood Perservers Institute 00040 - Interstate Natural Gas Assoc. of America(INGAA) 00041 Sterling Chemicals 00042 Monsanto 00043 Lead Industries Assoc. - 00044 - American Forest and Paper Assoc. 00045 Battery Council International (BCI) 00046 National Mining Assoc. 00047 Merck and CO. , 00048 Chemical Waste Management 00049 Molten Metal Technology 00050 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America 00051 Ohio EPA 00052 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 00053 Texaco Inc. 00054 Total Petroleum 00055 American Industrial Health Council 00056 Westinghouse Electric Corp. 00057 No Affiliation 00058 J.H. Baxter and Co. 00059 Exxon Chemical Americas 00060 American Dental Association 00061 BP Chemical 00062 Remediation Technologies, Inc. 00063 Laidlow Environmental Services 00064 Dow Chemical Company 00065 Safety - Kleen Corp. 00066 American Petroleum Institute 00067 Horsehead Resource Development 00068 Amerada Hess Corp. 00069 Steel Structurers Painting Council (SSPC) 00070 Doe Run Resources Corp. 00071 Synthetic Organic Chemical Manuf. Ass. 00072 Non-Ferrous Founders Society 00073 Outboard Marine Corp. 00074 Dept. of Defense 00075 EIF Atochem North America Inc. 00076 Society of the Plastics Industry 00077 American Foundryman's Society 00078 Battery Council International (BCI) . 00079 Society of the Plastics Industry 00080 Eastman Chemical Company ------- 00081 Rohm and Haus Company . 00082 Brush Wellman, Inc. 00083 Steel Manufacturers Association 00084 Specialty Steel Industry 00085 Environmental Defense Fund 00086 American Gas Association 00087 The Doe Run Company 00088 Texas Utilities Services. Inc. 00089 ASTSWMO 00090 International Cadmium Association 00091 FMC Corporation 00092 Union Carbide Corp. 00093 Heritage Environmental Services 00094 General Motors Corp. 00095 . General Electric Company , 00096 International Metals Reclam. Co. 00097 Hazardous Waste Management Association 00098 NY State Dept. Of Environmental Protection 00099 Ohio State of Environmental Protection 00100 Phillips Petroleum Company 00101 Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality 00102 Chevron 00103 Ciba - Geigy Corporation 00104 Specialty Steel Industry 00105 Steel Manufacturers Association 00106 PHRMA 00107 Uniroyal Chemical Company 00108 Tiara Yachts 00109 Ford Motor Company 00110 American Foundrymen Society 00111 Specialty Steel Industry 00012 Steel Manufacturers Ass. 00013 Chemical Manufacturers Ass. 00114 Chemical Manufacturers Ass. 00115 Courtaulds Filers, Inc. 00116 Accidental Chemical Corporation (oxychem) 00117 Boston Whaler ; 01118 . FNC Corporation 00119 Rohn and Haas Company L001.A Office of the Secretary of Defense L0001 Wrong docket - Univ of Rochester L0002 Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. ------- LIST OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Second Supplemental Phase IV proposal. May 12.1997 Commenter # Commenter Name COMM1001 ASARCO Incorporated COMM1002 American Wood Preservers Institute COMM1003 Chemical Products Corporation COMM1004 Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) COMM 1005 American Chrome & Chemicals, L.P. COMM1006 Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (MSP) COMM1007 Frontier Technologies Inc. (FTI) COMM1008 Florida Phosphate Council ^ COMM1009 World Resorces Company COMM1010 International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc. (INMETCO) and INCO United States, Inc. " , COMM1011 CITGO Petroleum Corporation COMM1012 The Ferroalloys Association (TFA) COMM1013 GF Industries COMM1014 Westinghouse Electric Corporation COMM1015 Ms. Linda W. Pierce COMM1016 Chemical Manufacturers Association : COMM1017 Battery Council International (BCI) and Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR) COMM 1018 Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, PLLC for Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA) COMM1019 The Doe Run Company (DRC) COMM 1020 American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA) COMM 1021 American Petroleum Institute COMM 1022 , Eastman Kodak Company COMM1023 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) COMM 1024 Lead Industries Association, Inc. (LIA) COMM 1025 RSR Corporation COMM 1026 Homestake Mining Company COMM 1027 Solite Corporation COMM1028 Laidlaw Environmental Services COMM 1029 Newmont Gold Company COMM1030 Chemical Products Corporation (CPC) COMM 1031 Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR) COMM1032 Savage Zinc, Incorporated COMM 103 3 General Motors Corporation (GM) COMM 1034 ASARCO Incorporated COMM1035 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) COMM1036 Okanogan Highlands Alliance (OHA) COMM1037 CF Industries, Inc. COMM 103 8 The Fertilizer Institute COMM1039 American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) COMM 