Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

RHC«.IOG LlSl tSoLi^
l>i>u:-k.
5t.t/aA S^uJo
(60%)
PMP
T
T>rOYK PPkC. 1,2.
•pf>tA(ait^ tt;)a4«.v"
>ltf
Tr'+w.t —^DOl
or iv F^c.2
,» JV
ji
-^
V\
5UlP
TYUXC
- -- -> ooz

IVA
(i£CCl0 9 LialSouiP
(80%)
Pj^OJcT M^M^a6Me^or ^LA>-5
9t€.-Wdf
PMP
T
Troyj.V^C.\,Z
^-r^AcetJt' iL?a4tf.t"
>*;
N/
-to
->
PRDODCT^
ji
1-7^
A "To t:*.c.l,z,?
-« ,v
' ^ ' I I I •'•• I 11
ST02.H
5Ulp
-^ - -> OOZ

IVA
RscciOG liS^iSoi^ip
U lO ^ XMD. W
(60%)
Pl^0t3£-T Mb.M(k6.6M£K3r ^LA.O
Pf^P
T
FroM IP^C. l,Z
^T
—J IV
5Utp
Tyujc4c
....--) ooz

IVA
Pt(e
fec€.lOg LlSltSoLl^
V4-\A^ ^ IMP. W
(60%)
?M?
T
FyowA. T^l^C. l,Z
pRocest)
F^c.L23
4 /»>
Bind ii\ told4/ i
PRDDDCT
6T0U^a£
- - J
fT>«.4tajti- u.?24 OOZ

IVA
feccioc LlSiiSoi^ii?
Ur\J^ ^ IMP. W
(60%)
PMP
T
Fvow^ P^C. \,Z
j^TfAtejti- u^toi?
- -. -> OOZ

OJ
Inspection
Authority
Recordkeeping
Authority
Table 1
AUTHORITIES GRANTED UNDER FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATDNS
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE/CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS
Air Water Supeiiuhd Pesticides Solid Waste Drinking Water Toxics
CAA114
40 CFR 80.4,86*
CWA 308. 402
40 CFR 122.41,
233.7
CAA 114. 208, 311 CWA 308, 402
40 CFR 51, 60. 79" 40 CFR 122.41,
122.48, 233.7.
233.11
Confklential CAA 208,307 CWA 308
Intormation
(40 CFR 2.201-2.215) 40 CFR 2.301,53, 40 CFR 2.302,
57,80 122.7,233.18
Emergency Authority
Emptoyee Protectkjn
Penalties
CAA 303
CAA 322
CAA 113
CWA 504
40 CFR 233.38
CWA 507
CWA 309
40 CFR 233.28
CERCLA 104 FIFRA 8, 9
40 CFR 160.15.
169.3
CERCLA 103 FIFRA 4. 8
40 CFR 160.63,
160.185-195, 169.
171.11
CERCLA 104 FIFRA 7.10
CERCLA 104,106
CERCLA 110
CERCLA 103,112
EPC 325
40 CFR 2.307
FIFRA 27
40CFR164, 166
FIFRA 12.14
RCRA 3007. 9005
40 CFR 270.30
RCRA 3001, 3002,
3003, 3004, 9003
40 CFR 262.40.
263.22. 264.74,
264.279. 264.309.
265.74. 265.94,
265.279, 265.309.
270.30. 270.31
SDWA1445
40 CFR 144.51.
14i34
SDWA1445
40 CFR 144.51.
144.54. 141.31-33
RCRA 3007. 9005 SDWA 1445
40 CFR 2.305.
260.2. 270.12
RCRA 7003
40 CFR 122.7
RCRA 7001
RCRA 3008. 9006
40 CFR 2.304.
144.5
SDWA 1431
40 CFR 144.34
SDWA 1450
SDWA 1423. 1424.
1431. 1432. 1441
TSCA11
40 CFR 717.17.
792.15
TSCA8
40 CFR 704. 710.
717.5. 720.78. 761.
761.180. 762.60,
763.144. 792.185-
195
TSCA 14
40 CFR 2.306.
704.7. 707.75.
710.7. 712.15.
717.19. 720.85-95,
750.16. 750.36,
762.60, 763.74
TSCA 7
TSCA 23
TSCA 15.16
86.0777, 86.078-7, 86.441-78, 86.606, 86.1006.89
51.320-328, 57.105. 57.305, 57.404, 58, 60.7, 61.10, 61.24, 61.69-71, 79.5, 85.407, 85.1086. 85.1906, 86.077-7, 86.084-39 and 40. 86.144-78 through 82, 86.542-78.
86.609, 86.1009-84

Tuesclay
Januaiy 23, 1990
Part HI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFB Parts 26a, 261 and 262
llininft Waste Excfuslon; Section 3010
Notffltatton for lUaarai Processing
FadHUes; Designaited FacWIy E>ef!nltion;
Standarda ApplTcable to Generators of
Hazardous Wael^ Fbtal Rule
CiiD2lf'0\}0O^

2322 Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261 and 262
[SWH-FRL-3699-3; EPA/OSW-FR-90-013]
Mining Waste Exclusion; Section 3010
Notification for Mineral Processing
Facilities; Designated Facility
Definition; Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
AGETJCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rale.
SUMMARY: Today's final rule removes
five of 20 condibonally retained mineral
processing wastes from the exemption
from hazardous waste regulations
provided by section 3001(b){3)(A)(ii) of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), often referred to
as the Bc-vill exclusion. The five wastes
removed from the Bevill exclusion by
today's final rule are: Furnace off-gas
solids from elemental phosphorus
production, process wastewater from
primary lead processing, air pollution
control dust/sludge from lightweight
aggregate production, sulfate process
waste acids from titanium dioxide
production, and sulfate process waste
solids &om titanium dioxide production.
Wastes removed from the exclusion are
subject to hazardous waste regulations
if they are found to exhibit a hazardous
characteristic or are otherwise identified
or listed as ba2ardous.
Three wastes previously proposed on
September 25.1989 (54 FR 39298), for
removal from the Bevill exclusion are
retained undor the exclusion by this
final rule. Those three wastes are: (1)
Treated residue from roastiiig/leachiiig
of chrome ore: (2) process wastewater
from coal gasification: and (3) process
wastewater from hydrolfluoric add
production. The Bevill exclusion also la
retained for 12 of the original 13 other
conditonally retained wastes, which will
be addressed, along with 5 other wastes
in a Report to Congress and subsequent
Reg-jldtcry Determination by January 31.
1991.
Today's rule makes technical
corrections to the definition of
"beneficiation" that was promulgated on
September 1.1989 (54 FR 30582) and also
waives the RCRA Section 3010
notification deadline for mineral
processing facilities that are located in
authorized slates and that generate
wastes removed from the exclusion in
the September 1.1988 final rule. Because
of confusion expressed by the regulated
community in response to statements
made in the preamble of the September
1 rule, today 8 rule also extends the
RCRA Section 3010 notification deadline
for mineral processing faciliMes that are
located in unauthorized states and that
generate wastes removed from the
exclusion by the September 1,1989 Hnal
rule. Notification will now be required in
unauthorized states by April 23,1990.
Today's final rule also amends the
RCRA Subtitle C definition of
"designated facility" and the standards
applicable to generators of hazardous
waste to clarify the requirements for
completing hazardous waste shipment
manifests for transporting wastes from
one state where they are regulated as
hazardous to another in which they are
not regulated as hazardous.
DATES: Effective Date: July 23.1990. Not
later than April 23,1990, all persons in
unauthorized states who generate,
transport, treat, store, or dispose of
wastes removed from temporary
exclusion by this rule or the September
1,1989 final rule and which are
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR part 281, subpart C must notify
EPA of these activities pursuant to
section 3010 of RCRA.
See sections V and VI of the preamble
below for additional d^'es and details.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT
RCRA/Superfund Motlne at (800) 424-
9348 or (202) 382-3000, or for technical
information contact Dan Derides or Bob
Hall, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 2046a (202) 382-3608, or (202) 475-
8814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
L Introduction
A. Context
& Overview of Today't Rule
C Future Activities
n. AnalytU of and Response to Public
Commenti on Bevill Status of 20 Mineral
Processing Wastes Proposed on
September 2S. 1989
A. General Comments on EPA's
Application of Ihe Final Bevill Criteria
E Comments on the 13 Waste Streams
Proposed for Retention
C Comments on the Seven Wastes
i'roposed for Removal
D. RaUbonship of the Proposed Rule to
Subtitle C of RCRA
E. Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
F. Requests for Qarificatior.i/Technical
Corrections on the September 1,1960,
Final Rule
C. Concerns with Administrative Procedure
111. Revised Application of the Final Criteria
for Defining Bevill Mineral Processing
Wattes
A QanTicaUon of Waste Stream
DefiniUons
B. Compliance with the iligh Volume
Criterion
C Compliance with the Low Hazard
Criterion
D. Bevill Status of Conditionally Retained
Mineral Processing Wastes
rv. Analysis of and Response to Comments
on Clarification to the Defmition of
"Designated Facility" and Modifica;i-.:-<
of the Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
A. General Comments on the Propc;?d
Definition
B. Relationship Between Today's
Clarification and Non-RCRA Stare
Hazardous Wastes
C. Who Can Qualify as a designated
Facility?
D. Which Standards Apply to Interstate
Shipinents
E. Other Comments
F. Manifesting Requirements
V. Regulatory Implementation and Effei.-tivt>
Dates of the Final Rule
A. Section 3010 Notification
B. Compliance Dates for Today's Rule
VI. Effect on State Authorizations
VII. Economic Impact Screening Anaiysl^i
Pursuant to Executive Order \Z23\
A. Approach
B. Aggregate and Sector Compliance Costs
C Economic Impacts
VUI. Regulatory Fle.xibiiity Analysis
DC List of SubjecU in 40 CFR 260. 281 and 262
L Introduction
A. Context
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) temporarily excludes "solid
waste from the extraction, beneficiation.
and processing of ores and minerals '
from regulation as hazardous waste
under Subtitle C of RCRA. pending
completion of certain studies by EP.^. In
1980, EPA temporarily interpreted th;s
exclusion, often referred to as the Bevill
exclusion, to encompass "solid waste
from the exploration, mining, milling,
smelting and refining of ores and
minerals" (45 FR 78619. November 19.
1980).
In response to the decision of the
District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals in Environmental Defense Fund
V. EPA. 852 F.2d 1318, (D.C. Cir. 1988),
cert denied. 109 S.Ct. 1120 (1989). EPA
proposed criteria by which mineral
processing wastes would be evaluated
for continued exclusion from hazardous
waste regulation until the required
studies and subsequent regulatory
determination was made. On September
1.1989 (see 54 FR 36592). EPA provided
the final Bevill exclusion criteria.
Twenty mineral processing wastes were
conditionally retained within the scope
of the Bevill exclusion pending the
analysis of newly collected data. The
Bevill exemption was retained for the
following five mineral processing
wastes, which will be studied in a
Report to Congress.
1. Slag from primary copper processing

M
2324 Federal Ragiater / Vol 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulationa
language of September 1 Bnai rule.
These changes are fuQy described in
Section IL
In addition, EPA is pramulgating a
clarification to the definition of
"Designated Facility" as defined in 40
CFR 260.10. The Agency is amending
this definition for purposes of clarifying
the requirements for completing
hazardous waste manifests for wastes
transported fiom one State where they
are regulated as hazardous to another in
which they are not regtilated as
hazardous. Today's clarification allows
such generators to ship the waste to a
facility in an authorized State in which
the waste is not yet regulated as
hazardous, as long as the facility
receiving the wastes is allowed by the
State to receive the waste. This rule also .
clarifies that it is the responsibility of
the generator to assure that any out-ofstate
transporter and designated facility
sign the manifest form that accompanies
the waste shipment.
C. Future Activities
This rule establishes the boundaries
of the temporary exdusiao from
hazardous wute regulations for ndneral
processing wastes provided by RCRA
section 3001(b](3)(A)(ii]. All 20 mineral
processing wastes fbr which the Berill
exclusion has been retained will l>e
subject to detailed study by EPA.^ The
frndings of these studies will be
contained in a Report to Congress that
will be submitted by Jtdy 31.1990.
Six months after submission of this
report the Agency will publish a
Regulatory Determination stating
whether or not any of the studied
wastes will be regulated nnder Ssbtitle
C of RCRA as hazardous srastes. or that
such regulation Is tmwarranted.
II. Analysis of axMi Response to Poblk
Comments on BevIO Statue of 20 Mbseral
Processing Wastaa Propoeed on
September 25.1389
This section summarizes aad
discusses the commenla wceived oa the
September 25.1989 proposaL In general.
this discussion is IhnitsfftD Ifaa issoea
germane to the SeptanflMT 29th proposaL
Comments on other iaaaiM are not
discussed here, except ia a few
instances where the Agency believes it
is important to restate its position to
avoid confusion or misunderstanding in
the regulated conununity. The Agency
did review all of the comments received,
however, and comments not discussed
' Thaa* inciuda the flvt waitn far wtuch tfas
temponry txdiulup arai rtiatati tn tk* Ssptnnbar
t. 19ee aoai riU lad dM IS WMlw in wWck *•
(ladiaioa • nlsiMil la iDday's ral&
here are summarized in a background
document in the docket
A. General Comments on EPA's
Application ofthe Final Bevill Criteria
1. Sources of Volmne and Hazard Data
a. Volume Data. One commenter
argued that the volume data supporting
the proposed determinations of whether
proposed waste streams are high volume
lack adequate verification. Specifically,
the commenter contended that
tremendous discrepancies are evident
between the data provided by
commenters and the data reported from
the 1989 National Survey of Solid
Wastes from Mineral Processing
Facilities for the following four waste
streams: Coal gas process wastewater,
elemental phosphorous furnace off-gas
solids, lead process wastewater, and
titanium dioxide sulfate pn>ce8s waste
solids.
EPA agrees that some of the data
reported in the comments and the data
bora the surveys that were used in
developing waste volume estimates for
the proposal are not in close agreement
As a residt in developing today's rule,
tbe Agency has relied almost
exdnsively oa data coUected in tbe 1989
National Survey of Solid Wastes from
Mineral Processing Facilities, wiiicfa was
conducted under RCRA Section 3007
authority, under the assumption that the
variona respondents realize that
submission of false data is a ptmishable
offense. The Agency believes that these
are tbe most recent and accurate data
availabie.
Additional analysis of responses to
the siiiveys, cairieid out in response to
thesa oooments. has indicated some
variabilily in the way in which
respeodeals iaterprcted the survey
instnietiona. In developing the proposed
rule, EPA relied primarily on the
responses to survey question 2.11 ("How
much el tbe special waste did this
processing unit gena«te in 1988?") to
derive tbe average facility waste
volumes. Additional review cl the
survey responses has indicated that in
sooM tnetances the volume data that tbe
Agency expected to be reported in
response to question 2.11 were in fact
reported in other sections of the
questioanaira that requested
Infonnatioa related to waste treatment
plants, surface impoundments and other
waste management units (Le., sections 4
through A.] *
* TW occurs eBod oftia lor tiM (hr« wuiw tftat
art orwarad by lUs rmiaoakins for whicb data «•«
(MX tpartflrsllir raquattad te ite turvay. Apparcaiiy,
a oumbar at bkClUty oparalora eiliiar aasJeclad to
raae, Mtamoaistoo^ or lnjiutad ttha nau ui.uun ta
provide In/ormation on way wane that Ukay
As a consequence. EPA has been
careful to select the response to the
appropriate survey question (which
sometimes is not question 2.11} in
developing today's final rule. For
example, the appropriate waste volume
data were sometimes provided in
response to question 4.18 ("What was •
the quantity of sludge/solid outflows
from this wastewater treatment plant in
1988?"), question 5.6 ("Approximately
how much of the total amoimt of
accumulated sludge/solids in this
siuface impoundment on December 31,
1988 was added during 1988?"). or
question 8.4 ("What were the inflows to
this waste management unit and what
was the quantity of each inflow in
19887']. In those cases where responses
to questions contained in sections 4
through 6 of the survey have been
selected for use by the Agency, the
responses are in much better agreement
with the data provided in comments. In
a nimiber of cases, as discussed more
fully in section m. below, estimated
waste generation rates have been
revised, and in fact in a few instances,
the Agency's evaluation of whether
pai'iicular waste streams comply with
the hi^ volimie criterion has been
reversed. Documentation addressing the
Agency's calculation of waste volumes
can \M found in the docket supporting
this final rule.
Tbe commenter also criticized the
Agency for liberally granting
Confidential Bosiness Information (CBI)
designations to responses submitted by
industry respondents to the National
Survey. These designations, they
claimed, have impeded independent
verification of the volume data, noting
that for residue from roastingAeaching
of chrome ore and titanium dioxide
sulfate process waste acids, all of the
facilities generating these waste streams
designated their relevant survey data as
CBI. The commenter stated that if the
public is unable to scrutinize these data
because of their confidentiality, then the
Agency should make a professional
verification of the information provided.
Under the provisions of section 3007
of RCRA, facilities providing
information to EPA can designate
information. In whole or in part as CBI.
EPA has not automatically granted
claims for CBI status. Rather, EPA
reviewed the CBI claims made for data
submitted by mineral processing
facilities in suppoit of this rulemaking
and. when claims for CBI status
appeared excessive, requested, often
successfully, that tbe CBI claims be
coniidarati aUgibla for Bavin tlalna. Irmpecnve of
whathar tt waa an EPA'i pnllminory IML

Federal Regiater / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 232
2. Slag from primary lead processing.
3. Red and brown muds from bauxite
refining.
4. Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid
production.
5. Slag from elemental phosphorus
production.
All of the other mineral processing
wastes that were permanenUy removed
from the Bevill exclusion by the
September 1.1989 rule are subject to
RCRA SubtiUe C regulation if they are
solid wastes and exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste
as defined in 40 CFR part 281 or are
otherwise listed as hazardous waste.
On September 25,1989 (54 FR 39298).
EPA reevaluated the status of the 20
conditionally retained wastes. Applying
the high volume and low hazard criteria
contained in the September 1,1989 final
rule, the Agency proposed to
permanently remove seven mineral
processing wastes £rom the Bevill
exclusion and retain 13 other mineral
process'mg wastes within the exclusion
for study in a Report to Congress. The
seven mineral processing wastes
proposed for removal from the Bevill
exclusion were:
1. Roast/leach ore residue from primary
chromjta production:
Z Process wastewater from coal
gasifies doa'
1 Furnace off-gas solids Gram elemental
phosphorus production;
4. Process wastewater from hydrofluoric
add productioo:
i. Process wastewater from primary lead
processing;
a. Sulfate process waste adds from
titsniura dioxide productios: snd
7. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production.
Tbe 13 mineral processing wastes
proposed for temporary retention in the
Bevill exclusion were:
1. Caslfler ash froa coal gasification:
2. Caldun sulfate wastewater txeatment
plant sludge from primary copper proceasia^
3. Slag tailings from primary copper
processing:
4. Fluorogypsum boa hydraflooric add
production:
5. Air peUutloa cooirol dnst/sludfs from
iron blast fumaoeai
0. Iron blast hniiaaa slac
7. Air poUutlaa ooBtrot awt/sludge from
lighrweigfat agsregaie prodnctiaa:
8. Process wastewetv from primary
magnesium productiaa tqr the anhydrous
process:
0. ProcMs wastewater from phosphoric
add production:
la Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
fumaca air pollution control dust/sludge from
carbon steel production:
11. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace slag from carbon steel production:
1Z Chloride process waste solids from
Utaniuffl letrachiorida production: and
13. Slag from primary zinc proceaaing.
The September 25,1989 notice also .
proposed to modify the RCRA subtitie C
definition of "designated facility" iot
purposes of clarifying the requirements
for completing hazardous waste
manifests for wastes transported from
one State where they are regulated as
hazardous to another in which they are
not regulated as hazardous. Under the
proposed modification, if a waste is sent
to an authorized State where the waste
is not regulated as hazardous, then the
designated facility must be a facility
allowed by the State to accept the
waste. The Agency solicited public
comments on the appropriateness of
these modifications as well as on the
data used to make the proposed Bevill
exclusion decisions.
B. Overview of Today's Rule
Today's final rule establishes the
status of 20 mineral processing wastes
which were proposed either for removal
from or retention in the Bevill exclusion
in the September 25.1989 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In
addition, today's rule contains technical
corrections to the September 1,1989
final rule. Furthermore, today's final rule
also promulgates a clarification to the
definition of "designated facility" that
the Agency proposed on September 25.
1989.
This final rule completes the
rulemaking regarding the Bevill status of
mineral processing wastes until the
completion of tbe required report to
Congress and Regulatory Determination.
In establishing the current status for
these 20 mineral processing wastes, the
Agency has considered information
presented in public comment on the
September 25 proposal together with
additional analysis of previous EPA
industry siu-vey and field data and.
where appropriate, has modified the
decisions.
As in tbe September 25 proposaL the
Agency evaluated the 20 mineral
processing wastes by applying the high
volume and low hazard criteria
contained in the September 1.1989 final
rule, using a three-step pnKess. Pint
tbe Agency applied the high volume
criteria to tbe available waste
generation data. For each waste, the
Agency obtained facility-specific annual
waste generation rates for the period
19e3--1968 and calculated the highest
average annual facility-level generation
rate. Mineral pnx:es8ing wastes
generated above the volume criteria
thresholds (an average rate of 45,000
metric tons per facility for non-liquid
wastes, and 1.000.000 metric tons for
liquid wastes) passed the high volume
criterioa
In the second, step, the Agency
evaluated each of the 20 wastes with
respect to the low hazard criterion usin
the relevant waste characteristics. EPA
considered a waste to pose a low hazar
only if the waste passed both a toxicity
test (Method 1312) and a pH test.
The third step involved consolidatinc
the results from the first two steps to
determine the appropriate Bevill status
of the 20 conditionally retained mineral
processing wastes. Applying these
criteria, the Agency is today removfng
the Bevill exclusion for the folloyving
five mineral processing wastes:
1. Furnace off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorus production.
2. Process wastewater from piimat7 lead
processing.
3. Air pollution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production.
4. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production.
5. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production.
The following 15 mineral processing
wastes are to be retained within the
exclusion (in addition to thefive alreac
retained in the September 1 rule),
pending preparation of a Report to
Congress and the subsequent Reguiato:
Determination:
1. Treated residue from roasting/leaching
of chrome ore;
2. Gasifier ash from coal gasification:
3. Process wastewater from coal
gasification:
4. Caldum sulfate wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primary copper processin
5. Slag tailings from primary copper
processing
e. Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid
production:
7. Process wastewater from hydrofluoric
add production:
8. Air pollution control dust/sludge from
iron blast furnaces;
8. Iron blast fomaca slag:
la Process wastewater from primary
magnesitmi production by the anhydrous
process:
11. Process wastewater from phosphoiic
add production:
12. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
fumaca air poUuUon control dust/sludge in
carbon steel production:
13. Basic oxygen fumaca and open hearth
furnace slag from carbon steel production:
14. Chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetradiloride productioi\: and
15. Slag from primary zinc processing.
Today's rule also contains technical
corrections to tbe September 1.1989
final nile. The Agency's review of the
final rule, as weU as public comments,
revealed slight differences between
portions of the regulatory language anc
the corresponding discussion in the
preamble. As a result today's rule
includes minor editorial changes to the

2328 Federal Regiater / Vol. 55, No. IS / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules aad RegulatloM
The Agency has considered the
comment and finds these arguments
unconvincing. EPA believes that the
type of reagent used is an important
factor in determining the chemical
nature and quantity of tbe sludge
generated. As explained in the preamble
to the April, 1989 proposed rule (54 FR
15318), EPA believes that there are
significant differences between these
materials, and accordingly, has retained
this distinction in today's final rule.
b. Volume. Three commenters
addressed the volume data for this
waste. One commenter agreed with
EPA's determination that calcium
sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludge meets the high volume criterion.
Another commenter contended that all
wastewater treatment plant sludge front
primary copper processing should be
studied under the BeviU Amendment If
the generation rates for calcium sulfate
and sodium hydroxide sludges are
added, they noted, the resulting average
is above the 45.000 metric ton per year
cutoff. The third commenter claimed
that public comment data submitted by
waste generators and survey data for
those same wastes are net consistent
The third commenter noted that in
public comments, industry submitted an
average annual generation rate for
calcium sulfate wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primaiy copper
processing of 75,750 MT/yr (comments
of Kennecott Utah Copper on October
20.1988 NPR\f), while according to
EPA's survey data, the average
generation rate for this waste stream
was 1.179,341 MT/yr. Because these
data are not in agreement tbe third
commenter concluded that all of the
volume data are suspect especially
when EPA had previously estimated an
annual generation rate of 38.033 MT/yr,
a volume that would not have supported
a high volume determination.
The Agency agrees that the volume
data cited by the commenter appear to
be inconsistent The Agency has
reviewed the survey data and found that
these apparent incooaiateacies arise
from the fact that appnpdate wasta
volume data sometlmea were reported in
sectioiu 3 through 0 of Aa
questionnaire, rather thaa section 2,
which was used to develop average
volume data for the proposed rule. As a
result, these differences have since been
rf?solved and are explained in Section
UL below, and a background document
in the docket which present tbe
Agency's revised waste generation
estimates. Finally. EPA's previous
volume estimate of approximstely 38.000
V(T/yr average per facility was based
un un aggregation of calcium sulfate and
sodium hydroxide sludge, which tbe
Agency has concluded is
Inappropriate. *
c. Hazard. Two commenters
addressed the hazard level of calcium
sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludge from primary copper processing.
One agreed with EPA's proposed
determination that the waste meets
EPA's low hazard criterion. However,
another commenter asserted that EPA's
sampling data demonstrated that
calciimi sulfate wastewater treatment
sludge from primary copper processing
exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of EP-toxicity for arsenic,
cadmium, and selenium, and questioned
why it was not proposed for removal
from the Bevill exclusion on that basis
alone.
EPA finalized the low hazard criterioa
in the September 1,1989 rule, and is not
entertaining comments on it The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlined in 54 FR 36592. As
discussed in the September 25,1989
proposaL the waste does not exhibit
levels of toxic constituents above those
established by the September 1,1989
final rule.
3. Slag Tailings From Primary Copper
Processing
Two commenten supported EPA's
proposed retention of slag tailings from
primary copper processing for further
study, asserting that EPA properly
determined tbe waste to be high volume
and low hazartL
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One commenter stated that
at its facility, slag tailings are produced
when tbe ore input to the mill is
supplemented with slag from the
facility's primary copper smelting
operations. Because the slag tailings
cannot be differentiated from the ore
tailings, the commenter argues that the
Bevill exemption, as either a processing
waste or a benefidation waste, should
be retained for the slag tailings.
While EPA plans to study copper slag
tailings in a report to Congress. EPA
disagrees writb the commenter's
contention that the fact that the waste is
generated tn combination with a "
benefidation waste is relevant to the
decision that indusion in the report to
Congress la appropriate. The Agency
has dedded to include this waste In tbe
report to Congress because it Is a
• Avallabla data liuficata thai iludga reaulting
froiB tTsatnwot of araitcwtlen from piinafy copper
procaating ulng KMiiuRi hydroxide i« gniera'ad In
r.uch milUf aohaaaa Itkan ealchira tuifata «hi)u(lj(«.
mineral processing waste that is both
high volume and low hazard according
to the criteria previously established
The Agency wiU, however, examine the
current practices that involve comanagement
of a beneficiation waste
and a mineral processing waste in the
report to Congress.
b. Volume. Three commenters
concurred that slag tailings from
primary copper processing meet EPA's
high volume criterion. One commenter
submitted complete volume data for ihis
waste stream in the Survey, stating that
it generates more than a million metric
tons per year of the waste stream.
Another commenter claimed that about
3,700,000 short tons of tailings, of which
approximately 22,000 short tons were
slag tailings, were generated by its
facility,
4. Air Pollution Contirol Dust/Sludge
From Iron Blast Furnaces
One commenter asserted that the
Agency's proposal for retention of iron
and steel industry wastes within the
Bevill exdusion is fully supported by the
data. These wastes are mineral '
processing wabic:. and they meet the
criteria as high volume, low hazard
wastes.
5. Iron Blast Furnace Slag
One commenter asserted that the
Agency's proposal for retention of Iron
and steel industry wastes within the
Bevill exdusion is fully supported by the
data. These wastes are mineral
processing wastes, and they meet the
criteria as high volume, low hazard
wastes.
6. Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open
Hearth Furnace Air Pollution Contit)l
Dust/Sludge From Carbon Steel
Production
One commenter asserted that the
Agency's proposal for temporary
retention of iron and sted industiy
wastes within tbe Bevill exdusion is
fully supported by tbe data. These
wastes are mineral processing wastes.
and they meet tbe criteria as high
volume, low hazard wastes.
One commanter argued, however, tr.dt
EPA's volume data is incomplete,
because for some wastes, the voluTt.e
determinations are based on only a
fraction of tbe facilities generating the
waste. ID tbe case of basic oxygen and
open hearth furnace APC dust/sludge
from cartion steel production, the
commenter maintained that EPA based
its vohime determination on data from
only four of 27 facilities. The commenter
argued that tbe Agency made no effort
to determine if these few facilities wer'*

FMhtat Iflgiate / Vol. 56. No. 15 / Tvadaf, Jmrnaty 23, 1999 / Rales aad Regniations 2925
reduced or etintioated, to addittoa, EPA
has iodnded aggregated CBI data in tba
puhfidy availabk (iocamentaftion
supporting tbe deeakfnicnt of today's
rule to Uie extent Ibat this conld be dona
without revealing ctmqiany-qiecific CK
information.
As discussed above. fodUties that
submit either CBI or non-(SI data
requested by EPA under RCRA 3007
authority are subiect to enforcement
action if they submit false data. As a
result the Agency believes that data
collected under Section 3007 authority
can be relied upon without additional
verification, regardless of whether it ia
CBI or not In addition, as a practical
matter, the schedule required by tbe
Appeals Court for this rulemaking did
not provide the time needed to condud
such verification.
One commenter stated that for some
of the wastes of interest EPA volume
determinations are based on a fraction
of those facilities generating the waste.
As a result the commenter contends,
EPA lacks a sufficient basis for
determining whether proposed wastes
meet the high volume criterion. In
instances where EPA lacks data no.
more than 25 percent of the facilities
generating the waste, the commenter
believes that EPA should not make a
volume determinatioa without
determining whether the facilities
providing the volume data are
representative of the industry, the
Agency should also attempt to obtain
data on the remaining facHItiea. The
commenter maintained that in the
absence of survey data. EPA should not
rely completely upon data provided in
public comments.
EPA responds that aa dicBSsed abanra
and ia toon AttailinSectitm Biol 6iim
preamble, forlhsr analyaia of tb* vsmf
data has shown that the survejr
responses do in fact provide adequate
waste vohnne data for aH but one of tbe
20 mineral processing wastes covered
by today's rulemaking. Wttb tbe
exception of this one wasta. wasta
volume data are avaHablt In tbe msmj
for far more than 25 nrcsnt of the
facilities genetatfaig aa waste. For tba
one waste with UndbKf datm availabfe b
tbe survey, basic uji|fea fhraace aad
open heartb fuinaia aif poUuthn coBtTM
dust/slndge from carbon steel
production, data piuvlded by tbe
Americaa Iron end Steei Institute (A15I)
were used for the volume detenniBatien.
These data wtiu vettfied tbrougb
comparison wMb tbe sw»ey dats tbat
ware provided for several af tbe
fadlttia*

2328 Fednai Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
purification steps required to produce
commerdal grade, also known as
merchant grade, phosphoric add. Two
commenters argued that ttie process
wastewater generated from the uraitium
recovery step of phosphoric acid
production must be considered a
component of "process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production" and. thus,
proposed it for retention within the
Bevill Amendment.
(iv) Comments on process wastewater
from animal feed production. Two
commenters maintained that process
wastewater from animal feed production
should be included in the definition of
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production and thus retained in the
Bevill exclusion. One commenter
claimed animal feed process
wastewater, standing alone, meets the
Agency's high volume and low hazard
criteria. This commenter further argued
that the production of animal feed
constitutes mineral processing, dting the
following reasons: (1) Three key animal
feed ingredients (dicalcium phosphate,
mono- and dicalcium phosphate, and
defluorinated phosphate nick) are
produced from beneficiation of either
phosphate rock or limestone; (2)
processing removes and/or enhances
the characteristics of either beneficiated
phosphate rock or limestone: (3) none of
the materials used is a scrap materiaL
(4) the processes produce final mineral
products: and (5) no combination with
non-mineral products is involved.
Therefore, the commenter argued,
process wastewater from sudi
production should be retained within tbe
scope of the Bevill Amendment
The commenter also addressed
several aspects of the production
process, liie commenter argued that the
defluorination step in animal feed
production should not prevent process
wastewater from animal feed production
from remaining within the Bevill
exdusion. The production of
defluorinated phosphoric add involves
essentially the same process as tbe
production of undefhiarinated
commercial grade phoapbnric add.
Defluorination is only an additional step
in add production in vAicfa Quorides are
removed bom tbe add by baat and tba
addition of a silicon mineral to facilitate
removal of fluorine. No meaningful
distinction can or should be made
regarding defluorinated phosphoric acid
simply because defluorination occurs
before or after concentration to
commerdal grade strength.
The commenter further argued that
the pnxluction of monoammonium
phosphate, an animal feed product
constitutes mineral processing, even
though the process makes use of
ammonia, a non-mineral ingredient The
coinmenter indicated that ammonia is
added to defluorinated commercial
grade phosphoric acid in a granulation
process, involving approximately 7,000
gallons per minute of phosphoric acid
production process water for particulate
scrubbing. "The commenter maintained
that this amount of water is
"infinitesimal" compared to the mineral
processing process wastewater
generated on a daily basis, and thus this
small granulation process should be
considered co-management and
monoammonium phosphate process
wastewater should be induded within
the Bevill exclusion of phosphoric acid
process wastewater.
The commenter maintained that if
EPA determined that returning to its
source tbe 7,000 gallons per minute of
phosphoric acid process wastewater
used during feed grade monoammonium
production would result in the removal
of the entire phosphoric acid process
wastewater system from the Bevill
Amendment the production of feed
grade monoammonium phosphate would
be ceased and the product removed
from tbe market.
(v) Comments on superphosphate
wastewater. One commenter contended
that process wastewater from
superphosphate production should be
retained within the scope of tbe Bevill
Amendment The commenter argued
that data submitted by industry in the
mineral processing survey demonstrates
that this waste from superphosphate
production meets the high volimie and
low hazard criteria. In addition, the
conunenter claimed that superphosphate
production meets the relevant aspects of
the EPA mineral processing definition,
stating that tbe production of
superphosphate rock involves the direct
reaction of phosphate rock with dilute,
not merchant grade, phosphoric acid.
(vi) Conunents on ammonia ted
fertilizer wastewater. Two commenten
argued that process wastewater
generated in the production of
ammonia ted phosphate fertiiizera (APF)
should be retained within the scope of
the Bevill Amendment The indusion of
phosphoric add process wastewater
with^ tbe scope of the Bevill
Amendment should, tiiey contended,
resolve the issue of whether APF
process wastewater is included. The
influent water to tbe ammoniated
phosphate fertilizer process is the
process wastewater from phosphoric
add production, which remains under
the Bevill exdusion. The commenter
claimad that if APF process wastewater
exhibits hazardous characteristics, it is
solely because process wastewater from
phosphoric add production is used in
APFproduction. The commenter further
argued that (be entire APF production
process should not be removed from the
Bevill exdusion, when the cause of the
hazardous characteristic is phosphoric
acid wastewater, which is covered
tuider the Bevill exclusion.
(vii) Comments on sulfuric add
wastewater. One commenter contended
that captive sulfuric acid production
involves mineral processing and is
absolutely essential to the production of
phosphoric acid by the wet process. The
commenter urged EPA to either clarify
that sulfuric add wastewater produced
as a result of sulfuric acid production is
part of phosphoric acid process
wastewater or revise its interpretation
of the mixttire rule so that such process
wastewater can continue to be managed
in the soimd and cost-effective manner
practiced today.
(viii) Response to Comments. In the
proposaL EPA noted that process
wastewatera are generated at several
points in the wet process, included
phosphogypsum ti^nsport phosphoric
acid concentration, and phosphoric acid
temperatiire control and cooling. (See 54
FR 39303) As stated previously, the
Agency did not intend to imply that
these were the only sources of process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
operations.
The Agency has carefully considered
the comments and. based on the
information available, agrees, for the
reasons described in the comments, that
phosphogypsum stack runoff, process
wastewater generated from the uranium
recovery step of phosphoric acid
production, process wastewater from
animal feed production (including
defluorination but excluding
ammoniated animal feed production),
and process wastewater from
superphosphate production are also the
result of mineral processing operations
and should be considered part of
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production.
As discussed on September 1 (see 54
FR 38621). the Agency does not consider
the production of ammoniated
phosphate fertili7.fr from phosphoric
acid and ammonia to be a mineral
processing operation. For the same
reasons, the Agency does not consider
the production of ammoniated animal
feed from phosphoric add to be a
mineral processing operation. As also
discussed on September 1 (see 54 FR
38623). the Agency does not consider
wastes from sulfuric acid production to
be part phosphoric add process
wastewater.

tidmal Ka^ater / VeL 55t Pfo. IS / Taesday, fmmary 23, 199& / Rules taii RfcguIatioHg 2327
representative ef tbe'indiiHdy bi generat
or if fee facfflfiee were unnstiofly lasge
or small andweeUPriiewlfae'dB^.
iBFeepone&te AiecoEBBent EPAtes
carai^Uy reviewed all dMa avsilabie
from the industry survey nd from other
sources. The AgencyYravised waste
generation estimate (presented in
Section UL below). Is based i^xm data
obtained from the vast majority ol
active carbon steel facilities. These data
show that this is a high volume waste.
7. Basic Oxygen Fumaca and Open
Hearth Furnace Slag From Carbon Steel
Production
One commenter aeserted that the
Agency's proposal fot tempocary
retention of iron and steel industry
wastes within the BeviU exdustoo ia
fully supported by the data. Thea*
wastes are minesal processing waateat,
and they meet tbs criteria as bi^
volume, low hazard waste&
8. FIuorogyp>8um From ffydroffuonc
Add Pnxluction
a. Valutas. One commenter agreed
with EPA's proposed determinatioa that
fluorogypsum. from hydrofluoric add
preduetion suets tba high volume
criteriaik
b. Hazard. One commentez agreed
with EPA's proposed determination that
fluorogypsum meets the IOMT hazard
criterion.
9 AirPoUtttion Coatrol Dust/Sbid^e
From Ligbtwatght Aggregate Vtvductioa
a. Volume. One commenter argued
that EPA's volume data are tncomplete,
because for this waste, the volume
determination was based on only a
fraction of the fadhties generating tba
waste. Tbe commenter maintained tbal
EPA based tts volume determination lor
lightweight aggregate APC dtutftio^
on data from only six ofthe 2tr facilities
it believes to generate the waste. Tbe
commenter argued tbat tbe Agpncy
made no effort to detennine fftheaa fbw
faciUties were representattv* of tba
industry.
In response to this oomment KPA bas
carefufly reviewed* aa otv anitBTdie
from the Industry sf Hjp aiHinuut otber
sources. The Agencf^ miavif wasta
generation esttaatB tareMBtBd tn
Section IB. below^ is bvserf upon datk
obtained from the ma Jul By ot acttw
lightweight aggregate prodbctftm
facilities. These data show that tbb ia
not a higb vohime waste.
la Piocaaa Waatawntar fm fiimmr$
MngaaaiH» Psndiiotlan by tba
AakydaawcMatbod
a. Hazard One eammmtn
EPAsdecision not to propos*
removal from tbefcvil MtcTnskHt
process wastewater from priraarjr
magnesium processing by tbe an&ydroos'
method even though ^A's sampBng
demonstrated diat the waste exhibits
the hazardous waste characteristic of
corrosivity (pH level of 1.22). EPA
should they contended further consider
this data in preparing its Report to
Congress.
The Agency generally agrees with the
commenter that relevant hazard data
should be ctmsidered in the study of the
waste stream when preparing tbe Report
to Congress. However. EPA finalized the
low hazard crflerion in the September 1.
1989 rale, and is not currently
entertafaiing comments on it The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlined fa» 54 fT? 38592. As
discussed in the 9/25/89 proposaL the
waste does not exhibit a pH brfow the
Bevifl hazard criterion value of 1.
11. PiQcess Wastewater From
Phospbaric Add Production
Four commenters stated that EPA
correctly prepoeed that process
wastewater' u'uin pnospftoric eerd
produt-ifoR be retained witbsr tbe aeope
of the Bevill Amendment and tbet EPA
should retafe dn's waste wi^kxn th^
Bev^ exclusion bv Ae final ndei
a. Processing CriterionTWaste^
Defuiitiott. One commenter argued tbet
process water recircnlated in the
phosphate complex, including the
gypsum stacking system. t» not
(fisearded. ftocess water's nutrfent
value, which ia extracted for fertilizer
prodteetSt and it»utifizatIon as a eootant
and transport mediuBi. are net activitiea
tbatsbovldcaaseit tobedssstfied as*
souv waste ae uermetf oy tfte~ivBSOurce
wOsae^vaQen ^RQ Recove^f Act
EIPA responds that tbe defluitioo of
sofiiT waste is an issue tbat is° not open
for comment In connection witb today a
nilenuuLbig. EFA wishes to point out
however, tbat tbe issue of when esoUng
water ie a sofhi waste bes been
discussed hi previous rulemakings.
Specifically, in the preamble to tt»
Jamarrt MSfr (50 FR 614) Knef rate that
established tbe current deftnitfos cf
soM iraste. tbe Agency faidicated tbat
cooling water raainged eatirelr ta •
dosed-loop system wa» no( eaneidered
to b^rvoasneQ antL tfans; would be
eligible fbr tbe efooed-ieop excbiefan.
Tbe Agency aiM indleated. however,
tbat seocBoBy SMteriais manages HI
impouncuuula would not bs eligftw fer
tbe csaaetMiMp eKelnsinn. b adtfiHuifc
tbe sarfcca>tepouBdtaeBla eoffeettng.
cooliaf twtaroffefgjrpenm stadvare
thai «t» enrtSBlft B» soM
\xi Coramente on phosphogypsum
transporf water. One commenter
supported EPA> incbision of the water
used to b^nsport phosphogypsum within
tbe definition of process wastewater
from phosphoric add production.
(ill Comments on stack nmoff. Three
conrmentere argued tbat "stack runoff'
should be induded in the defimtitm of
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production. One commenter
maintained tbat stack runofi is
comprised of "phosphogypsum
transport" water, which is spedfically
included in the definition of process
wastewater from phosphoric add
production. The commenter further
stated ^at the definition of prtjcess
wastewater from phosphoric add
production, which includes "several
points te the wet process." is intended to
inclode aB process wastewater
generated at all points within that
process. A second commenter reasoned
tbat iust a* process wastewater
managed in a pond that receives
predpitation continues to be process
wastewater, gypsran transport water
that is temporarily trapped wftKn a
gypsBiB stack and receii^s prectpttation
continues to be gypsum transport water.
The commenter also irjdicated it^
because runoff fhmi dry stacks rs not
hezarthnia. and as runoff from wet
stacks contains transport water which
hae been retained stack runoff should
also be retained within the Be\'ill
Amendment.
One commenter noted that ctimments
from previous rulemakings and other
documents may have led to the incctrrect
impression that pbosphtjgypsum stack
runoff standing atone exhibits
characteristice of hazardous waste. The
cnuuuenter atso- indicated that (hey
believe tbe Agency bea resolved this
issue satfaETactoriry. however, by
bielttding water used fi3r
phosphogypsonr transport m the
description of pbospboric add process
wastewater induded in the proposed
rule. Tbe commenter further concluded
that because only tbe phosphogypsum
transport water entrained in
piedpitation mnolT from
phosphogypsum stadtr ever exhibits
cbaiacterisQcv of hazardous waste.
EPA't ptopoBal tir taducfe^
pbosphogypemu transport water within
tbe scope of tba EvrtH Ameuuiiient
reaonee Ifts isaoe of oe status of
predpita tfun nznoff.
(iii) Comnentv on uranium recovery
wastewater. Cooraenler* noted that the
urannA reeivre^r ste^ of pnoepnorrc
add preAtctrair reflows tbe reaction or
phosphate reek and suffuilc acid snd
precede* the oeneentration and

Federal RegUter / VoL 55> No. 15 / Tuaaday. January 23. 1990 / Roles aad Regulations 232{
b. Volume. A commenter stated that
the data collected by the Agency at its
facility and similar facilities indicate
that the process wastewater meets
EPA's high voliune criterion.
C. Hazard. Two commenters
addressed the hazard level of this
waste. One supported EPA's proposed
determination that process wastewater
from phosphoric acid production meets
the low hazard criterion. However, one
conunenter questioned why the waste
stream was not proposed for removal
from the Bevill exclusion because EPA's
sampling data showed that process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
production exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of corrosivity (pH values
of 2.0. 2.1,1.8. and 1.5). EPA should Uiey
maintained, further consider this data in
preparing its Report to Congress.
TTie Agency generally agrees with the
commenter that relevant hazard data
should be considered in the study of the
waste sb^am when preparing the Report
to Congress. However, EPA finalized the
low hazard criterion in the September 1,
1989 rule, and is not entertaining
comments on it The Agency's rationale
for the low hazard criterion is outlined
in 54 FR 3659Z The waste passes the pH
criterion described in that rule.
12. Chloride Process Waste Solids From
Titanium Tetrachloride Production
One commenter agreed %vith EPA's
proposal to relate chloride process
waste solids from titanium tetrachloride
production witbte the Bevill exclusion.
o. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One commenter claimed that
EPA. te its description ot the "chloride
process waste soUds from titanhite
tetrachloride production" te tba
propoaaL described only tbe "diloride"
process for manufacturing titanium
dioxide and not tbe "cbloride-ilmenita"
process. The Agency stated tbat "tb«
chloride process mvolves fluidized
roasting and chlorination of rutile.
synthetic rutile. slag or benefidated
ilmenites." This statement according to
the commenter. essentially deacclbes tbe
"chloride" process tet usee "bigbgrade"
ores or bana^UAitad ores as
feedstocks; the cfatorida flmmiita
process, te cootraa^^ iiaaa "low-grade"
ores as tbe principal feedstock for its
process.
In additioa the coinmenter contended
the Agency incorrecUy stated tbat the
product formed is "titanium
tetrschloride." This may be true of tbe
"chloride" princess that uses "highgrade"
ores or previously benefidated
materiaL but is only partially tr\ie of tbe
chloride-ilmenite process, te the
"chloride-ilmenife" process, the
commenter contteued gaseous Iron
chlorides are generated first and are
subsequently condensed teto iron
chloride "waste adds". This is the
"benefidation" process. After this, the
titanium te the ores is converted at a
much slower rate teto titanium
tetrachloride. Both of these processes,
however, occur in a contmuous, "onestep"
operation. The titanium
tetrachloride generated by the chlorideihnenite
process is then used as the
feedstock for the ultimate production of
titanium dioxide. The commenter
expressed concern that EPA appears to
incorrectiy consider the "chlorideilmenite"
process to be covered within
the "chloride process," for which the
"mining waste exdusion" was
elimteated for "chloride processing
waste acids" te the September 1.1989
final nde. The coinmenter objected to
this conclusion because the chlorideilmenite
process should not be "lumped"
with a process that is clearly and
substantially different noting that the
distmction between the two processes
has been recognized stece at least 1970.
The commenter claimed that its titaiuum
dioxide plants could be materially and
advenely affected by EPA's
determmations regarding whether or not
"chloride-Umenite" plants are
considered "benefidation" versils
"processing" facilities. The commenter
also claimed its "chloride-ilmtete"
process is not covered by dther of the
Agency's rulemakings (Sept 1 and Sept
25.1989), and thus would be covered by
an upcoming "special study" for
benefidation wastes. The commenter
urged EPA to make a determination that
the "chloride-ilmenite" process is one of
benefidatioaof low grade ilmenite on
and "chlorination" and should be made
sut^act to tbe upcoming RCRA 80Q2(p)
special studies to determtee tbe
appropriate waste management
requirements.
In response to these comments. EPA
reviewed tbe court opinions and related
EPA efiluent limitation guideltees died
by tbe commenter for precedents for
considering tbe chloride-ilmenite
process to be significantiy different from
tbe conventional chloride process. The
Agency also referred to written
comments submitted by the same
coomienter te response to previous
proposed rulemakings addressing the
scope of the Mteing Waste Exclusion.
Based upon this review, EPA agrees
with tbe commenter that tbe chlorideilmenite
process is different than the
conventional chloride process te tbat
ilmenite ore used as the feed stock to
the process contains much larger
quantitias of Iron, whicb must be
removed, than the feed stocks used by
other chloride pnK:esses. te addition.
EPA agrees that te part the chlorideilmenite
process tevolves benefidation
of ores or minerals. Nevertheless, the
Agency contteues to believe that it is
reasonable to consider the chlorideilmenite
process to be a part of the
general "chloride process" category for
purposes of this nilemaking because the
process destroys the identity of the
mineral, produces titanium tetiachloridf
gas (a saleable mineral product), and
generates wastes which are fvmctionalh
identical to, although larger in volume
than, the wastes generated by other
chloride process facilities. Moreover,
because the "beneficiation" wastes .and
the "processing" wastes generated by
the chloride-ilmenite process are
inseparable, according to EPA effluent
guideltees development documents and
as argued by the commenter, the Agenc;
concludes that the "chloride-ilmenite"
process must be considered a mineral
processing operation for purposes of thi'
rulemaking.
The Agency also notes that the
commenter's contention that the
"chloride-ilmenite" process is not
covered by the description ofthe
chloride process provided te die
September 1.1969 final or thaSeptembe
25,1989 proposal is tecorrect While the
description of the chloride process
provided te these rules does not
describe tbe "chloride-ilmenite" process
te detail due to Confidential Busmess
Information claims made by the
commenter. tbe Agency has dearly
considered this process to be one of the
several chloride processes covered by
these previoua rulemakings and,
therefore, this rulemaking as welL This
fact is dearly demonstrated by the
tedusion of tbe commenter's facilities ir
the background documentation for thest
rulemaktegs. Accordingly, aU solid
wastes generated by this process are
subject fo BPA's reteterpretation of the
Milling Waste Exdusion. tedudmg this
rulemaking.
b. Volume. One commenter agreed
v«rith EPA's determteation that chloride
process waste solids satisfy the highvolume
criterion. Another commenter
submitted volume data, claiming that
the waste streams from the "chlorideilmenite"
process are generated at over
1.400,000 and 600.000 tons annually in
two facilities.
c. Hazard. One commenter agreed
witb EPA's determteation that chlonde
process waste solids satisfy the lowhazard
criterion.
13. Slag From Primary Ztec Processing
One conunenter asserted thai EPA
properly applied the high volume/low