1040 Molycorp, Inc. COMM 1041 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company ------- COMM1042 Law Office of David J. Lennett (for Environmental Defense Fund, Mineral Policy Center, Southwest Research and Information Center, North Santiam Watershed Council, Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Okanogan . Highlands Alliance, and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network COMM1043 BHP Copper COMM1044 National Lime Association COMM1045 The Silver Council COMM1046 Mineral Policy Center COMM1047 American Gas Association (AGA) COMM1048 National Mining Association COMM1048-D National Mining Assocation COMM 1048-E National Mining Assocation COMM1049 Lake Superior Alliance (LSA) COMM1050 Reynolds Metals Company COMM1051 Brush Wellman Inc. COMM1052 Brush Wellman Inc. COMM1053 Brush Wellman, Inc. COMM1054 Kennecott COMM1055 Mr. William R. Schneider, P.E. (Consultant to Macalloy Corp.) COMM1056 Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, LLP (Counsel to Macalloy Corporation) COMM1057 Photo Marketing Association International COMM1058 Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin COMM1059 Lake Michigan Federation COMM1060 Mr. David Isbister COMM1061 Ms. Marianne Isbister COMM1062 Rolling Stone Lake Protection & Rehabilitation District COMM1063 Ms. Laura Furtman COMM 1064 Mr. Gregory Furtman COMM1065 Ms. Jennifer Pierce . COMM1066 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition COMM1067 Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits COMM 1068 Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. COMM1069 Macalloy Corporation COMM 1070 Ms. Dori Gilels COMM 1071 Kenneth and Linda Pierce COMM 1072 Ms. Ellen Wertheimer COMM 1073 Mr. Earl Meyer COMM 1074 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation COMM 1075 United States Department of Defense (DoD) .. COMM1076 Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, Inc. COMM 1077 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. COMM 1078 EnviroSource Treatment and Disposal Services, Inc. (TDS) COMM 1079 Independence Mining Company Inc. (IMCI) ' COMM 1080 Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. COMM 1081 Eastman Chemical Company COMM 1082 Nevada Mining Association (NvMA) COMM 1083 Kerr-McGee Corporation COMM1084 Elf Atochem North America Inc. COMM 1085 New Mexico Mining Association ------- COMM1086 DuPont COMM1087 ^Vaste Management - COMM1088 FMC Corporation COMM1089 Phelps Dodge Corporation COMM1090 Arizona Mining Association COMM1091 Beazer East, Inc. COMM1092 AlliedSignal Inc. COMM1093 Placer Dome U.S., Inc. COMM1094 Phosphorus Producers Environmental Council COMM1095 U.S. Borax, Inc. '.'... . - COMM1096 Appalachian Producers COMM1097 Aluminum Company of America; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Ormet Corporation; and Reynolds Metals Company. COMM1098 AMAX Metal Recovery, Inc. COMM1099 Barrick Resources, Inc. COMM1100 Koppers Industries, Inc. • COMM1101 IMC-Agrico Company ' COMM1102 Echo Bay Mines COMM1103 Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin Inc. COMM1104 Precious Metals Producers (PMP) COMM1105 California Mining Association COMM1106 Freeport-McMoRan COMM1107 Shoshone-Bannock Tribe Land Use Department COMM1108 Texaco COMM1109 Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) COMML1001 Photographic & Imaging Manufacturers Association, Inc. COMML1002 Phosphorus Producers Environmental Council COMML1003 Environmental Technology Council ------- 50272-101 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE | 1. Report No. EPA530-R-99-020J I 2. I I | 3. Recipient's Accession No. PB99-155 913 4. Title and Subtitle Response to Comments Document: Land Disposal Restrictions-Phase IV: Final Rule Promulgating Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes; Mineral Processing Secondary Materials and Bevill Exclusion Issues; Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils, and Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastes; Volume 10: Comments Related to Regulatory Impact Analysis for TC-Metal Hazardous Waste Issues Raised in Original Proposed Rule, August 22,1995, and in Second Supplemental Proposed Rule, May 12,1997 5. Report Date April 1998 6. 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) Reviews public comments relevant to the toxicity characteristic metals requirements and provides EPA's rationale for reaching its conclusions. 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms c. COSATI Field Group 18. Availability Statement RELEASE UNLIMITED | 19. Security Class (This Report) | 21. No. of Pages I UNCLASSIFIED j /Q I I W | 20. Security Class (This Page) | 22. Price [UNCLASSIFIED | (SeeANSI-Z39.18) OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77) (Formerly NTIS-35) ------- |