2330
Federal Re^slBr / Vol. SS, No. 15 / Tnesday, January 23, 1990 / Rides and Restdatians
hazard criteria to slag from primary zinc
processii^ te the Septenaber 25 proposal.
a Hazard One coamentCT questioned
EPA's decision not to propose to remove
slag firen primary nnc processing from
the Bevill exciuskm becanse tbe
sampling data demoiutrated that the
waste exhibits the hazardous waste
charaderistic of EP-toxicity for leed
They stated tiiat EPA should farther
consider these data te prquring its
Report to Congress.
The Agency generally a^^es with the
commenter that all relevant hazard data
should be cixisidered te tbe study of the
waste stream when preparing the Report
to Congress. However, EPA finalized the
low hazard criterion te tbe Septemt>er 1,
1989 rale, aad is not currently
entertaining cooiments on it The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlteed in 54 FR 36592. As
discussed te tbe September 25,1989.
propoaaL the waste passes the toxidty
criterion described te that nile.
C. Cometents on the Seren Wastes
Proposed for Removal
This section discneses comments
received on each of the seven mineral
processing wastes for wbicb EPA
proposed to reaiove fivn the BeriQ
exemption. Tbe oooments received os
each of tbe wastes generally are
presented imder one (rf tlffee
sabiieadingr Proceesaig Criterion/
Waste Oeftoitioa. V«4«ne, or Hazard
These subkeadiags appear only wben
they are relevant ta oonmeats identified
for the waste beiag discassed so for
many of tba seven wasSea. ooe ormace
of the subbaedings are not mdndrri.
1. Roast/Leach Ore Residue From
Primary Chromite Processing
a. Processing Criterioa/Waste
Definitioa. Two cooBBasters resoarked
on thie designation of ifaa'waatc stiwsm
One oommealer ma tended tbat the
origisal deaigsatian of roast/leach at»
residue from primary processing ol
chrome ore referred to tba ore residue
solids te the form cumndy being
disposed (after treatiMiA Jiot the form
m which the waste ia fineMtad Tba
commenter stated tbat|tlt SUB waste as
disposed that has tba pOtadlUl to enter
the enviraiunent and that tfds wasta ia
low hazard and high vobiffla and should
be retained. Another commenter argued
thai because the ore used te production
of cfnt)mi»mi chemicals contains not
only chrome but also other compounds
(e.g.. msgnesivm siftcate). tbe term
"chrome ore" or "chromium ore" would
be more appropnata for uae by the
Agency.
EPA agrees svith both o( tbese
commeots. in today's firtal rale, tbe
Agency bases its evahiation of flns
waste's compliance with the Bevill
criteria on treated residue from
roasting/leaching of chrome ore.
b. Hazard. Three commenten
addressed the apparent failure of this
waste stream to meet the low hazard
criterion. One commenter agreed with
EPA's proposed determination, and
provided data that tedicated that treated
waste from chromite ore processing is
occasionally EP toxic, based on data it
received from American Chrome and
Chemical.
One commenter acknowledged that
residue from the roastteg/leaching of
chrome ore is hazardous at the pomt of
generatioii. The commenter asserts,
however, ^t diron^ treatment at the
wastewater treatment plant te
compliance with the facility's NTOES
permit tbe waste stream ceases to
exhibit the hazardoos waste
characteristic for chronuum; both the
liqmd and non-liquid fractions of die
stream are rendered non-hazardous. The
concenter states ^t this treatment
prac^ce has been demonstrated to, and
accepted by, the State of North
Caroltea.
Anodier commenter maintateed that
te making its hazard determteatiqn for
this waete. EPA relied on samples taken
from aa inapproprtste stage of the waste
management procees. The csBsnenter
dairaed tbat the materials from tbe posttwtment
tia^, and in particular the
soids. an aon-barardous and qualify
for die exdusion. In adkfitioa. tbey
contended this treatment does not
aSect the volume of tbe waste.
Hie Agency bas reviewed tbe
available data and agrees witb %s
commenten tbat dteee data teAcate
that tbe tmXsdrasidQe fnm roosttag/
leaching of cborae ore is low bazafd.
The Ageocf no4es, bc%vever. tbat waste
management activities assodated witb
the oAreated wastes, mduding tbe
UnatniBnt operatien itself, are not
exempted from Subtitle C requirements
by the Bev^ amendment beosnse prior
to treatment tbe weste is not low hazard
(«ltbo«^ any tanks tevolved te the
treatment procew may qualify for the
wastewater treatment imtil exemption
under 40 CFR 284.1 (gH6)).
2. Process Wastewater From Coal
Gasification
a. PncaaaiBg Criterion fWatta
Defrnitiaa. One comenter descrttwd tbe
prodediosi procesa for coal gasificatfon.
The prodoctina of ooal gas (and thus
process wastewater) involves, first tbe
controlled oombostion of lignite. This
produces a raw gas stream sent first to
the Raw Cae Cooling and Shift
Conversion units and then to the
Rectisol unit. The Rectisol unit removes
add gases COt. HiS, CSi, and COS) and
produces synthetic hiel gases. These
gases undergo methanation and gas
compressten and then are delivered ts a
pipeline as synthetic natural gas A
coproduct naphtha, is also produced.
"Gas liquor" is also produced by the
cooling and refining of the raw gas
stream.
Tlie commenter added that the
Gasification, the Raw Gas Cooling Shift
Conversioa and the Redisol units all
produce gas liquor streams which are
routed to the Gas Liquor Separation
tmit Oaring tbe gas liqiujr separating
process, another coproduct tar oiL is
recovered AflerwaJds. tbe gas liquor is
sent to tbe PbeDOSolvan onit where
crude phenol is recovered Ammonia is
dien recovered ia the Pbosam unit
whicb dieduBges a "stripped gas
Hqaor." Tbe stripped gas bquor is sent to
tbe Ceofetg Tower ior use as a make-up
vsater. Other tiquids used as make-up
water include: small quantities of
filtered Wssolved Ak Rotation water
from tbe ofly water sewer systei^
softened water frtnn tbe potaWewater
treatment plant a smaH stream ftom the
Rectisol imit and small vohnnes'irf
(tietillatB water from tbe Multiple BSed
Evaporators. Tbe comenter also notes
that (1) Stiipped gas liquor comprises
over 70 percent of the make-up water te
tbe Cooling Tower (2) the Cooling
Tower is operated with a blowdown
rate of approximately 350 to 500 gallans
per minule or 650.000 to 9S&iG56 metiic
toiu per year, aad (3) the Cooliag Tower
blowdown is din'^''

yp . •
Faiaral Rag^star / Vd. 55. No. 15 / Ttmdav. Isnuary 23, 1990 / Rules and ReeuUtkKis 233-
procesa wastewatK and remams a
Bevill waste.
b. Volume. TVfo ceasasenters urged
EPA to reconsider its proposed
determteatioa tbat prscess wastewater
from coal gasification faila the high
volume criterion. Tbey contended that
the data cited by EPA te the September
25,1989 Federal Register were not
accurate. Both commenten stated that
process wastewatera are actually
generated at a rate that far exceeds cme
million metric tons per year. One
commenter daimed that rather than
being generated at a rate of 5984)30
metric tons per year, this waste is
produced at a rate of approximately
S.OOaoOO metric tons per year. Tbe
commenter believed that this error was
based on the A^^ncy's
misunderstaner and projected dmnigh tbe end
of the year.
EPA bas carefully reviewed tbe
comments and survey infonnatioa and
agrees that (1) Tbe fodlity
mischaraterised die pomt of generation
when it initially completed tbe 19n
National Sta-vey. wbicb EPA used te
developing tbe propoaafc and (2) procaas
wastewater froin OMI gasiflcatioa meets
the high vobimc aritetion bacaaaa it ia
clearly genantad hi i|aasitltlis abeve tba
applicable critatiosi vabie of \XHUm
mt/yr snma^ par fadUty actabliabsd by
the Septsrabar 1 final rak.
c. Hasard. A i iiiiimasHiB aupportad
EPA's pnqmsMl detenniaattosi tbat OMI
gasifieatiaa psucaaa nastessMtai meets
the low hazard cht
3. Furnace Off-GeaSaBds From
Elemental PhospMwaProdartina
Onei
dedason toi
solids bom (
prodtKtioD fivB tfaa BeviU i
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One rnasmaaler raiaed
several iaaaea aboet tbe defiaffioa (rf
this waste stream. Tbe onmmwtar
supported EPA's propassd
determination diat faraaca off-gaa soUda
an "solids." even tei^ ana facility
generates tba tvaate te tba form of a
slurry. Tba commanter matkm tbet
fumaoe off-gas solids from elmnental
pbospborooB production ate generated
eitiier as a solid waste stream or as a
slurry and contends tbat tbe term
"elemental phosphorus off-gas solids"
was specifically defteed to indude,
amoiig other things, "predpitator
slurry." EPA's assertion that die
commenter aggregated off-gas solids
with scrubber blowdown is, tbe
commenter claimed incorrect The
commenter also daimed that further
examteation shows that tbe material
stream is more property dassified as
"phossy water" and that one result of
reclassification is that 1.5 million tons of
furnace off-gas sohds should be
reclassified as "phossy water." The
commenter matetained that the
regulatory status of "phossy water" for
the September 1.1989 Fteal Rule was
based upon data that understated the
generation rate of this process stream by
approximately one-halt Tbe commenter
further mamtateed tbat all furnace offgas
aolida waste streams need to be
sinnlarly dassified to prevent this
rulemaking from having mequitabie
competitive effects between companies.
EPA agreea that the waste stream te
questioa sboold be defined uniformly
acrosa all fadUties tbat generate it
Becanae tbe waste stream is generated
(and menaged) as a solid at the raaiority
of facilities where it is generated EPA.'»
position ia tbat the waste of teterest is a
solid As a result at tbe two facilities at
whicb the off-gas solids are collected te
a bqaid tbe h^ volume and low hazard
criteria have been applied to the sobds
entrained witbte these liquid wastes, as
detenained try the settled solids
reported by the facilities in their
reaponsaa to the National Sarvey. Tba
liquid portions of tba wastes, as
generated dearly fail die appUcabie
high voiame criterion (average anniiai
generatkm rate of more tban on* odllioa
metric tone per year).
It. Vahime. A comaamter stated that
the waata stream encompassing fomaca
off-gas sohds from elemental
phosphorous production is generated as
a liquid at one facility. The commenter
concurred that the stream does not meet
the high votooe criterion. Another
caaaaaentar argued tbet because of tbe
relattvety low volume of the furnace oflgas
solids (4.686 mt/yr), the treatment of
thaaa sobds as hazardoos waatea ts
reasoaaUe SBKI practicable.
Hoarwar. one commenter argued tbet
the wdansa detarmination must ba made
using data from all fadlitiea tbat
generate fumaca off-gas soUda. ERA'S
proposed datambiatian tbat tbe average
rate of generation per facility ia 4.685
metric tons par year was. tbey
rontendad Imaed on incomplete
information bccaase data from facilities
that sabmitted data as Confidential
Bosteesa Information were not tecluded
The commenter furdier contended that
when all five facilities' furaace off-gas
solids material streams are considered,
the per plant facility average for the
"furnace off-gas solids" is 44.012 metric
tons per year, and that this average is
well withm any statistical margin for
error and thus, furnace off-gas solids
should be deemed a "high volume"
waste.
As stated above, "furnace off-gaa
solids" generated at two facilities that
reported using wet collection systems .
are defined as the solids removed from
the scrabber waten. Ftmiace off-gas
solids generated by three other facilities
are te fact solids as generated. Revised
(and final) waste generation
deterannations have been prepared on
this basis and are presented in Section
m. below. These data show that fnrnau
off-gas sobds is not a high volume
waste.
c. Hazard. Two conunenten
addressed the hazard level of furnace
off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorus fnoduction. Onacommente!
statMl tbat the aaalyticai intemation it
provided te tbe 1989 National Ssrvey
demonstrated tbat the wastaatream is
not a hazardoos waste under the RCRA
charaderistic of corrosivity. The other
commenter contended thst samples of
the slurry of furnace off-gas solids were
found to contate cadmium te
concentratioDS as great as 249 percent c
the regulatory level of 100 times the
MCL.
Review of EPA's samphng data
indicated tbat this waste passes the )ov^
hazard triterian. as discussed m Section
mbebw.
4. Process Wastewater From
Hydroflaaric Add Productioa
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Defmitien. Two cvBuaentera described
the byikofluoiic add prodection
process. Tbe faydrofluoric add
productioa prooaas extracts mteerel
values by reaction ef mineral rock with
sulfuric add creates a caldum sulfate
co-product Saorogypsum. which is
slnrrted to dispoaaL and circulates
process waste«»atar through a pond
system prior to reeae in tbe processing
facility. One uoimuenter noted diat
addttional procaaa wsatewater is
generated by daaaing die hydroflooric
acid gaa.
One conenanter argued tfiat EPA's
determiaatiaa to bat separately
fluorogypaeto aad process wastewater
fixim hydnAeortc acid production is
impmiticaL The similarities tietween

2332 Federal Regiater / VoL 55, No. 15 / Tueaday. January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulationa
the two waste streams are such that at
the Calvert City. Kentucky hydrofluoric
add plant the two are oMningled at the
potet of generation. The commenter
claimed that the proposed regulation
would impose different regulatory
requirements on two similar wastes
(because fluorogypsum would remate
excluded but process wastewater
would not), which from a practical
perspective, is unreasonable stece the
requirements applicable to one will
affect the management of the other. EPA
should allow process wastewater from
hydrofluoric add production to rotate its
status under the Bevill exdusion. and
should not evaluate fluorogypsum and
process wastewater separately, because
the two streams are essentially
identicaL
EPA disagrees. The two waste
streams are identifiably distted (one is
a solid and the other a liqtud) and are
generated by different parts of the
production process. The fad tbat they
are currenUy co-managed does not
imply that they should or must be comanaged
b. Volimie. Two commenten
disagreed vn\h EPA's proposed
determination that process wastewater
from hydrofluoric add production failed
to meet tbe high voliune criterion. One
commenter questioned the basis for
EPA's dedsioa given the lack of data.
The commenter argued that tbe waste
was not induded te the 1989 National
Survey of Solid Wastes from Mteeral
Processing Facilities. Therefore, te tbe
September 25,1989 NPRM. tbe average
rate of generation of process
wastewater from hydrofluoric add was
listed as "n/a". Yet EPA determined tbat
this liquid wasta stieam was not
generated te quantities over 1,000,000
metric tons per year through
calculations or teterpretations of survey
results, which were not provided te tbe
background dociunents. The second
commenter argued that EPA may have
overiooked or misundentood tba Sarvey
data, te fact they stated ptocase
wastewater from bydrofhatlo add
prtMluction is generated at tm avaraga
rale per facility far te mtatm al 1 mUllon
metric tons per year. The^pauuantar
resubmitted its Survey, nftkb indudaa a
process flow diagram ot tfaa Iwdrofluoric
add process. Infonnatioa is auo
provided on the volume of process*
wastewster generated and managed te
sections 5 and 6 of the Survey.
One commenter supported EPA's
application of tbe higb voiuma critarian
to tbe reported process wastawatar
inflows to surface unpotrndoMata. Tba
commenter mamiamed that tba flow
rate to surface ia.^uundmants can be
used to estimate process wastewater
flow rates. According to the commenter,
data available through plant NPDES
records, the conunenter daimed
tedicate that the flow rate does exceed
the 1.000.000 metiric tens per year Bevill
criterion. Specifically, the most recent
water balance, submitted as part of the
NPDES renewal application, tedicated
that the inflow to surface impoundments
from the hydrofluoric add production
process was 2,079,400 gaUons per day,
which is equivalent to 2.900.000 metric
tons per year, according to the
commenter.
The Agency has carefully reviewed
these comments and the revised survey
submitted by the commenter and agrees
that process wastewater from
hydrofluoric add production satisfies
the higb volume criteriort as discussed
below te section IIL
c. Hazard. Two commenten
addressed the hazard level of process
wastewater from hydrofluoric add
production. One commenter agreed with
EPA's proposed determteation that tbe
waste is low hazard Another
commenter daimed however, that
EPA's samphng data demonstrated that
process wastewater bota hydrofluoriv.
add pnxluction exhibits the hazardous
waste charaderistic of corrosivity (pH
values of 1.4 and 1.86), and questioned
EPA's hilure to remove the waste from
tba Bevill exdusion. The commenter
also urged EPA to consider this data te
preparing its Report to Congress.
Ine Agency generally agrees %vith the
commenter that all relevant hazard data
should be considered te the study of the
waste stream when preparing the Report
to Congress. However. EPA finalized the
low haiard criterion te the September 1,
1989 rule smd ia not currentiy
entertaining commentii on it The
Agency's rationale for tbe low hazard
aitarion ia outlteed te 54 FR 36592.
EPA's sampling data tedicate tbat this
waste does not exhibit a pH of less than
1. and tberefcae, complies with the low
hazard criterion.
S. Process Wastewater From Primary
Lead Processing
a. PrtxaeMing Criterion/Waste
Definitioa. One commenter daimed that
EPA must study all process wastewaten
from primary lead production,
contandiag tbat onca EPA completes its
stiidy. it will realize tbat these are not
wastaa, because process wastewaten
from primary lead production are reused
witbte tbe primary lead production
circuit RCRA hazardous waste
requiramants, tberefore. are not
approprtate.
In response to this comment EPA
notes that tba extant to wbicb this waste
stream is managed through "dosed
loop" recycling, and hence, is'not
subject to RCRA requirements, would be
addressed te the Report to Congress, if
this material were foimd to meet the
Bevill special waste criteria. The waste
does not meet these criteria, however,
and thus will not be teduded te the
Report to Congress. Nevertheless, if die
waste is managed te such a way that it
does not meet the definition of a solid
waste, then RCRA hazardous waste
requirements would not apply.
One commenter urged EPA to clarify
its defiiution of process wastewater
from primary lead production so that all
waten that are collected from
processing operations are specifically
teduded te teat definition. The
commenter states that the only reason
for EPA's tedudlng contad cooling
water te the definition of process
wastewater and not tedudlng acid plant
blowdown Is tee arbitrary elimteation of
one relatively large volume process
water stream from the volume amount
te addition, defining this waste as
"waten that are uniquely assodated
wite processing operations that haws
accumulated contamteants to the p^tet
that they must be removed bom the
mteeral production system" is confusing.
Do the waten need to be removed from
tee system, or do tee contaminants need
to be removed from tee waten?
EPA responds teat tee reasons for
distinguishing between different
aqueous waste streams generated m tee
mteeral processing tedustry have been
discussed at lengte te previous
rulemaking notices (54 FR 15316, April
17,1989; and 54 FR 36592, September 1,
1989.) Briefly. EPA believes tee
disttections it bas made are appropriate
based on tea available infonnation
concerning tee waste cbaraderistics
and potets of generation te the process.
As explateed te the preamble to tee
September 1.1988 final rule, EPA has
considered add plant blowdown and
oteer wastewaten from primary lead
processing to be two distted wastes
because these wastes have substantially
different characteristics. EPA believes
teat tee definition of wastewater dearly
tedicates tbat it is tee wastewater teat
needs to be removed from tee system
because it is tbe wastewater and not tee
contaminants to wbicb the definition
refen.
b. Volume. One commenter stated teat
tee volume EPA osad aa a basis for
proposing to eliminate process
wastowatar bom prtaiary lead
productioa was UHM tban tee acteal
amount generatad at tts plants. Tbe
commenter argued tbat this tecorred
determination was a result of artificial

v.y
Fedeeal Begistar / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 23:
limitations on tbe acteal amount of
water teat could be reported as "process
wastewater" te tee National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mteeral Processing
Facilities, where EPA only solidted
information on processing units
associated wite the generation of
process waters. According to tee
commenter. EPA inappropriately
reduced tee number of streams counted
toward tee volume cutoff by focusing on
only a few process water streams. The
commenter mateteteed that its tetemal
date tedicate teat tbe volumes of.
process wastewater from primary lead
production generated by its plants
exceed the 1,000.000 metric ton
threshold. Anoteer commenter was
dismayed by EPA's condusion that
process wastewater brxn primary lead
processing was low volume, because
teere is no way to verify tee numerical
daU used to arrive at the average of
785^62 metric tons per year.
EPA responds that tbe Natiooal
Survey requested date on tbe quantity of
wastewater generated by all mineral
processing operations at each fadbty
surveyed and that the responses
provided tedicate that process
wastewater is not a large volume waste.
EPA is limited te the amount of
information it can present on tbe waste
generation cjlculations used to develop
tee September 25 proposal because one
of tee commenten hajs requested
Confidential Business infnrmatinn atetas
for teeir information.
c Hazard One commenter objected to
EPA's on-site sampling methods. IL te
tee survey, the Agency requeste
information on process wastewaters,
oteer waste streams, such as process
water from stetering. should not be
sampled for tee ha^rd determination.
Because of tee scheduling constratete
imposed by tee Court of Appeals, EPA's
waste sampling effort had to be
conducted before tee final contoure of
tee benefidation/processteg boundary
had been established Thus, EPA
sampled wastes teat are, in hlndaigbt.
outside the scope of tbe current
rulemaking. Tbe analytical residts for
wastes teat an ariMda Hie scope of tfaia
rulemaking (1.8.. pncesa water from
smtertng) have BSl^mBn used te
evaluating compBanoa wtib the low
hazard criterion, bataad EPA has used
resufts from samples of wastes teat are
tee subiect of this rulemaking (I.e.. slag
granulation water) te detemteilng that
teis is not s low hazard waata.
6. Sulfate Process Waste Adda Praaa
Titanium Dioxide Prodactka
a, tiuunj. One oannentar slatad that
sulfate proceea weste acida from ite
facility meet BPA's km hazard critarian
and should therefore be reteteed m tee
Bevill exclusion. The commenter
disputed tee selenium concentrations
pablished te tee proposed rule, stating
teat if EPA asserte that tee sample
exceeding the criterion comes from the
commenter's facility, teen tee Agency is
mistaken. The commenter notes teat tee
sulfate process waste add sample was
essentially analyzed three times: once
as is. once using tee SPLP, and once for
EP toxidty. te the leaching procedures
(SPLP and EP Toxidty) the sample is
filtered and tee filtrate analyzed. The
solids (if any) are leached and tee
leachate is analyzed Stece teere were
no solids, tee three analyses should
have agreed, te actuality, tee
concentration for selenium was below
tee detecteble limit for two of tee
samples, while selenium showed up on
tee SPLP sample at a level of 6.3 mg/l.
The commenter retamed a portion of tee
sample teat was collected for EPA and
had it analyzed for EP Toxicity.
Selenium concentrations were below
detectable limits. The commenter also
claimed to have made fadlity
improvements which have caused
sulfate process waste adds to betxjme
less sddic. The overall average pK trom
1984 throng 1988 was 1.02.
EPA agrees teat tee reported'^^P
seleniam concentratimi that is
qeestioQed by the conunenter does
sppear to be anomalous, but bebeves
teat tee oteer data, tedudlng tee pH
data, collected during EI'A's sampling
visite are accurate and provide a
auffident basis for applying tbe low
hazard criterion to this waste stream.
The average pH date provided by tee
commenter are not relevant to tbia
twtamaking because average pH values
do not have meaning and are net
consistent wite tbe date reqaireaents
specified te the low hazard criterion for
tee pH test
7. Se^te Process Waste SoRds From
Titaniimi Dioxide ProdiKtion
a. Volume. Two commenten urged
EPA to reconsider its prelinunary
condusion teat sulfate process waste
solids fafl to meet tee high volume
crtterion. One commenter tedicated teat
sulfate process waste solids are
generated te tee form of a slurry, at a
rate of 86.800 short tons (78,728 metidc
tons) per jrear as indicated te tee
November 21.1988 comments and the
response to EPA's National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Kfineral Processing.
Another faidnstry commenter daimed
that EPA miscalculated tee vohme of
sulfate pwceae waste sobds generated
annually. Tbe commenter stated that a
total of 4B.900 metric tons are bandied
The values used for suspended solids
were from tbe commenter's quarteriy
samples, wbicb have been taken since
1984. According to tee commenter, tee;
volumes confirm teose given, m
comments provided m response to the
October 10.1988 proposal of 85,000
tons/year, which teduded chloride
wastes. The commenter further
indicated teat'teese wastes, togeteer
wite tee treatment residuals, will brinj
tee total solids handled to well over
500,000 tons per year.
It is EPA's position teat the waste of
interest is Ae dewatered waste solids'
taken from tee drum filter at one facili
rateer tean tee slurry from the darifiei
as suggested by the conunenter, becau
tee available information indicates tec
tee primary purpose of tee dewatering
operation performed by tee drum filter
to retura product solution to tee
production process and thus, it
resembles a processing operation more
closely tean it does a waste treatment
operation. Accordingly, EPA has used
tee reported quantity of drum filter cal
rather than tee quantity of slurry sent
tee drum filter te evaluating tee
compliance bf this waste stmam wite
tee high volume criteria. A&er furteer
analysis, tee Agency bas conduded te
tee revised waste generation rates
reported by tee second commenter are
reasonable, though the underlying dati
are not readily apparent in tee
commenter's response to tee National
Survey. Revised (and final) waste
generation estimates, which tedicate
teat this is not a high volume waste, ar
presented te section QL below.
D. Relationship ofthe Proposed Rule C
Subtitle C of RCRA
1. The Mixtore Rule
a. General comments, te teefr
commente on tee September 25
proposaL a mnnber of commenters
objected to tee Agency's mterpretatior
of the mixture rule ta tee September 1,
1968 final rule and questitmed what thr
impad of tbe mixtm^ rule would be
upon tee Bevill determmations
contained ta tee September 25 prcposf
Commenten requested teat EPA
reconsider its teterpretation of tee
mixture rah as it applies to Bevill
excluded wastes teat are mixed with
relatively small vohnnes of nonexduded
wastes. Commenten noted
teat a mixture of a Bevill exduded
waste and a diaracteristically
hazardous waste wtrald be conside.'-ed
non-excluded hazardcms waste.
Particdaifyb) tbe phosphate industry,
commenten obfetited to this
dassBmtluu. arguing teat if tee nanexduded
waste te a mixture shares th>

2334 Foderal Ragiatar / VnU 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rales and ReguJations
same hazardous charaderistic as tee
Bevill excluded waste, tee J3evill status
of tee resul ting mixture should not be
witedrawn.
Commenters also requested teat tee
Agency clanfy the mixture rule te a
number of vva vs. First, teey suggested
teat EPA clanfy whether mteeral
processing wastes that are temporarily
excluded from R CRA SubtiUe C
requirements may be used (e.g., as air
pollution control scrubber water) te
production units that dp not generate
Bevill wastes, and similarly wheteer
non-Bevill excluded wastes may be used
m production units that generate Bevill
excluded wastes, te particular,
commenten requested clarification of
tee states of a Bevill-exduded waste
teat is used te a non-Bevill production
unit when tee waste exhibits a
characteristic or hazardous waste afier
use te tee non-Bevill operation only
because tee Bevill waste teat is an teput
to tee non-Bevill process exhibito tee
hazardous characteristic.
te addition, commenten argued teat
tee October 28.1989 supplemaat to tee
proposed regulations for burning of
hazardous waste te boilen and
muustrial furnaces (54 FR 43718)
conflicte wite tee teterpretetion of the
mixture rule established ta tee
September 1.1989 fteal rule. The
proposed rule on burning stetes' tbat
residues would remate witbte tee Bevill
exdusion if tee charader of tee residual
is detennteed by tee Bevill materiaL In
contrast tee September 1 final rule
stetes teat any material burned with a
low volume, non-Bevill waste would be
regarded as hazardous even if tbe
charaderistic exhibited Is tbe same aa
tee characteristic of tee Bevill waste.
Commenten requested tbat tee Agency
reconcile teese conflicting
teterpretations of tee mixture rule by
adopting tee approach te tbe pmpoeed
rule on burning.
b. Comments related to phosphoric
acid production. Ccmmentata from tba
phosphoric add industry teqoaated tbat
tee Agency provide a i
explanation of ite i
as it relates to pho
wastewaters, ajid i
comment The ami
fertilizer (APF) procesa i
wastewater as an tefluant and than
returns it to tee originating phosphate
complex pond One commenter
contended teat APF process wastewatat
does not exhibit hazardous
characteristics when generated
separately from a facility tbat produces
phosphoric acid Therefore, tba
commenter argued APF wastewater
must not contribute tee hazardous
characteristic found te phosphoric acid
process wastewater, and teus it should
not trigger tee removal of phosphoric
add process wastewater from tee Bevill
exclusion. Phosphate industry
commenten urged tee Agency to reject
any teterpretation of tee mixture rule
teat would remove phosphate complex
pond water from tee BeviU exemption
because it contamed process
wastewater used te the APF process.
CJommenters luged the Agency to
adopt an teterpretation of the mixture
rule consistent wite tee position
advocated te tee October 28,1989
proposal (54 FR 43718) on burning, and
allow small amounts of sulfuric add
process wastewater to be combined te
tee general process wastewater system
witeout tee removal of tee entire system
from tee Bevill exclusion. Phosphate
tedustry commenten objected to tee
mixture rule teterpretation contamed te
tee September 1,1989 final rule te whicb
tee addition of sulfuric acid process
wastewater to a phosphoric add
complex's water recirculation system
would residt te tee entire system being
removed from tee Bevill exdusion.
According to one commenter. alteougb
sulfuric add process wastewater
displays tee same characteristic of
corrosivity as phosphoric add procesa
wastewater, tee addition of sulfuric add
process wastewater may constitete less
tban ona percent of tee dady
wastewater generated at an average
facility, and teus should not affed tbe
BeviU stetna of tee entire waste stream.
c Caaunenta related to hydrofluoric
acid production. One coinmenter
requestad clarification on tee use of
hydrofluoric acid process wastewater ta
•n almnlanm fluoride plant and asked
tbe Agancy to address tee use of Bevill
exshidad charaderistic wastes as a
source of influent to oteer processes.
Tba on—nantw argued teat hazardous
cfaaractarlstlcs displayed by water
existing tba alumteum fluoride facility
ara iolely from hydrofluoric add (HF]
proossa wastewater. Thus, tee
ommnantar asserted tee Agency's
iatarpretetion of tee mixture rule should
have no bearing on wheteer HF process
wastewater remains withm tee BeviU
axchttton. The commenter requested
that if tha Agency teterpreU the mixture
rule sucfa teat tea use of process
wastawatar ta tea alumteum fluoride
plant resulte te all water ta tee pond
whara that water is finaUy disposed
being removed from tee BeviU exdusion.
EPA should supplement tee proposed
rule with Ite rationale for such a
dedsioa and allow for additional public
cominant
d. CoBuaeata related to coal
gasification. One conunenter objected to
the Agency's possible determteation.
based upon tee mixture rule, that
process wastewater from coal
gasification is hazardous. The
commenter asserted teat if process
wastewater was disposed of
immediately rateer than used in a
cooling tower, tee waste stream would
not demonstrate hazardous
characteristics; however, important
water conservation and disposal
practices cotdd not teen be practiced.
Thus, tee commenter concluded, the
Agency should not withdraw the Bevill ,
exclusion for coal gasification process
wastewaten based upon hazardous
characteristics when teose
characteristics result from appropriate
water conservation and disposal
practices.
e. Response to comments, te response
to teese questions and issues raised by
commenten regarding tee mixture rule,
EPA makes tee fbUowing observations.
Pint like tee criteria esteblished for
identifying wastes eligible for tee Bevill
exemption, tee Agency's position mi tee
mixture rule was finalized on September
1.1968 and is not open for comment as
part of this rulemaking. Second tba
Agency plans to add commente to the
docket for tee October 28te notice
regarding tee aUeged contradiction
between tee Odober 26.1989 (54 FR
43718) supplement to tee proposed
regidations for burning of hazardous
waste ta boden and tedustrial furnaces
and tee mixture rule te tee September 1,
1986 final rule. Third wastes from
operations that are not mteeral
processing operations based on tee
definition of mteeral processing
contained ta tea September 1 final nde
ara not mtaeral processing wastes
regardless of tee nature of any tepute
(teduding BeviU wastes] to teat process.
Finally, tee mixture rule is not a factor
ta today's decision to retata tee BeviU
exemption for process wastewater
becanse BeviU wastes are being
evaluated not mixtures.
2. Land Disposal Restrictions
Two commenten expressed concern
about tea impad of Land Disposal
Restrictiona (LORs] on wastes newly
removed from tha BeviU exdusion. One
commentar steted teat tee Agency
cannot accurately estimate tee
economic ioqiad of tee proposed rule
untii tbe "Third Tbird" rule is
promulgated
Tba second commenter requested teat
tba Agenoy considar mteerel processing
wastaa removed from tea BeviU
exdusion. "newly identified" wastes

Federal Regirt» / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2331
under tee LDRs. Stece "chlorideilmenite"
wastes from titaiuum
production were not considered RCRA
hazardous wastes on November 9,1984,
tee date of HSWA enactment tee
commenter asserted teat teey must be
considered newl^ identified wastes. The
commenter argued teat witeout terming
these wastes newly identified tee
facility would unfairly have to meet tee
hammer date of August 8,1990 for
Cahfornia List wastes. Facilities teat
generated a waste subject to CaUfornia
List restrictions on underground
injection were granted a two year
national capacity variance during which
teey could eiteer plan new capacity or
submit a "no-migration" petition. TTie
commenter mamtateed that equal
opportimity must be granted to mteeral
processing facilities to develop new
capacity or submit no-migration
petitions.
te addition, tee commenter asked teat
tee Agency delay tee applicability of tee
LDRs to chloride-ilmenite wastes by
determining teat such wastes are
beneficial wastes and subject to furteer
study by EPA. This would aUow tee
Agency, according to tee commenter.
additional time to evaluate the
protectiveness of underground tejection
for chloride-ilmenite wastes.
EPA responds teat as explateed te
tee September 1.1989 fteal rule and te
tee proposed land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) for tee third teird schedule
wastes (54 FR 48372.48378: November
Z2.1980). tee Agency believes tee
wastes teat are brought under SubtiUe C
regidation by today's final nde to be
"newly identified" wastes for purposes
of establishing LDR standards under
section 3004(g)(4) of RCRA. (54 FR
36624). Accordingly. EPA has proposed
teat newly identified mteeral pnxxssing
wastes not be subjed to tee BOAT
standards teat tee Agency proposed on
November 22.1989 (54 FR 483721 for
characteristic hazardous wastes. Aa
required by RCRA aection 3Q04(gK4KCl.
CPA plans to stodylha mineral
processing wastaa taoMved from tba
temporary exwmpHam to datarmina
BOAT for ones that axhflrit ona or mora
characteristics oi a hazardoos wasta.
(See 54 FR 48483.) Tha Agancy baa taken
comment on this issue ta r^nnectjon
wite tbe LDR proposal and wiU address
tee issue, tedudteg tea costs, if any, of
requiremente whan it promulgataa tbat
rule. FInaUy. tba reader should lafar to
the disctission oa individual waste
streams and process dafinltlana far
clarification of tba stetua of chlorldailmenite
wastes.
3. Retroactive Application of Subtitle C
Requirements
" One commenter expressed concern
over tee retroactive application of
SubtiUe C to chromium-contamteated
fill, and criticized tee Agency for not
specifically considering chromiumcontaminated
fill in redefining tee scope
of tee Bevill exclusion, tee economic
impact screening, or tee sampling effort
The commenter asserted teat EPA
should make a separate BeviU
determination regarding tee states of
chromium-contaminated fiU. The
commenter wished to confirm teat
chromium-contaminated fiU already te a
lined contaiiunent facility would not be
affected by tee loss of Bevill exempt
states, te addition, tee commenter
stated teat if fill excavated after tee
effective date of tee rule was subjed to
RCRA SubtiUe C regulation, it could
impose a severe economic burden upon
tee commenter.
The commenter argued teat samples
gateered by tee Agency te tee summer
of 1989 from operating plante are not
representetive of tee chromium
contaminated fiU te question at tee
commenter's facility. The commenter
maintateed that tee conditions at tee
faciUty demonstrate teat tee waste
stream satisfies tee low hazard
criterion. Due to ite mixture with soils
and oteer non-hazardous materials, long
in-situ residence time, and weateering,
tee chromium fiU material may be of a
different physical and chemical nature
tean tbe wastes from chrome ore
processing generated at operating
plants, according to tee commenter.
Alteougb sod samples from tee initial
excavation of this waste stream exceed
tee EP toxidty levels for chromium,
mora recent samples and ground-water
samples have not been EP toxic. The
commenter conduded teat retaining
chromium contaminated fiU «vitbta tbe
BeviU exclusion would aUow for hazard
testing of tba material and adequate
time to develop treatment optiona.
Based on tee svadable information.
EPA baUeves teat chromiumcontaminated
fiU is not a separate,
discrete mineral processing wsste
because tt may be. and likely is, as
noted by tea conunenter. comprised of a
mixture of mteeral processing waste,
noo-minaral processing waste, and nonwaste
(a.g.. soU) matenals. ta addition.
EPA obsMves that tee untreated residua
from roasting/leaching of chroma on te
not low hazard and teua, te not eligibla
for tee BeviU exemption. As a result the
comaante on tba stems of chromiumcontaminated
fiU are only geimana tf dia
fiU contalna treated residua from
roasting/leeching of chroma ore similar
to teat whicb is currenUy being
generated which wiU need to be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Because tee composition of tee fill and.
teerefore, the relevance of any data cn
tee chemical composition of the fill is
unclear, tee Agency believes inclusion
of such data te reaching a conclusion or
tee states of treated residue from
roastteg/leaching of chrome ore would
be bote teappropriate and impractical.
E. Costs and Impacts ofthe Proposed
Rule
1. Technical Feasibility
Two commenten claimed that it
would be technologically infeasible to
manage teeir wastes according to
subtitle C requirements. One cominentt
argued teat it would be technologically
infeasible to manage fluorogypsum or
process wastewater from hydrofluoric
acid production according to tee
minimum technology requirements or
tee LDRs. Anoteer commenter
mateteteed teat insufficient land is
available to retrofit existing waste
management systems te order to manae
phosphate rock processing wastes unde
subtidc C and the LDRs.
Because bote of teese wastes are
retateed withte tee BeviU exclusion by
eiteer tee September 1 final rule, or
today's rule, teey will be studied in the
Report to Congress which will address,
among oteer issues, tee technical
feasibiUty of managmg'Bevill wastes
under subtiUe C of RCRA.
2. CompUance Cost Estimates
A commenter disapproved of EPA's
analysis of economic impacts,
contending teat tee Agency should
tedude tee txiste due to corrective
action requiremente and land disposal
restrictions (LDRs). because by ignoring
teese costs. EPA has underestimated th
total coste-of compliance. The difficulty
of estimating teese coste is, tee
commenter claimed no justification for
assuming zero coste for teese
requirements. Two of tee wastes
proposed for witedrawal from tee BeviJ
exclusion are high-volume, and for teos
materials, LDR treatment is likely to be
very cosUy. ta addition, corrective
action may impose high costs at some
faciUties.
Q>A did not estimate tee costs
assodated wite land disposal
restrictions because it te not possible.
nor is it Agency poUcy, to estimate tee
effecte of imposing regulations teat do
not yat exist These economic impacts,
any. wiU ba addressed by tee Agency
when It promulgates land disposal
restriction treatment standards.

Noneteeleaa; EPA bar. kabotkiv
September 2S{vepaaeii and tadag^ fend
rule, estimatsdtfaec
stabdizmg resfduea bancUqidA i
treatment so aa to aialsB tham.
ameadahde to land (
while it n not posnfalel atpaaaanti te
define BDAT (and tbua. kSRlmpacto)
for any wastes removed bea tbe Bevill:
exdusion, EPA he* attempted te capteie
some of the likely coste aseedsted svitfa
future waste disposal activities.
Prospective corrective action costs are
by nature site-specific and difficidt to
estimate. CurrenUy available
information does not allow EPA to
estimate these ctMte w^ cenfidlBsce. To
tee extent teerefare. tbat my addftliBae?
facilities: are tiroagfat Bite> On-sobtflte C
on-site waste menagemend syirfem by
teis nde. EPA may have aoderastlmatatf
cost and economic impaGts^ Tba readar
is referred to secttoa W bakne Ibr
additional discusstae of tbe spanHlu
features of die meteodoiogy aaiplDyad
A commenter alao iodtEatad mat tie
Agency elan should rscDgnine that
commodity pioducare c
cempiianaa coste on te pivdact
EPA responds ui^ta tha Bcaaamie
Impact AnaLystapsavidad ia tbe
September 2S NPRM,. tbe Agpnqi
considered on a cammodity spariflr
basia the extent to which pefpnti al
compliance ooste- coold ba passed
through toconsumatSk Aa-indiratad ta
this ajudysis (and rastated ta iCuctiaa
vn. below) EPA befieeeathat Uia
commenter's suggestion teat aU mteeral
processora te all commodity sactsia are
"price takers." having n»abiUty to pass
terough cost tecreases and therafora
having to absorb teem tetemaUy,. Gi
demonstrably untrue.
One commenter maintataedthat &l
order to accurately esttmolB tha
ecenomir and regnlBtory impacts of tha
proposed role. EFA must first resoiva
tee issues of tee "mixture nde,"
retroactivity and regeneratadwanas. fri
particular, one ciuiiiiiBUtBi dtpyrfthat"
EPA has not conztdbad
Executive Oder t229t
impact of exdncfing
cimtamutated fill from
Also, to truly tdentli^
regulatory impacB of
tee Agency snotnd oetafii
bom aU Inactive fadlitiea.
EPA responds tbat thaav
addressed ii» Ibe Saytaibaa T. ll
rule ateri aaa aa« seiaeam ».dd«
ruleBddag.lSa bsfeflpnalsl^lbr
poaicfaae audtoad >» ttM> ItulmJm
regutaHanewdtnot bnaapaaaJ
re troactlaaljc
managemeitf oi aa
A ^N£ 551 Ba. g ^ •Btwaday. jmaoMTf 23, WBO< / Kfcfer mat Kagul—gaa
accaaribttao et wasta wiB soblacf •
facdity to SubtiUe C regulatiaavit**
material axbibite ona or more
charactaristica of a bazardoua waste.
3. CoiB|^eB€»G(Dst Msicet, ani
Economic bnpaet Estbnatee
a. Treated residue ^om roasting/
leaching of chrome ore. According to
one commenter. if tbe Agency imposes
subb'Ue C requirements for chrome ore
processing waste used as fiU. oa-site
treatment ofthe QUwiH become
burdensome aad expeoBivB. Also, if
future excavated fiU must be managed
as a hazardaus waste, depending, on tee
amounte ofbazardous waste mvofved a
severe economic burden may result
witeout any commensurate gain ta
healte oc environmental beaefite. Ea
addition, bss of BeviU status for tba
chromium-contaminated fiH ai a Qty of
Baltimore wastewater treatment plant ta
PatHpsco, Maryland may prematurely
teterrupt tee process of developing
treatment al fematives.
Tbe Agency dtMs not view this issue
as relevant ta the states of the 2t) waste
streams adtfressed ta today's nde
because ft fr irof dear that the fSH.
material to one ofthe nuneral processfrig
waster covered by today's ndle.
Conunenttore cnntended tbat' the costof
compliance witb RCRA snbtftf^C fbr
teactira fadlKiee snotdd be atfdressed.
byD^ A commenter mateteinedteaf
tee aadcet sBotdd taciuda iuniriuation
on exiatfriKbiactise weste sites as weu.
as tbe number or dinsine uie luT sitee
teat wiU be affcded by tbe proposed
nde.
EPA wepende that Inactive fedfitfce
wereael'auuipled because teey are not
pertfioasf te-ttfs rufeuiaking.
Seveset eeeamenters- dtaa^eed witlt
tee iWBipirBiioecest estiraateferreeidtie
frxim mastftig/H'iirhfrrg ef ebraoe are.
One csaaBantar argued teat? tte wesOsboaMllto^nHaiiMdta
tea Bev«
axaBpttasbeeaosa at Itte sigidflcaHt
coste tkataoMactt^
cotdd fanpona. AccvnUng to tha
mm—nter, dliipasal and treatmenf
coate wiU ba af tana* ai>adifillenal-Sa
milUon aeaa *a AgeeayVasttoaOaaf
compUsaaa caste. Anetbar eomaieatar,
howevaa;^oiallBodit&atrbee8aeeite waste
V^H^H^V IV^ ^^VB^^FV ^^PVWr ^^ffCiCv IBS
fbdlilr>MPBB8penifl ndtta ttaatad
waatola-navtacardbun diere ia BO saarf
for l»fcaian tb leadllj ii aay way
ar dapeaal praetfoaak
aoAtfeaa Ifeaaelii aoaaaC tat oaafiaBae
roaating/liaiJlfcH etcfaagaae era I
th*] "
estimated baaause BPA did aet^ My
evaluate aVaf tfeetafcrnetfen provided
te tie Natiaaai Sbrvey of MBtoeral
PraaassorsulbiaddiBant aetalof tbe
sample* takan frees tba fiacdity by EPA
were analyzed
EPA responds ftet ff used avaifable
Method 1312 diata tD^evafuete
compliance wite tbe kiw hazard
criterion. Because of time constraints,
tee Agency analyzed tbe samples
collected en an "as generated' basis
prior fo ^miyzing those coffected on aa
"as managed'*' basisr tbe ftirmer are
direcUy pertinent to and necessary (er
tbe BftviB ndemaking process while tee
latter are primarily of uae ta^ prepermg
tee Report teCoagrasa. Since
pubUcatiaa ef tea September 25
propoaaL boweverrtbe Agency bas had
an oppestaKty ta analyze additional
samples. Baaed apon these new
analyses and analyses performed its
•ufipoBl of teeSeptamberS peoposaL
the AgeoiT agrese teae Uie teeate

11
Fadand Re^er / VoL 55. No. 15 / Tueaday. January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 23:
As discussed ta section UL below,
based upon further data m tee form of a
revised stuvey response provided by tee
facility te question. EPA now concludes
teat tee waste sbream doe's satisfy tee
high volume criterion and so wiU be
retained for further stedy. Discussion of
the prospective economic impacts of
removing tee waste from tee BeviU
exclusion as part of this rulemaking is,
teerefore, moot
c. Furnace off-gas solids from
elemental phosphorus production. One
commenter agreed teat due to tee low
cost of compliance wite subtiUe C
regulations, treatment of furnace off-gas
solids from elemental phosphorus
production as hazardous wastes is
reasonable and practicable. One
elemental phosphorus industry
commenter asserted teat this company's
waste stream is not hazardous, and
teerefore, no compliance costs wiU be
tecurred. EPA was imable to confirm
this for tee particular facility ta
question, and tee commenter-supplied
data was tesufficient to confirm that tee
facility's waste wiU not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. The Agency
has. accui'dingly, matetamed ite
conservative approach to estimating
potential cost and economic impads
associated wite this nde by assunung
teat tee waste is hazardous and teat tee
facility wdl be affected by tee rule even
teough teis may not turn out to be tee
case.
d. Process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production. One
commenter reported teat becaue of tbe
co-mingling of fluorogypsum and
process wastewater at tee Calvert Qty,
Kentecky plant tee annual estimated
flow would be 2.900,000 metric tons per
year, and not 103.528 metiric tons per
year as assumed te tbe Technical
Background Document "Development of
tee Cost and Economic Impacte of
Implementing tee BeviU Mteeral
Processing Waste Criteria." Because
teese volumes differ by an order of
magnitude, the aSact on EPA's
estimstion of »JII^W«IW^ aoste for
hydrofluoric add'Waate streams sub)ed
to subtiUe C at • Galvert Qty plant
would be signlfi^aai. Aa discussed
below te sactian JB, baaed opon frirther
date ta tba form of a revised surrey
provided by one of tbe fadUties ta
question and detailed written ctnnmente
from tee oteer, it appean tbat tee wasta
stream meete tee high volume criterion
and tee compUanca costs that
commentar claimed would ba significant
wiU ta fad not ba tacurred
e. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production. Ona
commenter questioned EPA's conclusion
teat tee proposed rule woidd have no
economic impact on tee commenter's
facUity. The coinmenter underatands
teat under EP.Vs policy, non-excluded
wastes which are disposed prior to tee
effective data of tee rule which would
make teem subject to SubtiUe C
requirements would not be subject to
direct SubtiUe C controls such as
closure and post-closure care
requirements, fa tee commenter's case,
solid wastes from tee sidfate and
chloride processes were accumulated in
surface impoundments untd October of
1988. Smce that time, however, only
non-hazardous wastes have been added,
The commenter assumes that consistent
with EPA's policy, teese impoundmente
vn\l not be subject to closure and postclosiu^
requirements.
EPA responds teat tee commenter is
correct te his assimiption as long as tee
wastes previously placed te tee surface
impoundments are not actively managed
after tee effective data of today's rule.
As discussed te tee September 1,1989
final rule, EPA wiU not be applying
SubtiUe C requirements retroactively.
For furteer discussion of this issue see
54 FR 36592.
/. Wastes from phosphoric acid
production. Commenters from tee
phosphate rock processing tedustry
contended teat tee tedustry could not
competitively witestand tee coste of
complying wite SubtiUe C or tee LDR
requirements. They contended teat it Is
infeasible, if not impossible, to manage
process wastewaster from phosphoric
add production in compUance wite
subtiUe C requirements, espedaUy ta
view of tee upcoming land disposal
restrictions on characteristic wastes. It
te essential teat tee Agency retata
process wastewater from phosphoric
add ta tbe BeviU Amendment exdusion.
As discussed below, EPA believes '
that prt)cess wastewater from
phosphoric add production compUes
wite tee high volume and low hazard
criteria and teerefore tee waste steam te
today reteteed witete tee BeviU
exdusioa The need for and technical
and economic feasibiUty of subjecting
tbte material to SubtiUe C requiremente
wiU be addressed te tee Report to
Congress.
P. RequeetM for Clarifications/Technical
Corrections on the September 1,1989
Pinal Rule
One commenter brought to tea
Agency's attention a difference between
tee preamble and rule language ta tha
September 1,1989 fteal rulemaking, ta
tea preamble to tee final nda, tba
Agency states that "roasting and
autoclaving are ctmsidared benefidation
operatiotu if teey are used to remove
sulfur and/or oteer impurities te
preparing an ore or mteeral, or
beneficiated ore or mteeraL for
leaching." (54 FR 36818) to addition. L^
commenter tedicated teat tee Agency
states teat
chlorination is sometimes used prior to goU
leaching operations In a procedure
functionally identical to roasting and
autoclaving (i.e., to change a sulflde ore to
chemical form more amenable to leaching].
EPA recognizes that this type of pretreatrnt
operation may be an integral part of leachi
operations, and accordingly, considers non
destrucUve chlorination of ores, minerals, i
beneficiated ores or mmerals when used a?
pretreatment step for leaching, to be a
beneficiation operation. (54 FR 36618)
The commenter noted, however. t.ha
tee language of tee rule differs slighUy
and refere specificaUy only to "roastir.
m preparation for leadung." The
commenter requested teat EPA cla.-ify
tee language of tee September 1 final
rule so teat pretreatment autodaving
and chlorteation. as weU as roasting, ^
clearly considered benefidation
operations.
The Agency has reviewed tee
language of the S^^^temberl, 1989 fina
rule and agrees wite tee commenter tltee
rule could be read so that
pretreatment autodaving and
chlorteation might not be considered
benefidation activities. As discussed
tee preamble, this was not tee Agenc>
tetention. Thus, tee languge of
i 261.4(b)(7) has been revised te todav
rule to read
Tor purposes of tliis paragraph,
beneficiation of ores and minerals is
restricted to the following activities; * * *
roasting autodaving, and/or chlorination
preparation for leadiing (except where the
roasting (and/or autodaving and/or
chlorinationl/leaching * • •"
G. Coacerna With Administrative
Procedures
Commenten on tee proposed rule
made a number of requeste to tee
Agency regarding tee procedures EPA
has followed for administering tee
mteeral processing ndemaldngs. One
commenter requested teat EPA defer
final action on tee proposed rule
pending: (1) fudidal review of tee
September 1.1989 final rule; (2)
darification of tee appUcability of tec
rules to teactive processing facilities;
and (3) a review of tee mixture rule.
Another commenter requested teat th>
Agency publish ite rationale and allov
lor pubUc comment If EPA decides thf
procesa wastewater from tee product:
of animal feed ammoniated phosphat
fertilizer, and phosphate complex por
ara not withte tee scope of tee Beviil
exdusion. The same commenter askf

23M Fniiaaal B^htor / Vd. SSt. No- IS / Tuaadayy lannary 23, Iflgft / Rdea aad Ragalalionf
teat aU documaateBsad iar pievioua
rulemakings beinchidadta tba cuaeat
docket (MW2ff). Ona caamanteraakad
EPA to assess tee aBai)i#Baksesulte ef
tee hazard san^Uag date aad cars&Uy
compare teem wite tee commentar'a
own split samples. FinaUy, one
commenter sought additional time tar
public review and comment on the
backgroimd documente for tbe higb
volume criterion. The coaimeater
daimed teat the documents were net
cvadable for comment b^ie the
September 2Ste proposed nde. yat
support tee criterion made final ta tbe
September 1st nde.
Because of court-imposed deadUaea.
tee Agency is compeUed to promulgate
today's fcral role on an accelerated
schedule (signature by January 1ft 1990)1.
ta order to ensure tbat aS tafbnnetfoa
compiled for preTtuua retemakiRgt Iv
fuRy avadabfe- to tbe pubfic tbe Agency
has incorporated by reference prenoae
mineral prucessiiig waste dbdbrtr.
except for tee KnT nife'reBistiflg sir
smelter wastes (59 FR XtiZ September
13.1988). teto tee current docket EFA
believes teat tbe pobUr bas been
provided an adequata opportuni^ t9
comment on tnis relemaking and
teerefore, an additional comment perkM
is not required ta addHfon. H>A
believes dar ui cation of tne appUcabmty
or the rules to taaetfve reclHttee and
review of ffie nilAture rule are not
required or appropriate ta tbe cuutext of
(tlie rulemaking becanse EPA's paeitMiy
on teese issues was estabUshedtetbe
September l..lflaB final i
nLRevfaadAOTdlraHnnafthaFfaal
Qitaria fas Osfinbi«,BcsiirifinaraI
This section of tha praamftb preaenlk
clarifications to tee waste stream
defiruttonansod te tta paoponi levteed
waste volume date and addittaaii
discussion of salartad data uaadln.
evaluatiag. onmpltancw edtb tha-fcae
hazacd calarinn Okdy i
streama for %vbich i
have been ouda te I
d iscuaaed in dated, A aoiMqiaf tfca
Be vdl statue of tbe201
processing wastaa ia I
A. ClarifleetkMi of
DefinOtotn
Based on catafid revfaas afpublta
caaiaaat^Mul "^^j''^*^!! ^nyly^la"^
pcavioua EPA studies and ~'*'i'*"y
respoaaeatotbniaaaNarinnal Snrvayaf
Solid Wastaa from Miaatal BBQcaaaia^
Facditiaar tbe Agancy has made tbe
tallnwine '^^is'ima ronnar*^Tw tha
definiUan. of caodidata BrsiD waste.
stoaania» nlatad DBQcaaa deaeriBtlona»
andthenunberaoftsfilities generating
eacb waata.
1. Tteated Itaeidue Tmm Rsaating/'
Leeching of Chrome Ore
Tbe resklua fromroasting/Iaachlng of
chrome oce af concern te this rule is tee
setUed residue fdUowing treatment of
tee slurried leachmg waste. Bote
faciUties teat reported generating
residue from roaating/Ieaching. of
chrome: ore pump teeir untreated waste
direcUy to an onsite freafment unit ta
cantrast to tee September 25 NPRH this
final nde temporajdy retains tee
exclusion fsom hazardous waate
Gej^dations for on^ teose treated soUda
which are entrained m tee slurry as il
leaves tbe treatment faciUty and which
setUe out ta disposal impoundments.
Ayadable date indicate thai tbfs mineral
processing waste is bote low hazard and
high- vohme^ Aa taificated ta the
proposal the untreated waate ia not law
hazanL
2. ne«ea» Wastewater From Coal
Gasificaltoa.
Tbe d^ftafilon of process wastewater
frtjm tee coal gasification operation bas
been ravteedto dari^ teat procesa
wastewater bom coal gasification is tee
"stripped gas Uc^or^ generated during,
teegaaiffcatfon of tbe coaL This procesa
wastewater may be run through several
suhsaqpent stocagB. treatment and
reuse opasatlona. Tliis stripped gas
U'qjior was origtaaUy notnoimnated by
tee fad&ty because of a
mfsunderstandtag about ite statiis as a
solid waste, ta commente provided on
tha Septambet 25 proposaL however, tee
coBipany has requested that tee entire
stripped gas Uqiior stream be considered
**prooeaa wastewater^ ratber tean ^t
th^poEttaa reported pr^ouaty. EFA
belbvaa diet (bnslrfppadgas Gquoc Is a
soUd waste at tha one faciUty teat
genarataa tha wasta. and has evaluated,
tbaraxlanl to which tba material
accon&giy. Because the lacility's
taspnasa ta the 1989 National Survey
Imfirataa that the fracasa stieanu ta
pact.iaalatad ia surface impoundmente,
EPA doaanotannsiderite maoagement
system to be dosed-loop recycling
laaaning tbat for present purposes, the
ngBnCy oaAavae sue aiaf e^rat le nar
eli^Ma np tne fjuaad loop exemptfoau
However, thu does not affed tbeBbetf
•tetus oi ^waatek
X SlagTaningir Rom Ptliuaiy Cbppar
Pracessiny
EPA hm idantiflad. as a taault of
public ««»««««*« a» additional fadUty^
thntpaacaaaaa sla^fttMB primasy oopiiat
prnrasslng and thasaby gaaerataeslag
tailing^. Tkirincxeasas.tfae numher of
faailltiaaknaivB by EEA to generate slag
tailinga to tbcea.
4, PumoceOff-CaeSofida Ft

Fadaral SagiBtar / VaL 55. No. 15 / Teesday, faaaary 23, 1990 / Rtdes mi KegefatJons 2S3<
benefidation-chkirmatioB" ps
not saparabla. Acoerdini^, tha waatea
gencsatad by this chlarteatf^ paoocas
an aubjad to GPA's

2340
Federal Ragistw / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and RegtdatioHa
or quantity of sludge generated from
scndiber water settling] were tee
volumes ascribed to teose fadUties for
purposes of developing the sector-wide
annual waste generation rate. 'Ihe
average per-fadUty volume of this waste
contteues to be below tee high volume
criterion.
6, Process Wastewater From
Hydrofluoric Acid Production
The Agency proposed to witedraw
this waste stream as a low volimie
waste due to tee fadure of tee fadUties
to provide waste generation date te tee
commente te which tee waste streams
were origteaUy nomteated or te teeir
responses to the National Survey. Bote
faculties reportedly producing BieviU
waste from hydrofluoric add production
have subsequenUy presented tee
Agency with volume date ta commente
and (ta one case) a revised faciUty
survey. The Agency has reviewed teese
tedustry commente and tee additional
survey date and has concluded that
process wastewater bom hydrofluoric
acid production satisfies tee high
volume criterion for Uquids. As tee
waste stream has been determtaed to be
low-hazard the process wastewater u
retateed te tee BieviU exclusion.
7. Process Wastewater from Primary
Lead Production
The Agency has reevaluated its
meteodoiogy for volume estimation of
this waste stream, and has subsequenUy
removed from tee analyste one fadUty
which was not operated on a consistent
basis (37 days te 1988). The Agency's
analysis tedicates, however, that
alteougb removal of this faciUty from
tee analysis tecreases tee average
annual per-fadUty waste volume, tee
process wastewater te not generated on
a sector-wide basis ta quantities
suffident to meet tee high volume
criterion. The waste stream, teerefore.
has been %vite(frawn from tee BeviU
exclusion. The value reported te Table 1
is tee volume of process wastewater
from tee remaining non-CBI fadUty^ this
is not tee acteal sedor fadUty average
used to make tee high volume
determination.
8. Air poUution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production
EPA has revued its estimate of tee
volume of this waste stream based on
additional analysis of information
tecluded ta tee surveys submitted by tee
majority of tee lightweight aggregate
fadUties. Waste management date
submitted ta tee survey were analyzed
to determine mora accurately tee actual
generation of solids, ta Ueu of basing tee
estimates on solids entzateed te
wastewaten. These revised estimates,
confirmed by date submitted by
commenten addressing tee earUer
proposed retaterpretetions, were used to
calculate a new sector average for tee
»aste stream. Tbe Agency
acknowledges tbat tee faciUties teat use
air poUution contols oteer tban wet
scrubbers, a mtaority ta the sedor, have
not been represented te tee analysis
because date are not available on tee
quantities of APC dust teat teese
faciUties may generate. Data coUected ta
tee National Survey for tee iron and
steel tedustry. however, tedicates teat
APC dust resulting from dry coUection
methods te typicaUy of lower volume
tban sludges generated bom wet
scrubbara. As a rasult EPA beUeves teat
tedusion ol APC dust volume data te
tee analysis would not tecrease tee
faciUty average, much less double tee
average as would be needed to meet tee
higb volume criterion. Based on EPA's
revised estimate, air poUution control
dust/sludge from lightweight aggregate
production does not pass tee high
volume criterion and is hereby
withdrawn from tee BeviU exclusion.
9. Sulfate Process Waste SoUds from
Titanium Dioxide Production
Waste soUds from tbe production of
titanium dioxide using tee sulfate
process are removed from tee
processing operations and managed m
mtdtiple ways at tee two faciUties teat
employ tee sulfate process, te iU
origmal response to tee 1989 National
Survey, one faciUty reported an
aggregated volume of waste soUds from
chloride and sulfate processing
operations. Because EPA was unable to
disaggregate tbe volume of wastes from
chloride v. sidfate processing operations
at tbte faciUty, EPA used date provided
by tee oteer sulfate process faciUty as
tee basis for tee everage aimual per
faciUty waste generation rate te tha
proposal, ta commente on tee proposed
nde. tee faciUty teat had previously
reported aggregated volume date
provided separate volume data for
choride and sulfate process waste
soUds. As a result for today's proposal.
EPA bas developed a revised per-facility
average annual waste generation rate
teat is based on date from bote
faciUties. However, as ta tee proposal,
tee waste te not high volume. The waste
stream, teerefore, has been witedrawn
from tee BeviU exdusion.
TABLE 1.—RESutTs OF APPLYING THE HKJH VOUAK CRTTSWON TO TWENTY CoNomoNALLY RETAINED PROCESSING WASTES*
Coalgae-
Coatgaa..
Eiafnante ptioaphorus.
H^^Soauofic add
Iran.
Sodwa
CofTvnotfty Mctor SoMorlqUd
4P«i hearth tedust/eudoa.
c9Sh haarti %M'
SoSd
Uqud
Sow
Sold.
So«d.-
SoW...
Uquid..
Sold.
Sow.
UquM-
SOW.,
UMd-
Uqud-
Sow..
Sow.
Sow.
Tnrtwn dtadds.. Uedd-
Avaragapar
OanaraDOfi
24aooo
4330,000
78,000
SOMIS
11.044
208.780
4.300.000
St,a8t
724,506
866.000
1SA13
2,468^)00
67,402.000
W/H
Vrt.111
W/H
B
c
AB.D
C
AC
C
C
ac
B
KCO
a.c
B
Aa.c
AB
ACf
AB
AB
Naof hign
voi««ns
1
1
2
3
S
2
2
24
16
S
17
1
16
2
29
26
2
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Na
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Na
Na
Yaa.
Yaa
Yaa.
Yaa.

-ft,,
/ VoL 5S, Wo. 15 / Tnesday, January 23, t9at> / Roles and RegaJeftona 23^
TAauE 1.—RESSLTB OF APPLYBSQ THE HI6H VOLUME CnriEteON TO lyrENTV COMDmoM>iLLV RETAMED I^400ESSING WASTES'—
Oontinuad
T'tantum dtoxida..
Titarkufn tatracnionde..
Zinc
Total nunitwr al wastes
Total number ol wastes
high voluaria criterion
high volume oUetion
CondWooaBy retained wasta Soaderlquid
Sulfate procsas waste sdids _.
CNonde process waste solids.
Slag -....
SoSd.
Sew..
Sow.
Averaos par
faoSly
generation
(mi/yr)
W/H
88.349
157.000
Notes
A.C
A,B
8
No_ot
repomng
Passes hi
votume
cmonor
'Data aneiTQW I9aa National Survey al Solid Wastes torn Mkwral processing Facilitiaa, except as noted.
W/r4'.~4wi^neio S9 at^id dnctosmg conaoenoai oosmees mli^.iviaiKjn t^^).
A DM data lor one or more al me genecaiing tacsties are CSL
B. Geaeraoon data are ootamed directly trom the survey.
C. Caicuaied or mterpreiad t>y EPA cased on intormaoon provided in the survey an6 ptMc comments.
. 0. Data prsserned is fnxn one taclllty; one or more o> Ihe generasng taaHlies ara CBI. Reponed numtMr was not used to make Bevill determination;' ever,
including CBI ractnies does not cnange BeviH status.
E. Generation data was obtained Irom tne survey for 12 facilitiea: data for 13 facMiea was reported by AISI.
C. Compliaoce with the Low Hazard
Criterion
Consistent wite tee low hazard
criterion established on September 1.
1989, the Agency haa used oidy waste
analysis data derived using EPA Meteod
1312 because teere was no compell^
evidence that aay of the aO auaeral
processteg wastes "is geaented st five
or more facilities: and substantial
additional relevant date are avadabie
and tee preponderance of teese
additioiul data tetficate teat the waste
should be considered low hazard." (See
S4 FR astua] The mafority of the
Meteod 1312 data used are the result of
EPA samphng at selected fadUties. but
some resulte are for eplit samples or
oteer sample analysis resulte provided
by operettag facilities.
te addition, for today's final nde, tee
Agency bas utilizwl newly avaiilabte
data from EPA's 1969 waste sampBng
e^ort to make low hazard deteantaadon
for certata waste streams or compooente
of waste streams that may have been
teduded by redefinition or darificatioa
of tee waste stream or tee operation's
process te today's final rule. Fteal
resulte of ^A's apphcation of tee low
hazard cntenon are presented te Table
2.
1. Treated Residue fixmi Roasting/
Leaching of Chrome Ore
Wite tee clarification teat tee waste
te question is tee treated residue from
roaating/leachiag of chrome ore and not
the waste as it leaves the leadung
openticm, EIPA has reviewed fts waste
sampling data of tee treated residue,
and has confirmed that tea treated
residue passes the low haznd cntertoB.
2. Process wastewater fr

23^ Fadetai Raglater / VoU 55> No. 15 / "ryeaday. January 23, 1990 / Rnlea and RegHJationa
Steel
Steel
TABLE 2.—RESULTS OF APPLYING THE LOW HAZARD CRITERION TO TWENTY CotoimoNALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSINQ
WASTES—Continued
Commodity
Titanium dioxide
Titanium dioxide
Titanium tetraehioride..
Zinc
Total number of wastes meeting low hazard criterion..
Total number of wastes failing low fiazard criterion.....
D. Bevill Status of Conditionally
Retained Mineral Processing Wastes
The BeviU states of tee 20
conditionally reteteed mteeral
processing wastes is presented te Table
CondWonaSy retained wasta
Basic oxygen fumaoe and open hearth lurnaoe
air poAullon oontrol duet/sludge.
Baaie oxygen hjmaca and open fiaerth fur-
No. of fac.
beSevedio
3. Fifteen of tee 20 wastes have been
retamed and wid be stedied te tee
Report to Congress and addressed by
tee subsequent Regulatory
Determteation. Tbe oteer five wastes,
27
27
2
2
0
1
No. of fac
san»iadBy
No^offac.
aubmitting
13121
Paasea low Reason for
taiiurs
Yea..
Yea_
No...
Yes-
Yes..
Yes..
N/A
N/A
pH, Cr
N/A
N/A
N/A
IB
2
wiU, as of tee effective date of this rule,
become subjed to regulation as
hazardous wastes under subtitle C of
RCRA d teey exhibit hazardous
characteristics.
TABLE 3.—RESULTS OF APPLYING BOTH BEviii. CRITERIA TO TWENTY CONOITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES
CommodKy CondMonaSy roiainad waata
Coal Gaa.. 1 Ya
Coaf Gaa-
Coppar.
Ooppar-
I lySrAMlt Acid.,
r^^^wjw Men..
b«n.
Pttoapfiorte Aod-
Sodhsn Chromaia/Olchfoniass.
SlMl-
THarsan DkBsda.
Tsarwiv.utoMRSe.
Titarataii TasrecrSmUa.
Zkw
Total nwTtoar of 1
Totalnumfiar of (
rv. Analyste of and I
CoiBmeiiti on i
Definitioa of'
Modlficatioa of dia Stanfandb
la
lafha.
AppUcabia to Cenentors of Haaardoua
Waata
ta tha proposed rule of September 25,
IBBS. EPA proposed a clarification te the
definition of designated facility
regarding waste shipmente from a stete
where a waste U subjed to the
hazardous waste regulations to a stete
when tee waste is not yet regulsted as
Mr poWaon 001*01 duat/sfudga-
Sananoa aaq
Air poSuSon ooneoi duat/sfudga.
AiSiyiSuua ppuoaea wastveatar.
SQRI leasSng/laecfwio of cfvuraa
Basic QKygan aananoa and open haartfi fumaca air
poSuSon coneo) duat/studga.
hazardoua. This circumstance can arise
whan EPA llste or identifies a new
waste as hazardous under ite pre-
HSWA authority, ta such a case, tee
waate te subject to RCRA hazardoua
waste regulationa only ta teose states
teat do no< have taterim or final
authorization to operate tee RCRA
program, ta a state auteorized by EPA to
operate a baavdous waste program ta
lieu of tha federal program (under tee
auteority of section 3008 of RCRA). tee
waste would not be subject to RCRA
Naol
fac
1
2
2
S
3
3
30
30
S
28
1
26
2 Ya
27
27
2
2
a
1
Yas-
Yas-
Yaa.
Yaa-
No-
Yaa-
Yaa.
Yaa-
Yaa.
No-
No-
Yaa-
Yaa-
Yaa-
Yaa-
Yaa-
No-
Yaa-
Vaa-
Yaa..
Yaa-
Yaa-
Yaa-
Yaa-
YaajYaa-
Yea-
Yea-
No-
Yea-
Yaa-
Yaa..
Yaa-
Yea-
No.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yea
Rfained
wiOblBevi
Yes.
Yea.
Yea.
Na
Yea.
Yea.
Yea.
Yea.
Na
Na
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yea.
Na
Na
Yes.
Yea.
15
. 5
requiremente untd tee state revises ite
program to dassify tee waste as
hazardoua and receives EPA
auteorization for teese requiremente.
This set of drcumstances residte from
tea fact teat RCRA aUows states a
specified time to adopt new regulations
in order to mtnimiT* disruptions to tee
implementetion of auteoi^ed stete
programs, ta contrast test siteation
diies not occur when tee wastes are
mewly listed or identified pursuant to
tee HSWA auteorities stece Congress

Fa«leral Ragiatiy / Vot. S5, No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regidations 234
specified teat HSWA provisions are to
be implemented by EPA te ad stetes
until such time as stetes are auteorized
to implement tee new regulations.
EPA's generator regulations require a
generator of hazardous waste to
"designate on tee matefest one fadlity
which is permitted to handle tee waste
described on tee manifest* (See 40 CFR
262.20). The regulations dearly state
teat tee facility designated on tee
manifest is tee "designated fadlity" as
defined te S 260.10 (See tee direct
reference te tee definition of
"designated facility" to tee mandest
requirement te S 262.20). A designated
facility as currentiy defined te 40 CFR
260.10 must eiteer (1) have an EPA
permit (or teterim stetes) te accordance
wite parts 270 and 124, (2) have a permit
from a state auteorized te accordance
wite part 271. or (3) be a recycling
facility teat is regulated under
i 261.ti(o)(2) or subpart F of part 266. and
must also be designated on tee mandest
by tee generator pursuant to § 282J20.
It has become apparent teat when
promulgated te 1980. tee definition of
"designated fadlity" did not
contemplate tee above siteation which
has potentially broad impacte on tee
RCRA program. EPA's current
teterpretetion of tee stetete is that tee
mandest requirement and tee definition
do not apply to materials teat are not
ofiicially identified as RCRA hazardous
wastes te tee state teat is receiving tee
wastes. Today's clarification amends
tee definition of "designated facility"
and tee standards applicable to
generatora of hazardous waste te 40
CFR 262.23, te order to make tida
teterpretation dear to tee public and tha
regulated community.
A. General Comments on the Propoeed
Definition
A number of commentera supported
EPA's effort to clarify tee extetisg
regulations so teat tee parties affeded
by non-HSWA waste identifications and
hstings know tee stetus of these waatea
and the management standards that
apply to teem whan they ara shipped
across state bordan. These commettera
tedicated teat tha popoaed revteion to
tee definition of "daa^ted fadUty" ta
{ 260.10 off en additioaal clarity and an
appropriate level of flexibility to aasiat
bote the regulatory agendas and tba
regulated community. Several
commenten also supported tha
proposed change to | 28ZJZ3 by adding
paragraph (e) to clanfy tba raqniremant
teat tee generator must ensure that tha
designated fadbty returns tha mandest
to tee generator to complete tba wasta
tracking procedures as required by
RCRA reguUtions.
Two commenten argued teat tee
statate probibite EPA from making this
change to tee definition of designated
facility. These commentera poteted out
teat RCRA Section 3002 (a)(5], which
sete out standards applying to
hazardous waste generatora. requires
use of a manifest system
* * * to assure that all such hazardous waste
is designated for treatment storage or
disposal in and arrives at treatment storage,
or disposal facilities (other than facilities on
the premises where the waste is generated)
for which a permit has been issued as
provided in the subtitle * * • (emphasis
added).
Section 3003(a)(4). pertaining to
transportera. contams substantially
simdar language.
The commenter argues teat teese
provisions require materials teat
officially have tee states of RCRA
hazardous waste to go to facilities
holding SubtiUe C permits. EPA
generally agrees wite teis view. EPA,
however, notes teat tee mining wastes
teat become hazardous wastes as a
result of teis federal rule will not have
ofiidal stetus aa RCRA SubtiUe C
wastes te ad states at tee same time.
New RCRA rules—teduding new waste
identification rules—teat are
promulgated using statetory auteorities
te effect before tee 1984 HSWA
amendments take effect oidy te states
that are not yet auteorized to implement
tee pre-1984 RCRA hazardous waste
program. CurrenUy. only 7 states lack
authorization for the pre-1984 program.
Consequendy, today's rule wiU take
effed only te teose states, ta all oteer
stetes, SubtiUe C regulation of teese
wastes most wait for tee states to
promulgate parallel regulations or
stetetory changes, and obtata EPA
approval to implement teese new
additioiu to teeir SubtiUe C programs.
Tlite pnx:e8s can take many months. See
generally 50 FR 2872^-28730 (July 15,
1B65). describing RCRA Section 3006.
See also tee state auteorization section
to today's notice.
Consequendy. EPA believes teat tee
"permitted facdity" requiremente of
sections 3002(a)(5) and 3003(a)(4) apply
only witbte tee txiundaries of those
states where tee relevant mining wastes
have ofBdaUy attained tee status of
RCRA-regulated subtiUe C "hazardous
wastaa." Status as a "hazardoua waste"
is, tedaad. tba basic prerequisite for tha
exerdsa at any subtide C jurisdiction. If
a matarial te not yet a hazardous waste
ta tha stete to which It is sent for
treatmant storage, or disposal, no
subtitle C regulations apply. A mandest
is not legaUy required, and tee faciUty
tbat accepte tee waste need not have a
subtide C permit EPA, te fact would b
unable to enforce manifest and
permitting requirements te a state whe;
a material is not yet a subtiUe C
hazardous waste.
Stece at least two teterpretations of
tee statete are possible. EPA may
exercise ite discretion to choose tee
view teat best promotes tee overaU
policy goals of RCRA. EP.A believes te;
teere are sound policy considerations
favoring tee "jurisdictional" view, whi^
considers tee materials RCRA
hazardous waste status to be a
jurisdictional prerequisite.
The commenters' interpretation of
RCRA sections 3002(a)(5) and 3003(a)(would
force newly regulated wastes Ih
are generated te unauthorized states tc
be managed te teose states. Essentially
teese wastes would be "trapped" te
teese imauthorized states, and teey
could only be managed te avoidance
wite tee treatment storage, and dispoE
alternatives teat are available te teose
states (which could be limited). This is
primarily because TSD facilities te
auteorized states would not be able to
obtete tee necessary permit'
modification or change m teterim steti*
Stece tee wastes are not yet hazardou;
te teese states. One problem which cai
arise from this siteation is teat tee
facilities best suited to tee managemer
of wastes which are newly listed or
identified may not be located te tee
states where tee rulemaking is te efiec
The Agency believes teat such facUitie
should not be precluded from acceptin
wastes from states where tee rule is in
effed whde tee state m which teey an
located te seeking auteorization for tec
waste stream.
One example of particular teteretate
concern tevolves a mixed waste strear
(te., a waste stream teat contams both
hazardoua waste and radioactive was;
ceded sctetillation cocktaUs.
Sdntidation cocktails are commonly
generated by approximately 10.000
hospitals and universities across tee
country. Tbis waste stream became
regulated punuant to non-HSWA
auteority as described m tee ]uly 3,
1966. Federal Regteter notice, and
teerefore were initially regulated unde
tee RCRA program only te tee
unauteoriaed states. Approximately 8C
percent of tee national capacity for
treatment of teese particular wastes
resides with one fsdlity. The Agency
understands teat this fadlity is ta
compiianca wite state standards teat
ara equivalent to tee federal RCRA
reqidremante. However, tee facdity is
located ta a stete teat has not yet
recaived mixed waste suteorization. a
therefore tha facility does not have a

2844 Fa«l«al Begiatar / VoL 55, No. 15 / Tueaday. January 23, 1900 / Ridea and RagulatiOBa
RCRA pumiiar tatartm rtatua. tf aU
teese scmtdlatioa cocktails were
required to go to RCRA pomitted
facilities as suggested by these
commenters, a significant number of
waste shipments frcNn thoasands of
generators would be disrupted, ta fact
in teis case tee Agency believes that
such a restriction would generady result
in less protective waste management
since it is doubtful teat tee wastes
wotdd be treated and recovered to the
same degree as is presenUy occurring at
teis large facility.
The Agency wotdd also like to potet
out that, witeout tee flexibility provided
by today's rule, teere would Idcely be a
significant disincentive for stetes to
adopt new waste listings unless teey
were confident teat adequate treatment
storage, or disposal capadty existe for
wastes withte the stete. This is because
generatora te tee first few stetes to
adopt the waste listing would not be
able to send teefr wastes to faddties te
oteer auteorized stetes (which an the
vast majority of stetes) that have not
adopted tee hsting because the TSO
facilities te teese stetes would not be
able te obtete tee necessary RCRA
permit modifications or dianges ta
teterim status. EPA believes that thte
distecentive would not be desirable.
Tba same two commentera, ta arguing
teat EPA's proposal should be
witedrawn, contended teat there te no
firm evidence that tbe problem
hypoteeticaUy facing the regulated
community actuady extets. Tbe
commenten steted tbat tee problem is
miniecule. d not completely illusory. Tba
commenten indicated that tfaa problem
teat EPA attempts to address ta tbe
rulnmaking oouid only arise if Q>A liste
or identifies a waste as hazardowe
pursuant to noa-HSWA audtoritiaac tea
generator needs to send tha waste offsite
and tee only avadabie off'«ite waate
facilities capable of tnar\agir\fl tee waste
are located ta authorizad stelaa. Tho
commenten tedicated thte iiMasiln
would occur te only a vacy Uaitad
number of cimmiitsnra»jpid thasaibra
does not warrant any GiM|M le tha
definitioa of riasignatad tajlltff. Urn
commaotan go on to say ifcat ITfl can
only identify thraa aon-HSWA
rulamakiaga raaulting ta aaw^ Uatad oa
identiflad ivaataa.
EPA stioi^ disa^aes wtth UM
•tatemaot that thte te an dluaocy
problem iot tba foUowlag raaaooak la tha
September 25 prapoaal EPA idaatlAad
diree racaet aoo^iSWA ndaa oaly aa
Ulustmiva ananipiaa of ailuatiiMM arfaasa
tetenteta ahipmaate ooald ba a praUaaL
Hosvevai; that* have baaa othari
HSWA ralaa (hat Uat oc btlat ta J
waste streams, namely. Redefinition of
solid waste (January 4.1965): and mixed
waste Quly 3,1986). Furthermore, the
Ag«icy recandy proposed additional
non-HSWA Ustings for wood preserving
wastes, and may te the future consider
tee regulatten of oteer waste streams
under tee Agency's pre-HSWA
authority. Furthermore, as discussed te
tee mixed waste sctetillation cockteil
exampte above, tee Agency has already
encountered situations of teteretate
shipments affecting teousands of
generatora. Indicating teat tee problem .
being addressed te today's rule is a real
one and deserves clarification.
The same two commentera argued
teat EPA's proposal could create a
distecentive for waste generatora to ship
teeir wastes to licensed hazardous
waste fadlitiea. This disincentive could
result bom allowing tee generator to
choose to ship its hazardous waste to
eiteer a hazardous waste fadlity or a
nonhazardous waste fadlity. Given tee
alternatives, a generator may simply
choose tbe least cost option.
The Agency acknowledges that this
approach to teterstate shipments may
appear to be a disincentive to the
management of teese hazardous wastes
te subtide C fridllties. However, tee
Agency beUeves that teere ara oteer
circumstances teat mitigate this
apparent dDsincentive. Firat this
siteation Is temporary. Stetes are
required to adopt federal RCRA waste
listings or Identifications witete
spedfled deadlines. Second, until teat
regulatory adoption, teese wastes wid
be regulated under subtiUe D of RCRA
and any other applicable requiremente
of tee receiving stete. Last soma
generatora wlu aled te send their
wastes to siihdlle C faddties or other
facilitiea that perform equivalent
treatmantta order te mlnimire any
potential hitura liability resulting from
the maaagemant af their wastes.
Tha two onmmantera also noted teat
tha practice of shipping newly listed or
identified wastes to faddties te stetes
when tha waate te unregulated would
ba Itautad to tha period of time an
authorlaad stete raqaires to promulgate
tha aaw Usttaf ot characteristic.
Howevac tha coaaaantan matetained
teat wbla aach a pariod te finite, U te
not naaaaaarily alMct and can take up to
thraa and a h^ yaara, assuming that
aiAariaad atataa coaupky wite BPA
rwaaUtloiM iar Bavtelag stete prayams.
The comoMBtaf fastheD Indicated thai
then araao t—aadlB>« cooaaquanoaa
for tha state or tha lafstatad oonunoalty
ta dMi aiaia if tha atete fade to meat
teaaai
It shoaki be rcoognixed teat tee three
and a half year peftod te tbe maximum
aUowed by tee stete aotborization
regulations. Generally, stetes are
required to adopt federal program
changes withta two yean (or three years
if tee stete needs to amend ite stetute).
Some extensions of teese deadltees are
available. However, EPA recognizes
teat white some states have been able to
meet tee auteorization deadlines, others
have not due to tee number and
complexity of tee dianges to RCRA
regulations in tee past few years. The
Agency tetends to place Increased
emphasis on prompt stete adoption of
new waste Hstings to ensure uniform,
national coverage of newly Usted or
identified wastes. It should also be
noted teat teere is a lag time between
state adoption of a requirement and tee
offidal EPA action to auteorize teat
state to implement tee regulation under
RCRA authority. Therefore, te many
cases states are regtdating teese new
activities te a manner equivalent to tee
RCRA program wed before Aey have
received authorization.
B. Relationahip Between Today's
Clarification aad Non-RCRA State '
Hazardous Waatee
One commenter was concerned about
tee situation where a waste is generated
te a stete which, as a matter of state law
only, regulates tee waste as hazardous,
but Is transported to a receiving state
teat does not ta this case, tee receiving
state is under no federal compulsion to
amend ite regulations to add teat waste
to ite list of hazardous wastes, stece tee
listing of tea non-RCRA waste is a
matter ot state law. EPA has no
jurisdiction over this siteation. Thus,
thte darification of tee definition of
designated facility does not apply to
state Usted non-RCRA hazardous waste.
A second commmter shared tbe
above conoein but alao steted tbat
EPA's propoeed darificatton does not
disttaoHteh between stete and federady
dassilad hazardous wasta. Tbe
commaatec contended teat tha Agency
shouhl stipalata tbat this clarification
only appliaa to fadaraUy regulated
waatea, that tha Agancy dki not tatend
to precluda tha raoaiving steta from
designattai tha typa of facility wtach
can maaafa each atata-daaaifiad
hazardous waata, and that fadaral
auteorization te fatalavant to tbe
tetecatata tiantpaitation of steteclaaaifiad
waatea,
Tha Afancy lacoyiliaa tfaa laaue
piuaantad by tha ooaBantar howvvar.
EPA baUavaa that thte is not a oomment
on die olaiUkiatlau ta tfaa daflnittoo of
tee term "designated fadlttty" aa
X

*. t
J 1
Federal Registar / Vol. 55, No. 15/ Tueaday. January 23. 1990 / Rulds and Regulations 234
proposed on September 25.1989. Rateer,
tee issue raised by this commenter
concerns tee requiremente of tee current
definition, tedeed, tee current definition
does not apply to non-RCRA hazardous
wastes since it only applies to tee
hazardous wastes teat tee Federal
government has auteority to regulate
(i.e.. federally listed or identified
hazardous wastes). If a state chooses to
be moi'e stringent and regulate
additional wastes not regulated under
RCRA. teat state must adapt it's RCRA
regulations wite regard to tee definition
of designated facility to accommodate
these new wastes. Each state must
detennine. teerefore, how it wiU regulate
the out-of-state shipment of state-listed
wastes. Furthermore, tee Agency does
not under tee origmal definition or this
subsequent clarification, tetend to
specify to auteorized states tee types of
facilities teat can manage stateclassified
hazardous wastes. Fteally,
EPA also does not wite teis clarification
or tee origteal rule, seek to regtdate tee
interstate transportation of stateclassified
wastes. Neiteer tee origmal
federal definition, nor today's
clarification has any impact on tee stete
regulation of state-classified hazardous
wastes or tee out-of-stete shipment of
teese wastes.
C. Who Can Qualify as a Designated
Facility?
One commenter argued teat EPA's
proposed darification raised
ambiguities by suggesting t^at some
kmd of approval is needed te a stete
receiving a waste, even d none te
required by stete law. The concept of a
state having to provide an "adowance"
to a facility te order for it to accept
wastes teat are not regidated ta tee fint
place appeared to be burdensome and
unnecessary. One commenter steted
teat EPA should acknowledge that a
waste teat is not regulated te a recaivtag
state can be sent to any fadUty te tbat
state so long as "'^^•'^ under stete law
disqualifies it bam. receiving such waste.
EPA would Uka to clarify teat under
today's rule, tee laws of tea receiving
state determtee which fadUttea may
accept and manage tha wasta streams.
The receiving stete also determines
what prior approvals, licenses, permits,
etc. if any, are necessary. Today's
clarification adds no addittanal
approval requiremente on faddties
managing non-hazardous wastes from
oteer states. The requiremente placed on
teese facilities are a matter of ststed
law..
D. Which Standards Apply to Interstate
Shipments?
Anoteer commenter argued teat tee
standards of tee state where tee
generator is located should apply to tee
treatment storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste, rateer tean tee
standards of tee receivteg state because
it would be extremely burdensome for
tee generator of a hazardous waste to
keep track of tee continuously evolving
hazardous waste regulations of all fifty
states.
The Agency disagrees wite teis
commenter. A state can only apply its
laws and regulations to facilities over
which teey have jurisdiction (i.e.,
facilities within the stated boundaries).
Therefore, if a generator is sending
wastes to a facility out-of-state, tee
treatment storage, or disposal
standards teat apply are teose of tee
state where tee "TSD facility is located.
It is mcumbent on tee generator to know
tee requirements of tee states where tee
wastes wid be managed. However,
much of tee responsibility for complying
wite tee receiving state's regulations
falls on tee TSD facility. In most cases,
tee generator simply has to ask a
potential receiving TSD facility if it is
allowed to manage tee generator's
wastes by ite state government The
Agency does not believe teat teis is
particularly burdensome to the
generator.
E Other Comments
A nunor technical correction is also
teduded te tee rule language of
"designated facdity" to clarify teat an
teterim states facility m an auteorized
state may be a designated facUity. EPA
believes teat it is univenally underatood
teat teese teterim stetus facilities can
accept hazardous waste shipmente. and
diis waa tee origteal tetent of tee
provision. Therefore, te tee firat
sentence of tee rule a parenteetical
clause te added wite the words "or
teterim states".
The Agency has noted and corrected
tee typographical error teat appeared te
tee proposed rule as foUows: Under
proposed i 260.10(4). tee generator is
designated on tee mandest punuant to
8 282.2a not i 260.20.
P. Manifesting requirements
Today's darification will not alter tha
requirement teat a generator offer his
waste oidy to transportera who have
EPA identification numbera. (See 40 CFR
282.12(c)). Thus, if a newly listed waste
te transfered between transporters te a
state where tee waste te not yet
hazardous, bote transportera should be
Identified on tee manifest The initial
transporter if stiU required to keep the
copy of tee manifest on file.
ta order to ensure teat tee waste
reaches tee designated facility, EP.^ is
requiring tee generator to arrange that
tee designated facUity owner or
operator sign and return tee manifest ti
tee generator, and teat out-of-state
transporters sign and forward the
• manifest to tee designated facility. The
return of tee manifest to tee generator
will "dose tee loop" on tee disposition
of tee generated waste and allow the
generator to attempt to resolve any
discrepancies in the manifest as -
required by 40 CFR 262.42. This new
requirement parallels the requireme.nt?
in 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71. However.
as opposed to teose sections, which
require tee receiving facility fo ret".:m
tee mandest S 262.23(e) puts the burde
cn tee generator to ensure tee return o;
tee manifest when tee waste is sent to
fadlity te a state not yet authorized to
treat the waste as hazardous. EP.^
believes teat teis approach is
appropriate, stece the facility receivir.;^
tee waste and any out-of-state
transporters may not be subject to
subtitle C regulation, d teey do not
oteerwise handle any RCRAhazardou:
wastes. It should be noted teat wite th
approach the designated facility and
out-of-stete transporters are not
required to obtain EPA identificetio.T
numbera smce tee waste is not
hazardous te teeir state. (Of course.
once tee state becomes authorized to
regulate tee particular waste as
hazardous, the facility would need a
RCRA SubtiUe C permit (or mteriin
states) to contteue managmg tee was:.
and all transportera would need EP.A
identification numbera.)
V. Regulatory Impleraentetioa and
Effective Dates of tee Ftaal Rule
EPA te finalizing this rule in
accordance wite the March 14.1969
order of tbe U.S. Court of Appeals for
tbe D.C Circtet (see Environmental
Defense Fund v. £PA 852 F.2d 1316
(D.C Cir. 1988) cert denied. 109 S.Ct.
1120 (1966)). As of tee effective date of
this final nde (i.e.. six montes after
today or July 23.1900. tee five mineral
processing wastes for which tee
temporary exemption from subtiUe C
regidations (previously provided by
RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is beir
removed by today's ndemakmg may b
subject to subtide C requiremente in
teose stetes teat do not have
auteorization to administer teeir own
hazardous waste programs te lieu of
EPA Generatora. transporters, and
treatment storage, and disposal (TSD
fadlities teat manage any of these Hv)

29M Fedanl Regiatg / 'Vol 55. No. 15 / Tnesday, Jazmary 23, 1990 / Rnks and Ragulstkina
wastes ta auteorized stetes wid be
subject to RCRA requiremente imposed
as a result of this final rule only after tee
state revises ite program to adopt
equivalent requiremente aad EPA
auteorizes tee revision.
The requirements imposed as a result
of removing tee temporary exemption
mclude: Determining whether the solid
wastefs) exhibit hazardoos
characteristics (40 CFR 262.11) and. for
those wastes teat are hazardous,
obtateing an EPA identification number
for managing hazardous wastes (40 CFR
262.34): complying wite recordkeeping
and reporting requiremente (40 CFR
262.40-262.43); and obtaining teterim
status and seeking a permit (or
modifying teterim stetus, teduding
permit applications or modi^ing a
permit as appropriate] (40 QH Part
270).
A. Section 3010 Notification
When EPA published its September 1.
1989 final rule (54 FR 38592). tee Agency
removed tee temporary exemption from
subtitle C regulations for ad but twentyfive
mineral processing wastes. In teat
ru!emal±ig, tee Agency tedicated teat
all persons generating, transporting,
treating, storing, or disposing of one or
more of teose wastes were to notify
eiteer EPA or an auteorized state withta
90 days (i.e.. by November 30,1989) of
such activities, pursuant to section 3010
of RCRA. if teose wastes are
characteristically hazardous nntler 40
CFR part 281, subpart C. (see 54 FR
36632.) FoDowinfi tee publication of tea
September rule, however, a number of
facilities expressed confusion regarding
tee notification requirement because
section Vn of tbe presrable to tbe
September 1.1989 Snel rule also states
teat "tha final nde te not efiactiva ta
auteorized stetas because ite
requiremente are not being imposed
purauant to tee Hazardoua and Solid
Waste Amendmente of 19B4." (Saa 54 PR
36633). Ttas stetement was oonact ta
regard to tfaa raqteremaat ts flia a part A
permit application and TBP Bf ataidi
It was not correct ta i
3O10 ootifieatioa. wMcbf
apply to ad persons i
transporting, treating, i
disposing a hazardoos i
by charactartetics nigarijiaaa ef \
m an aathorizad state or not. I
tea Saptambar 11980 final rula raamvad
a teaipuraiy axaopttoa md tfans
ident^ad aa charactartstlcaily
hszardous SOOM waataa, Bacbaa BHO
requtrad aotlficatlan wMhta BO days.
Because soma potantlally affaoted
facilitiaa aiay have baan confuaad by tha
September 1 premafaia aad bacauaa tfaa
Agency has not yet pabAiabad a
clarification. EPA te today eliminating
tee notification requirement established
by tee September 1 final nde for
facilities te auteorized stetes. For
faddties te unauteorized stetes. the
deadlme for compliance wite tee
notification requirement esteblished by
the September 1 rule te being extended
untd 90 days fodovring today's
publication (1.8^ April 23,1990). EPA has
concluded teat it te appropriate to waive
tee notification requirement te
auteorized states because (1) tee
univeree of newly regulated activities
wid be identified when state regulations
are revised, as teey must be for tee
states to retam auteorization: and (2)
RCRA Identification numben provided
to notiden te auteorized states are
obtamed by tee state from EPA so te
this way EPA is informed of tee
notifications that authorized states
receive.
Accordingly, not later than 90 days
fodowing today's publication (i.e.. Aprd
23,1990), ad persous te unauteorized
states who ganarata, transport treat
store, or dtepose of wastes teat (1) ara
removed bwa tee Bevtd exemption by
this final nsle,^ and (2) are
charactehsticady hazardous under 40
CFR part 2S1. subpart C must notify
EPA of such activities punuant to
Section 3010 of RCRA. Notification
instructions ara set forte te 45 FR 1274&
Persoiu who previously have notified
EPA or an auteorized state of teeir
activities pormant to section 3010 of
RCRA. (I.a.. persons who previously
have notified EPA or an authorized stete
teal they generate, transport treat store
or dtepose of hazardous waste and have
received an identification number^—eee
40 CER 28217. X3.ll and 265.1) need not
re-notil^,5FBnona widiout EPA
identification numbera ara prohibited
from traaspoftiag, oSering for transport
treating, ttaria^ or disposing of
hazardous wastes.
For tba aama raasoos discussed
abeva, facilitiaa managing wastes
removad bam tha axdnsion ta
auteortiad stetoa need not notify EPA or
an authorlaed stete withta 90 days of
today's rule. Section 3010 Notiflcalioa
wid be required of such facdittes after
tee state receives auteorization or
odierwtsa amends Ite program to
regulate these or require such
nt^catloa.
* Uaasf Hw SalM Waata rHirr-nl Aaaa^Msia ol
Itaa (Pub. L.SS-«;) BPA mi fivaa tha opdon of
waiviiif ika aotlfleaUoa lagultemant utxlsr sacHoa
3016 ef BdtA Mewait M'Maa of Iha sasaoa asai
. at MM iliasiaaM of ika Ai^ilrMaaelia.
B. Compliance Dataafor Today's Rule
1. teterim States and Permit
Modifications ta Unauteorized States
Facilities ta imauthorized stetes teat
currenUy treat store, or dispose of
wastes teat have been removed from
temporary Bevid exdusion and ore
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR Part 261. Subpart C but have not
received a permit purauant to Section
3005 of RCRA and are not operating
purauant to teterim stetus, may be
eligible for interim status (see Section
3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) of RCRA. as an^ended).
ta order to operate pursuant to interim
status. suchiacUities must submit a
Section 3010 notice pursuant to 40 CFR
270.70(a) withte 90 days of today's final
rule (Le» by Aprd 23.1990. • and must
submit a part A permit application
witete six months of today's final rule
(i.e.. by July 23.1990). Under section
3005(e)(3). land disposal fedlities
qualifying for teterim status under
section 3tX)S(e)(l)(A)(ti) must also
submit a part B application and certify
teat tee fadlity is te compliance with all
nnplicable ground-water monitoring-and
financial responsibility requiremenH
withte IS months of today's final nds
(i.e.. by July 23.1991). If Uie facdity fads
to do so. teterim states wid termmate on
teat date.
Completion of final permit application
wid require mdividual faddties to
develop and compUe information on
teeir on-site ivasta management
operations including, but not limited te.
tee following activities: Ground-water
monitoring (d waste management on
land is tevidved); mandest systems,
recordkeeping, and reporting dosure
and. d appropriate, post-cloeure
requirements; and finanfial
reaponaftiility requirements. Tba permit
appdcationa may alao require
developmant of engineering plans to
upgrade existing fadlitiea. ta addition,
many of teese faddties wid, te tee
future, be subjed to land disposal
restricttans (LDR) standards. As
explateed ta tee September 1.1989 final
rule and ta tbe proposed LDRs for third
scheduled wastes (54 FR 48372.48492:
November 22,1969) EPA considen
wastes Aat ara brongfat ander Subtitle C
regnlaHoa by todajr's ftaal rule to lie
"newly idantifiad" wastes for purposes
of astebhshmg LDR standards undor
section 90IM(gK4) of RCRA. (54 FR
38824). Acoordtagty, BPA has proposed
teat nawly tdast^ad niaaral processing
•BMaelpa > whs psaifciusli kate aoUllad
EPA or aa I
transport, treat iton or dlapoae of haurdou* wutt
and hava received an Identiflcatlaa Dumber.

Fedwal ReglStor / ¥ci 55. Nc. 15 /Tuesday, Janiary 28. IBQO / Riites and Itagulations 2347
wastes not be subject ta tee BDAT
standards that die Agency proposed on
November 22.1968 for chanacteristic
hazardous wastes. As required by
RCRA section 8004^)^(0. EPA plans
to study tee mineral processing wastes
removed from tee temporary exemption
to determine BDAT for ones teat exhibit
one or more characteristic of a
hazardous waste.
All existing hazardous waste
management faddties (as defined te 40
CFR 270.2) teat treat store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes covered by today's
final rule, and that are currenUy
operating pursuant to teterim states
under Section 3005(e) of RCRA. must file
with EPA an amended Part A permit
application witete six months of today's
publication (i.e., by July 23,1990), te
accordance wite S ^.72(a).
Under current regulationa. a
hazardous waste management EaciHty
teat has received a permit pursuant to
Section 3005 may not treat store, or
dispose of tee wastes removed from tee
temporary exclusion by today's final
rule, if teose wastes are
characteristically hazardous imder 40
CFA Tart 281, Subpart C when tee final
rule becomes effective (i.e, July 23,1990]
unless and until a permit modification
allowing such activity has occurred te
accordance wite § 270.42. Consequently,
ownen and operaton of such facUities
will want to fUe any necessaiy
modification appticattens nvlth EPA
before tee effective date of today's final
rule. EPA has recenUy amended ite
permit modification procedures for
newly listed or identified wastes. (See
40 CFR 270.42(g).) For more detefls on
tee permit modification procedures, see
53 FR 37S12. September 28.1988.
2. teterim Status and Psmit
Modificationa m Autbooiaad St^as
Until the state Is auteorized to
regulate tee wastes teat are being
removed from temporaiy exdusion by
today's final rule and that.ara hazardoos
under 40 CFR part 281, sobpaltC no
permit requiremente tg^.Fhdiitiet
lacking a permit tboufuia, need not
seek interim status oflO Stete
auteonzation ts graatad. Any fadttty
treating, storing, or (Bsposlug of thsaa
wastes on tee eftecttwa dote of state
auteortzolton may quaWy for teterim
states under appllcafate state Jaw. fitate
teat te order to be no teasatrhigaBtdtan
tee Federal program, the stete "te
existence" date far data miningintarim
status ehgibfhty may nat Plater than
tee effective date of EPA's autheriaatiea
of the state to reguiato Ifaesa waslaa.
These faddties must provide the state's
equivalent of a part A permit
application as required by autbcaized
state law.
Fteally. RCRA section 3006f«) (teterim
status) or any auteorized stete analog
apply to waste management facilitiea
qualifying for stete teterim status. For
those facilities managing wastes under
an existing state RCRA permit state
permit modification procedures apply.
VI. Effed oD Stete Authotizations
Because tee requirements te today's
final rule are not being imposed
pursuant to tee Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, teey wid
not be effective in RCRA auteorized
states until the state program
amendments are efffedive. Thus, tee
removal of fte temporary exclusion wid
be applicable six montes afrer today's
pubdcation (i.e., on July 23,1990) oidy te
teose few states teat do not have final
auteorizalitm to operate teeir ov\m
hazardous waste programs te lieu of tee
Federal program, ta auteorized states,
tee reteterpretation of tee regulation of
non-exchided processing wastes wid not
be applicable until tee state revises Ite
program to adopt equivalent
requirements under state law and
receives auteorization for teese new
requiremente. (Of course, tee
requirements wiU be applicable as slate
lafw ff tbe state law is effective prior to
auteorization).
Based on tee scope of today's final
rule, states teat have final auteorization
(40'(7R 2n.21(e)) must revise Uiefr
programs to adopt equivalent standards
regulating non-Bevill mteeral processing
wastes thiat exhibit hazardous
characteristics as hazardous t>y July 1,
1991 tf regulatory changes only tue
necessary, or by July 1.1992 d statetory
chai^as ore necessary. These deadlines
caa ha anitanried by up .to sfat months
(l.e.. untdfanuary 1.1962 and January 1.
1993. respectively) te exoeptional caaas
(40 CFR.27X21(e)(3)). Once BPA
approves tbe ravioion. tee-state
requiramente tietiume RCRA Soblitte C
requirements te that stete. States are net
auteorlsad to regulate any wastes
subject to today's final nde untd EPA
approves their regulations. Of course,
states siote existing standards teat
addrass thoaa wastes may continue to
adndatetar and enforoe their regulations
as a mattar af state tew.
Canandy unauthorued stetas tbat
submit aa official appdcattan for final
auteofiaatiaa tess than 12 mondis after
tee«aacttva date of today's final rula
(La., bakae January 22. IflBt) may ba
approvod arithout inclnding an
equivateot^BDidatan (i^a.. to address
non-Bevid atineral prooeesing wastaa) ta
tee appiioatioa. However, once
auteortead. a state muat revise tte
program to include an equivalent
provtaioB luaroiding to ihe requiremente
and deadltees provided at 40 CFR
271.21(e).
vn. Economic Impad Screentag
Analysis Purauant to Executive Order
12291
. Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order
12281 (46 FR 13193) require teat a
regulatory agency determtee wheteer a
new regulation will be "major" and. if
so, teat a Regulatory Impact Analysis-
(RIA) be conducted. A major rule is
defined as a regulation teat is likely to
result te one or more of tee following
impacte:
(1) An aimual effect on the economy
of SlOO miUion or more;
(2) A major tecrease te costs or prices
far consumers, tedividuals. mdustries,
FederaL State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions: or
(3) Significant adverse effeds on
competition, employment tevestinent
productivity, innovation, or on tee
abidty of United States-based
enterprises to compete wite foreignbased
enterprises te domesticor export
markets.
Today's ftaal rule completes tee
Agency's revised teterpretation of tee
Bevill Mining Waste Exclusion for
mteeral processing wastes. The first pan
of this reteterpretation, dealing with the
vast majority of individual mteeral
processing waste streams, was made
final on September 1,1989. The
preamble to the September 1 rule
presented tbe resulte of the Agency's
economic impact screening analysis,
covering scoras of smad volume mineral
processing wastes, and examming cost
impacte aaaodated svite 39 potenuady
hazardous low volume wastes te detail.
This analysis tedicated a total annual
rnvnftiancm Btmt for Bubtitie C waSte
management of about S54 midioiL As
indicated ta section OI of this preamble.
today% final Tute removes five
additional pracessii^ wastes from the
Bevid exclusion and subjecte teem to
regulatioa under subtide C of RCRA if
teey eodiibit hasardous characteristics.
Consistent wite Executive Order
12281, the A^em^ has completed a
revised eosoomic impad screening
analyste fivttfaa £«e mineral processing
wastes tamovad from the Bevid
exduaian by today's rule. T^iese
revisions aoQOont for dianges te tee
Bevid status of certate wastes since tee
September 25, IfiBS. NPRM and
comaoaote raoatvad on tbe original
analjRite. Rasalte of this revised analysis
suggest ibat three of tee five waste
streams are likely to exhibit hasardous
characteristics at some or ill of tee

234S Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1§90 / Rtdes and Regulations
faciUties teat generate them. One
additional waate stream (air podution
control solids from lightweight aggregate
production) may be regulated at some
fadlities under tee subtide C "derivedfrom"
rule. As a consequence, as many
as eleven mineral processing facUities m
four different commodity sectora may
Lnciu' compliance costs due to this rule.
The Agency estimates teat total annual
compliance costs are not likely to
exceed $18.5 million and teerefore
concludes teat today's final role ia not a
"major rule" according to tee first
criterion of E.0.12291.''
Wite respect to tee oteer E.0.12291
criteria, the Agency does not predict a
substantial increase te costs or prices
for consumers or a significant effect on
international trade or employment te
connection wite today's final rule. Some
mdividual mteeral processing faddties
in tee lightweight aggregate and
titanium dioxide sectora may experience
significant compliance coste which
would affect teefr abidty to compete te
their respective commodity sectora. On
balance, however, tee Agency concludes
teat today's rule does not constitute a
major rule as defined by E.0.12291.
"The foUowing paragraphs of this
section briefiy restate tee Agency's
economic impact screening approach
and assumptions, and provide revised
results.
A. Approach
1. .Meteodoiogy and Assumptions
The revised screening analysis
prepared for today's ftaal rule used
essentially tee same meteodoiogy
employed for and described te tee
September 25.1S89. NPRM (54 FR 39312-
15) and accompanying background
documents, to which tee reader te
referred for details.
Substantial differences between tbe
scope and resulte of tee analysis
described te the proposed nde and those
reported here primarily refled a shift ta
tee Bevid status of serenl hay waste
streams based on newtafonaatkm on
waste generation rains iMllnltenilcnl
cbaraderistics, as daaortbad ahova ta
section DL Spedficaflyg^bs Ihal nda
restores tee Bevid stotos-fia tan wastes
for which tee Agency has ptavtonsly
estimated compiianca cost impacte ta
tee September 25 .NPRM (roast leach ore
residue from chromite processing and
process wastewater from hydroflooric
' The Prvunble to the Se^ember 29. issa
propoeed rale pmeiiied aa amtaal oaB^Haaos eoet
ntiaaU of ISJ aiiboa Ear S afieclad ladHOas a I
commodity (aoors. Tha aai tooeaae le SlSJ mllUaa
is atmbuubl* entirely to tba iddltian of Ugbtweiftrt
•gsresete APC scrabber loUds to tbe Hit of ifTected
wines.
add production), teus obviating tee
predicted impacte for teese two sedOTS.
On tee oteer hand. APC dust/sludge
from tightweight aggregate production
(proposed for retention withte tee
exclusion based upon preliminary
review of EPA survey data) has now
been removed from tee Bevill exdusion
following a closer examteation of tee
data, which tedicates teat average
scrabber solid volumes are well below
tee high volume criterion.
Because EPA waste samplmg data
and information submitted both in
response to tee Agency's RCRA section
3007 letter and in public comment
indicate teat APC solids from
lightweight aggregate are unlikely to
exhibit hazardous waste characteristics,
tee Agency beheves teat removing this
material from tee Bevdl exclusion wid
not impose any cost or economic
impacte on most of tee 30 or so facilities
teat generate it Noneteeless. it is weU
known teat several lightweight
aggregate production faddties currenUy
bum listed hazardous wastes as a
primary fuel and would hence
experience subtiUe C regtdatory
compliance costs as a consequence of
tee "derived-from" nJe (see 40 CFR
261J(b)(2)(i)).
EPA bas not substantially modified ite
estimates of tee distribution and
magnitede of tee coste or impacte for tee
remaining four affected waste streams
whose stetes remateed unchanged from
tee September 25 NPRM (elemental
phosphorus off-gas solids, primary lead
process wastewater, titanium dioxide
sudate process waste acids, and
titanium dioxide sudate process waste
solids).
Ol tha five waste streams reviewed
for potential hazard cbaraderistics. tee
preliminary screening assessment
suggeste thattwo—lightweight
aggregate APC scrobber solids and
sulfate process waste sodds from
titenium dloxida production—are not
likely to exhibit hazardous
choracteiistia under current RCRA
hazardotts waste test procedures.
Thereidca, BPA has assumed ta tte
economic impact screening analysis that
taddties generating these wastes wid
experience no compliance cost impacte
assodated wite potential subtiUe C
regulation of these wastes. The primary
exception relates to five (out of 30)
lightweight aggregate prtiducera teat
currendy bum dated hazardous wastes
as fuel. EPA's taformatlon tedicates that
five faddties operated by tee Solite
Corporation and one facUity operated
by tha Nordte Corporation burn
hazardous waste as fuel: one of tee
Solite fadlities apparenUy does not
generate any solid wastes. Wite few
specific exceptions (based on waste
samplmg data), tee remateteg three
waste streams were considered
hazardous at aU facilities, for tee
characteristics specified, as follows:
• Elemental phosphorus o&-gas solids
(from wet collection)—EP toxic for cadmium
• Primary lead process wastewater—EP
toxic for arsenic, cadmium, and lead,
corrosive
• Titanium dioxide sulfate process waste
acids—EP toxic for chromium, corrosive
Fourteen facilities te teese four
affected commodity sectors, were then
furteer analyzed on a site-specific basis
te terms of current (baseline)
management practices m order to
determtee consistency wite current
subtiUe C management requirements
and lo select reasonable site-specific
compliance options as a basis for
estimating costs.
EPA determmed teat one of tee 14
faddties analyzed on tee basis of
company-provided data is currenUy
managing hazardous wastes m
compliance wite current subtiUe ^
requirements, "rd teus may not is|cur
additional coste when today's rul^
becomes effective. The data suppAting
this finding were obtamed from
responses to EPA's 1987-88 National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment
Storage, DisposaL and Recycling
Faddties (TSDR Survey).* For some
oteer tadividuol faddties. Date from tee
National Survey of Solid Wastes from
Mtaeral Prt>ces8ing Faddties document
teat current practice for several of tee
wastes (particularly tbe wastewaten)
removed by today's rule tedudes
treatment ta a wastewater treatment
plant direct discharge via NPDES
permit provisions, and/or recycling to
tee process generating tee waste te
question. EPA bos reviewed this
information, and used it to develop
baseline and subtide C compliance
scenarios for this analyste. As a result
estimated compdonce coste at several of
tee faciUties affected by today's final
rule are zero. That is, removal of tee
waste from Bevid wid impose no
operational or economic impacte
because teese faddties already appear
to employ management practices
consistent wite subtide C requirements.
2. Costing Assumptions for Lightweight
Aggregate APC Scrubber Solids
As discussed above, five faciUties
producing lightweight aggregate air
• USEPA. ISSa Ceve/opoMfft oftiM Higil Vo.'une
CrJIehoti for Mineral Prxxaatwg Wastaa. Special
Wajtee Branch. OtRce of Solid Waste. August m
lose.

J^daral Bagiatar / Ual. Si,Ho. IS J Tuasdodf, {oanary 23, 1990 / Aales «ad tegnlattaos tMS
pnlliition.control |APC] sonihber solids
wdl face economic impT^* due to tha
removal of this waste stream horn the
BeviO exdusion by today's final rule.
because thpy hum HatnHT»nTm.fl«iia
waste as fueL Because this sector was
not evaluated te the origteal screening
analysis for tee NPRM. tee fodowing
paragraphs present the Agency's costing
approach and iengineering design
assumptions for evaluating compliance
options and eatimating costs.
In general teere are a multitede of
possible compliance options available to
lightweight aggregate pioducera, varying
from conversion to iossd fuels to various
possible waste reduction nieteods to
possible delisting petition cations.
Because of lack of date necessary to
perform quantitative cost estimates for
most of teeae alternatives (as wed as
time constrainte on this final courtordered
rule), tee Agency's screening
analysis has been forced to focus ooly
on the extremely high-cost option of
managing the APC scrubber solids
(generated as wet sludges) as Subtitle C
hazardous wastes. 'Die Agency's coot
estimates ase teus based en the
difference te dis^sal coste between
maaaging tha reported sludge vnhimas
m unlined impoundmente or waste pdes
veraus disposal ta a permitted subtiUe C
londfid. For teese and other reasons
ouUined below, the Agency's cost
estimates ibr this sector should be
regarded as upper-bound eetimatas.
The waste quantities potentiady
subjed to subtitte C londfiO dirpf TBI
have been estiaiated using responses to
tee tedustry survey and. te one case.
%vritten public comments. Methods for
developing teese estimates are
described te a supplemental technicsil
background daoiaDant that ssay ba
found ta the daclcBt for today's nde.*
Hie Agency bos a«"'i'"'"i that ^y^f i«»fif^^
quantities reported by tee faddties
represent relatively dry laoterial. and
that dewatering would aot be feasibte as
s volume redaction mcfcad prior to lani
disposal ff dewateriug wauhl be
possible, then tha muBtdy af waste for
subtitle C landfid dispaaaltas been
overestlmstad and to Miasctent EPA
bas. accortfingly oraiaaMuiated
compiianca costs, ivfafc&an direcdy
related to the mass of wastsibat must
be disposed.
The Agency has aisD-eoRserratively
assumed teat aU lightwaighlJiggregate
kdas st each affected focilMy (most
• Addandum la Iha Tac/inkialW^ienund
Doeumant DanhpatatH of Iha Coit and Sconomtc
Impacts af lapiaamnlia$ Uta tmiU Ulnaml
PtBcauinf HaataaCntonaBaoMaiicAiiahrsIs
Stafl Office anelld Wa«ta, ISBPA. Taaaaiy tz.
facihUas operate thiae to &re fcilaa] do
and wid continue to bum listed
hazardaus wastes as fiial Consequently.
m this analysis tee entire scrubber
solids stream for ad faddties is assumed
to be affeded by tee derived-from nde
and teerefore subject to subtitle C. To
tee extent teat some or od faddties do
not bum listed hazardous wastes te ad
of their kites and/or do (or could)
segregate Usted aixd non-listed
(characteristic) hazardous wastes prior
to thai use as fuel, EPA bas further
oveiestimated costs and impacts.
te addition, the Agency has some
concerns about the waste volume date
reported by one of the two affected
firms, tee SoUte Corporation. Solite's
fadhUes report waste generation rates
that are oubetantially higher tean any
other lightweigfat aggregate producer,
even when corrected for differences te
plant size and production rate. Tbe
waste-to-produd ratio calodated by
EPA for SoUte's faddties ranges from 15
percent to more than 25 percent This is
from two and one had to 210 times tee
ratio calculated for tee other reporting
facilities generating the same waate.
NoDeteeleaa. the date reported ta the
Natinoal Survey and used ta this
analysis ore consistent vrite tnfoanatian
previously submitted to EPA by tee
company. This may or may not be
related to the issue of moisture content
discussed above. It should be noted,
howevec that these very high reported
waste ^ner&tien rates lead direcdy te
significant compliance coet estimates. U
acteal waste generation rates are lower,
acteal compliance costs and associated
impacte will be less than tboee predided
here.
Anoteer conservative assumption teat
tba Agency bas made te conducting this
anal^'sfsls teat affected firms would
contteue using current air pollution
control meteods and. teerefore, continue
SDgeneratewat APC scmtifoer soUds.
Newly one baV of tee l^tweight
aggregate indnstry ourenty uses dry
couection meteods. induding one of tee
faddties cpareted by SoUte teat burns
hasardous svaste fuel. Waste generation
rates using dry coUection methods are
generady sigE^cantly tower tean teose
ststaig wet caOection metbods. ta
additioa infonnation snbmJtted to EPA
indicates teal at some faddties. tee APC
dost te recycled into tes lightweight
asragate kilas from which tf is
fsnerated. subh teat tee prooess does
nat generate any subatoatlal quantity of
solid wastes. To tee eKtent that tee
faddties sscamteed te teis analysis coald
Inalal dry dat coUectian systems snd
Tscssle tee seUds rathorlhan contteus
tBssa wet GoBactioo sysfaams, coste aad
related tnqiacte-CDuld be reduced even ij
tee-fadUftes continued te utilize Usted
hazaadauB wastes as fuel supplements.
Fteally. the affeded firms, SoUte and
NorUte. could potestiaUy avoid subtitie
C reguialian ahogeteer by eiteer (1)
converting entirely to oteer fuels and
discontinuing uae of Usted hazardous
wastee as fuel or (2) having their waste
streams de-listed on a site-specific
basis. EPA notes here teat Solite has
indicated te iU public commente on tee
September 25.1989, and previous
proposed rules teat it would not .
contteue to accept and burn hazardous
waste fuels d tee BeviU exemption were
to be removed from its wastes. While
tee Agency recognizes that this courae
of action is a distted possibiUty and
perhaps the least cost compUance
alternative, tee Agency was not able te
tee present screening analysis to
evaluate tee avaiiabte fuel converaion
option due to a lock of factual
infonnation about such.faclora as
retrofitting coste. thermal value of
currently used hazotdons waste fuels,
and tbe revenues accruing to the two
films lor accepting the hazardaus
wastes buut individiial geneaatora. For
tee sameeoasons. Le., tnsuffident date,
it has also not been possible So predid
tee outoome ef any attempt by the firms
to have tee APC oaubber wastes te
question offidaUy delisted (withdrawn
from sabtitte C regulation) hy tee
Agency.
Simdotly, wdtdefiPA acknowledges
that tatermediate ahematives may be
avadabie. such as bnmteg only
characteristic rateer tean listed
bozartlQus wastes te at least some kilns
currenUy avadabie information is
inaafficient to assess tee feasibility or
cost Implications af this type of
operational change.
ConaequKtiUy. ^A's compUance cost
analysis has been conduotad iietng tee
best ouneatly available information to
develop what are essentially worst-case
compUance cost estimates tar the
lightweight aggregate commodity sector
To tee extent that tba affected faciUties
can (1) avoid eubtiUe C regtdation by
fuel changes and/or equipment
modifications or sucaesoful delisting
pgtitinna, or (2) ftTrlty'waste-RducUon
techniques ta geiieiata lesser quantities
of AFC scrubber soUds lubject to tee
derivsd-from rule, the coate and taipact!
.tapoctadJiarsjaBysapreaent a
sitbetaBtial evsrestiaBte.
£. Aggregota^ad Seotar CampHance
Coatt
Tbs loipaot sofeening analysiB
projecte "teat atevsn fBcdOtes ta four
ffiSerant mlnaralptaaasslag ooamodity

2350 Federal Registar / Vol. 55, No. 1» / Tuesday, January 23. 19» / Rules and Regulations
secton wid be affeded directly by
today's ftaal rule. Thirty-five faddties ta
these four secton are expected to be
unaffected by today's rale because teey
eiteer (1) do not generate tee processing
waste te question. (2) routteely recycle
tee material as a process teput or (3)
produce a waste that apparentiy does
not faU standard EPA hazardous waste
test criteria. Anoteer three faciUties. one
in tee titanium dioxide sector, and two
in tee lead sector, are believed to be
unaffected by virtue of already
incorporating subtide C (or equivalent
NPDES wastewater treatment) practices
in teefr current waste management
systems. In aggregate, tee total impact of
today's rule is estimated to be about
S18.5 milUon per year. EPA cost
estimates for tedividual commodity
secton and faciUties are presented te
Table 4.
For tee reasons discussed above, tee
major part of tee total estimated
compliance coste (88 percent) fads upon
tee five Ughtweight aggregate faciUties
currenUy burning Usted hazardous
wastes as fuel Cost impacte range from
S2.S mdUon annuady for tee Noriite and
Florida SoUte fadUties to almost B4.8
miUion aimuaUy for SoUte's Arvonia,
Virginia, faciUty. The reasons for tee
large magnitede of teese compUanca
cost estimates are tba host of
conservative analytical assumptions
articulated above, togeteer wite tee
relatively large quantities of scrubber
wastes reported by tee SoUte company.
One oteer sector, titanium dioxide, te
e

;J]-'.|.
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regidations 235
>. . '
TABLE A.—SUMMABX OF PROOUCTION, VALUE OF SHIPMENTS, ANO COMPLIANCE COSTS—Continued
CoRicnodKy sector •
Combineo total—aS tour sectors
AJIFaciimea. . .. _ . ;„.
AHecreo Facilities Oily*
Number Ol
plafits
produong
49
11
Produdton »(MT/
YR)
5.751.103
1.415.726
Umtvalua*
(S/MT)
461
444
Vakw of
2.652.885.481
627,906,964
Compiance coals
($/YH)
18,478.000
18,478.000
Coats per
fnemc tOrt
ol product*
($/MT)
3.2
13.1
Costa/vah-
0(
(percefiil
' Facilities evaluated are tfiose believad to generate wastes tfiat may exhibit hazardous characteristics or be hazardous by virtue ol the derived-from m
' 100 cercern caoady uoKzanon is assumed, except as notea
' T^uis '(x unit value, costs par matnc ton of pnxluct. and costs/value of shipments sre calculated and not the sum of the individual lacility vaiu<
* Caoacfty ana production values aoportwned equally among the three Asarco facilities.
* Prooucnon iigufe source; Minerals Yeaitxsott. 1987. p. 256.
* Proauciion figure as reported oy tne taciMy in response to the 1989 National Survey of SoHd Wastes from Mineral ProcessinQ.
^ Prooucnon figure calculated trom tirTTHMOe waste-to^roduct ratio ana reponed waste generation rale provided in 11 /88 public comments.
* Suitate process only.
* Aiteciad lacuioes are tlie facilities evaluated having non-zero compliarice costs.
C. Economic Impacts
EPA's screening-level analysis of
economic impact compared tee
magnitude of annual compliance coste
for eaclraffected facility to tee
estimated value of shipments. This ratio
provides a Rrst approximation of tee
extent to which the profitability of firms,
or. alternatively, commodity prices, or
oteer measures of national impact may
be adversely affected by tee imposition
of regulatory compliance costs.
Sectora or faddties wite ratios above
one percent were considered vidnerable
to moderate to significant financial
impacte and were evaluated te more
deteil te terms of market and tedustry
factors that might adect tee ultimate
tecidence and impact of tee coste.
As seen te Table 4. despite tee fact
teat only a smad percentage of faddties
te tee lightweigfat aggregate secter
would be affected (five of thirty), tee
magnitede of tee estimated tecremental
waste management cost te suffident to
indicate potentiady significant sectorwide
impacts, particuUriy at tee
regional level Upper bound compliance
cost ratios at tee level of tee individual
affected facilities are extreme, ranging
from 51 percent te 81 percent of value of
shipmente.
For tee oteer sectors, only one faddty
(m tee titanium dloxiids (sulfate) sectw)
is predicted to fwysitenfft impacte
somewhat one peicmit level at about U
percent Thte levstoffanpactte regarded
ss moderate. Tbs two elemental
phosphorus (7MC and Ocddental), and
primary lesd (Asarco snd Doe Run)
pnxluceri exanuned te this study ore
expected to experience relatively mteor
long-term economic impacts. Obviously,
firms snd fadlities adesdy te
compliance and wite compliance coste
of zero (i.e.. Kemira end Asareo) will not
experience any negative economic
impacts associated %vite this rule.
1. Faddty and Sector Impacts
To furteer explore tee economic
impact of today's final rule, EPA has
exanuned some of tee factors teat
influence tee abidty of adected firms to
pass through prospective compliance
coste to product consumers te tee form
of higher prices. These factors teclude
absolute price levels, major end uses of
tee mteeral commodity, competition
from importe and substitutes, secondary
production, and flexibdity te oteer
production cost factors.
a. Lightweight Aggregate. Lightweight
aggregate has three major uses, which
generady reflect ite superior
performance capabidties as a
construction material. The three mate
appbcations are te concrete block (61
percent of total consumption), highway
resurfacing (19 percent), and structural
concrete (18 percent).*• A fourth, teough
smad use (about 2 percent), tevolves
new applications te recreational and
bnticidtural materials."
Most lightweight aggregate produced
te tes U.S. is used te manufacturing
concrete block. Lightweight aggregate te
valued as a higb-strengte aggregate for
concrete forms, because it adows a
significant weight savings over heavier
aggregates. The weight savings permit
structures to be designed at on overod
lower cost'* Concrete block fabricated
from lightweight aggregate also has
better insulating properties tean block
using denser substitutes.
Lightweight aggregate's second major
use te te road surfacing, where it is used
as an ingredient te asphalt surfaces. It
oSen superior skid-resistance compared
to oteer bulk fiders.'* Lightweight
•• Bureau ot Mines. MweraU Yearbook tier.
"Oar*.'PB«S 254.
«'/6;d
" The BuUdw$ Sttjmaiar'i Rafaranca Book, f JL
Walker PabSsliars. Lisle, 0. 1980. Pass S.ISS
" Ampian. Saiiis C "Qays." In Minarul Paeta
andProblamg. US. Burssu o( Mines. 1987. Psys 166.
aggregate's third major application is a
a component of structural concrete, sue
as te bridge surfaces and floors in highrise
buddings, where its low weight anc
high strength are useful.**
Lightweight aggregate is valued in its
mote applications because of its weight
siavings and performance features (skid
resistance, tesulating abilities, and
strengte). teough substitetes can
compete te cases where usera do not
have stringent requiremente for teese
quadties and are will'nsi to use one of
the available substitetes. Competition
withte lightweight aggregate's primary
applications comes from oteer budding
materials, wite tee mate substitete beir
heavy-weight stone (aggregate). Oteer
substitetes tedude light natural
aggregates (pumice or cteders) and
foam."
Markete for lightweight aggregate art
basicady regional or local rateer tean
national The widespread availabdity c
domestic clays suitable for Ughtweight
aggregate production, tee high cost of
tronsportetion for aggregates, and tee
relatively low market value (price) of
this commodity limit tee size of market
areas. As a result, firms te tee mdusti7
which are widely scatiered across tee
U.S,. are limited te teeir ability to
expand tbeir sales teto competitors'
territories witeout actually constructing
new plante.
tetemational b'ade te tee lightweight
aggregate sector is extremely limited, fi
shown te Table 9. the United States is <
significant net exporter of clays as a
general category. Trade data for finishc
lightweight aggregate are not available
teough a trade source tedicates teat
importe have not affected Ughtweight
aggregate's market to a large degree,
oteer tean some recent imports of
pumice fram tee Mediterranean area. '
•* IM. pats 186.
'• IjRlea. Bxpawtad Oay and Shale Institute.
Mrsooal wwtianntcatVia December 29. ises.
C

JS2 faduai RaeiiSer / Vol 9k No. 15 / Tuesdsy, January 23, 1898 / Rnks snrf R^nhrtiens
Energy coste ore an iupet taut
i-j.impnnont of prf^/4n^Hr»w COSte for the
Ughtweight sgBKgate tedustry. Kilns ore
reported to reqmn 2.0 to 4.1 midion
HIUs of fuel per MT of H^tweight
aggregate produced.'* Residual oil (tee
fuel used te most kilns) coste
approximately S2.39 per million BTUs m
1988. ** Assuming this fuel cost tee cost
of fuel per MT lightweight aggregate te
at least S4.80, and could possibly be as
high as S14.eo (teough tee higher fuel
consumption rate might apply at plante
configured to use less expensive furis).
It is teerefore apparent teat energy
costs account for a substantial portion
of tee margte between tee raw material
cost of day ($10 per MT] and tee price
of finished lightweight aggregate (as low
as $24 per MT). Consequendy. faddties
tent can achieve fuel cost savings by
using hazardous wastes as &iel
supi^emente are dkely to have a
substantial current cost advantage over
faddties relying solely upon oteer fuels,
such as oil or cool, espedady smce teey
can generally charge a disposal fee to
waste generatora. Compdance coste
associated wite today's rule would
reduce this cost advantage, though 'd a
facility elected to contteue using listed
hazardous wastes ite total production
coste would rise above tedustry norms
only to the extent teat tbe incremental
comp^nce coste exceeded tee fuel cost
savings teat it currently enjoys.
Alternatively, d the faddty elected to
stop using tee Usted hazardous wastes,
it would (after any neoeseary
retrofitting] have fuel coste comparable
to tee majority of oteer facdities te tbe
industry.
te summary aad for several reasons,
EPA beUeves teat tee Bghtweight
aggregate producers affected by today's
rule wdl not suffer tbe calamitous
economic impacte tbat odgbt be
>* COIMB. SJO. endTX U
Lighter NadBCI
>• UO. DasarCMOl ef
ArirmnMnaaaiL AdoathJf £aatif
nee Table B-ia
aecaor
Elemeeeri
Phoaptiana.
1 *ed
*WSWaL
nmmmOOtm.
Plos srvl hars (iuean)'
riavs faS tMi^ai *
lano.
sBggested liy fce Agency's tecieiueutsl
cost estimates, even if tme assumes that
these upper limit cost impacte wid
actaady be incmred. First Eocdities teat
currently bum hazardous waste as fuel
enjoy a potentiady significant cost
advantage wite respect to their
competitDCS. This advantage may
mitigntp. pfrhnps to a considerable
extent the coet impacts of today's rule,
te addition, because of the ^ledal
physical charactedctics offined by
lightweight aggregate te comparison
with ooaventiooal aggregatea, aSected
producera may have some abidty to
pass through compdance coste to local
tedustrial and pubUc sector markets te
tee form of higher prices. Ibou^ to an
utncertate extent Fteady. high
transportation coste and a widely
dispersed domestic tedustry suggest tbat
moderate price tecreases could be
susteined. at least for bghtwei^t
aggregate applications teat require the
low density and bi^ strengte offered by
tUsraeterisl.
b. Titanium Dioxide. Titanium dioxide
is used te pigmente for pstete and
surface coatings, paper manufacturing,
aiiu plastics. Had of titanium dioxide
production is consumed te pigmente,
••lieie ite cuiupeUbve ptTsitian te strong.
Oenand for h^-qnafity paper also
favora titanium dioxide.
Tbe domestic industry euppljog moat
ot tbe titanium dioxide used te the US.
with importe exceeding exporte by oidy
a moderate degree. As a result, titooiuBB
dioxide te te a relatively strong domestic
market position. Producers using tbe
sulfate process, however, ore te a
mteorlty and accoont for only rmo eigbih
of domestic production. It is not likely
tbat the ooe affeLted pnxlocer could
estebbsb a pieuiium for hs product snd
WOBM (baiefure be Bmited te tbe extent
to wfaidk it oould recover cost increases.
2. ItbcAs an CoBsumer Wees
For sesKSBsd rmsQU, EPA bederes dmt
TABLE S.—tMPoms Ano ExiPO«rrs OF MINERALS,
Oofntvbc produdtan
QuanSV(MT)
341,950
SMMM
• 4,140.642
8S3L87S
Value (tOOO)
577 jes
2n.i«s
•113.974
1.SS0.483
QuantSySyn)
1niport>
4.463
1SS.47S
34,101
162.738
teis nde wffl not create any appreciable
changes te consumer prices. The firat
end principal reason is tee generally low
overad percentage of compliance costs
to product value. wUcb does not exceed
one percent for any adected commodity
except lightweight aggregate. Combteed
wite this is tee fact teat not ad
producers te these sectora are adected
equady (many domestic oompetitore are
not affected at ad) and that other
domestic or forei^ competitors could
fid prodnction sbortfads. eiteer wite
identical or substituteble products.
Fmady. since aU the affected
commodities are primary mtermediate
raw material tepute to the production of
oteer finished products, teeir relative
con&lbutioii to fktal oonsHiner goods
prices is, ta any case, typicafly quite
sraelL
X Forest Trade Impacte
Trade is sabstantial te many of tbe
mteeral commodities covered by today's
rule, but is probably only likely to be a
factor wite teepaot to titaoiura dioxide.
Basic import and export data for tbe
sectors that generate potentially
hazardous wastes ore presented in
Table 5. Import and e:q>art figures for
lightweight aggregate (expanded shale)
ere not avadohie, alteougb international
trade is not thought to be a significant
factor for tbia sector. Because imports of
titanium dioxide ore significant the
abdity of tee affected domestic producer
to raise prices to recova compUance
costs, is. as discussed above, fmther
limited, and teere may be a modest
stimulus towards import expansion.
tai etew «f the «bov«, ft te unldcefy that
tee ovetvl trade balancs m (be
: miaerats ktdustry wid be
' sfioded by today's rule,
tbmgb te one sector regolsitary cost
lsitpa».

•H
Fadanl Register / VoL 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulationa 235c
Vm. Regulatocy Flexdidlty Analyste
The Regulatory Flexibidty Act (RFA)
of 1980 {Pub. L fl&..3S4), which amends
tee Administrative Procedures Act
requires Federal regulatory agencies to
consider "smad entities" throughout tee
regulatory process. Tbe RFA requires, te
section 603, an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determtee wheteer a
substantial number of smaU entities wiU
be significantiy affected by a regulation.
If so, regulatory alternatives teat
elimmate or mitigate tee impacts must
be considered.
te tee preamble to the September 25
proposed rule, tee Agency presented
documentation of and tee rules firom a
screening analysis to determtee tee
potential for significant smad busteess
impacts imposed by tee proposed
reteterpretation of tee Mining Waste
Exclusion (see 54 FR 39316-7). At teat
time it was determteed teat no smad
busteess enterprises would be advereely
affected by tee nde, as proposed.
The changes teat have occurred te
today's final rule, as disttect from tee
September 25.1989. proposal, have
served to reduce tee number of
potentiady affeded secton whde
tecreasing slighUy tee number of
potentiady affected faddties. Based
upon tee revised cost and economic
impact analysis presented above, and
further data coUection and analysis by
tee Agency. EPA has conduded teat
only one smad busteess enterprise.
NorUte Corporation, wite approximately
75 employees.'* might be advereely
affected by today's final rule. Therefore.
EPA condudes that just as te tee
September 25 proposal teere wid not be
a significant advene impact on a
substantial number of smad mteeral
processing companies, because among
tee affected sectora teere is oidy one
smad busteess teat is expected to
experience impacu from today's final
rule.
IX. List of Subjecte in 40 CFR 288,2S1
and 282
Designated faddty. Hazardous waste.
Waste treatment and (flsposai
Recycling. Reporttaa sad recordkeepdig
requirements, Maidnsts.
Dated lonuory U. usa
WUBaoi K. RaiDy,
Adminittrator.
For tee reesons set out te tee
preamble, parte Zaa 281 and 282 of tide
'• Sovrca: Duns Martst Uantlfiers. OUia«
IntonsaUoo Sarrtcee. Inc ISSS
40 of tee Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as foUows:
PART 26&-HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The auteority dtation for Part 260
contteues to read as foUows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6905, 6S12(a). 6921.
6S27, 6030, 6934. 6935, 0937, 6936, 6939, and
6974.
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
revising tee definition "designated
faddty" to read as foUows:
] 260.10 Deffnitions.
"Designated facility" mesna a
hazardous waste treatment storage, or
disposal facdity which (1) has received
a permit (or teterim states) te
accordance wite tee requirements of
parte 270 and 124 of this chapter, (2) has
received a permit (or teterim states)
from a State auteorized te accordance
wite part 271 of this chapter, or (3) is
regulated under S 261.6(c)(2) or subpart
F of part 266 of teis chapter, and (4) teat
has been designated on tee mandest by
tee generator purauant to S 260.20. ff a
waste is destteed to a faddty te an
auteorized State which has not yet
obtateed auteorization to regulate teat
particular waste as hazardous, teen tee
designated facidty must be a facdity
adowed by tee receiving State to accept
such waste.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
USTINQ OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
3. The auteority citation for Part 261
contteues to read as foUows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6095. 6912(a). 6921, and
6022.
4. Section 261.4 is amended by
revteing paragraph (b)(7), to read as
foUows:
I2S1.4 Esduslona.
(b) * • •
(7) SoUd waste from tee extraction,
benefidation. and processing of ores
and mteerals (teduding coal), teduding
phosphate rock and overburden from tee
mining of uranium ore. For purposes of
i 281.4(b)(7), beneficiation of ores and
mteerals is restricted to tee foUowing
activities: Crushing; grinding; washing;
dissolution: crystaUization: fdtration;
sorting: sizing: drying, stetering:
peUetizins briquetting: calcining to
remove water and/or cortion dioxide;
roasting, autoclaving. and/or
chlorination te preparation for leaching
(except where the roasting (and/or
autodaving and/or chlorination)/
leaching sequence produces a final or
mtermediate product teat does not
undergo furteer benefidation or
processmg); gravity concentration:
magnetic separation; electrostatic
separation; flotation: ion exchange;
solvent extraction; electrowtnning;
precipitaUoa" amalgamation: and heap,
dump, vat tank, and in situ leaching. Fc
the purposes of S 261.4fb)(7), solid wastt
from tee processmg of ores and mteeral
will mclude only tee foUowing wastes,
untd EPA completes a report to
Congress and a regulatory
determteation on teeir idtimate
regulatory status:
(i) Slag from primary copper
processing;
(u) Slag from primary lead processing,
(ui) Red and brown muds from
bauxite refining;
(iv) Phosphogypsum from phosphoric
add production;
(v) Slag from elemental phosphorus
production;
(vi) Gasifier ash from coal
gasification;
(vii) Process wastewater from coal
gasification;
(viii) Calcium sidfate wastewater
treatment plant sludge from primary
copper processing;
(Lx) Slag tailings from primary copper
processing;
(x) Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production;
(xi) Process wastewater from
hydrofluoric add production:
(xii) Air poUution contitil dust/sludge
from iron blast furnaces;
(xiii) Iron blast furnace slag;
(xiv) Treated residue from roasting/
leaching of chrome ore;
(xv) Process wastewater from primar
magnesium processing by tee anhydrou
process;
(xvi) Process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production;
(xvii) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearte furnace air poUution control
dust/sludge from carbon steel
production;
(xviii) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production;
(xix) Chloride process waste solids
from titanium tetrachloride production:
(xx) Slag from primary zinc
processing.

Fadaral g^gistar / Vol. 5S. No. IS / Tuecday. Jannary 23. 1990 / Rules Md Rqg^aliuDS
PART 282--STANOAROS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
5. The audutrity citetkwlor Part 2S2
contteues to reed as fallaws:
Authority: 42 VS.C OOIM, 681Z 6922. 6023.
6924, 6025. aod 6037.
8. Section 282^ is amended by
adding paragraph (ej to read aa fodows:
S262.23 tteaoltttaoMOileat.
(e) For shipments of hazardous waste
to a designated facility m an auteorized
State which has not yet obtamed
authorixatian to regulate teat particular
waste OS bsxankitis, the geaerator must
assure teat tee designated faciUty
agrees te aigm and retara the manifest to
tee generator, and teet any out-of-state
transporter eigRS and fbnvards the
mandest to tbe designated faciUty.
[FR Tioc. 90-1402 Filed 1-2Z-96: 8:45 am]
BKUimcaDC esse-se

l^€U_tJerM5 l^m Cakill
^2 ^ ^5 )iidc€m

§)^iL_(3i^\L4ie iiP05LJ^O53 M^piiA^ U£

..l(a
tejL^_£i)ck.^
1 • ^ rwmos
k. 6/\JUlnoi-aul
_____^ ^17.
P^ei^
'^H:
PElC
©
ilA UJ^JSL_ -t^cf^ ^ ^
uiK^d ^/^_/>^^i^ Jl^'l/kacc^M
vijUd ijimfL4^^^ JMJ-(^^)
hw u*^ fUuMi^
6h^ltMj oM'Jflicduo^-
^ _^_ l^jAJ^d^^ket^^.
TJuLJ^MfJLX^/t&L\_TLL ^fUA..E/Aj^d^^^
B_ _ J^c 1^^ C6M.jmtCL
^U^/^i_ ( ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^
diu 4e MJLUMJI/IUU eny

T^f H*d?tJ^ J^
i^k^^
%^zXi^3^.^^^-^ ^J^^
i._j>i^^^ '
^4,Q^l^m
^(k

— -
m4i(^io-^i5^
- - • •• • . • . - • - . • - • .
—
•
-V^J
"- -
/^^iCe/j
— • ' •
— ^_
.

PB^MT/^fi^t.
d^M^-r.-^&M-. i^^MaJ^.^^^.^
n>j!/> si&Hit
him ^(M^.{Um^
CiOkSi^CzU^'^ _ . _
!S^tauipi&^ -Soum^A)- •^^^emMJj&i'^e^ Cac^&j U^e^et^SsSJch ^^^^^^10
FiEaPJimoQ,
0-
^n^ &U.
Cd, 0^,(1^;^, V^,% 9
um,. fc ds4^^...y:^j{
lUiMut

mV^S'VilOHjK?-AZ _. __
^73 Fn^^M-M-^-PP^r.^We-l-Vin^ _...__.__
l>)__Re>a'§Hvv.^j^t^_u^^ °bal

O
!icfy»
r, I .*-^ •"
T
30 :« 13D ESC
Ot^WC XCAiJE IH rCE'
NO-
w*J -if-.r. FPQij jcQTjCH r» bUBSIDI*"'
OP ;-,/riD AUO ASSOCIATES) DRAWlrJC
NO t'^C.DWG: IHFOHUATIOH FRO" ENCYC.C
SUFt"-ISOP SAFCT' OEPARTUDIT AMD SUOoi.£MEirXl
wrT>- •s'0fl>*AT10N DEVELOPED BY NAISWl"t^-
ENGinCERlNC. INC, Owe. NO" 3965-SOl DV»0
EN12700
APPR. ! DATE
SSSTfT GAJ
'•pr. fty:
NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONKENTAL • SURVEYING
GAJ
*356
CORPUS CHRISTL TEXAS
;/TEXAS. INC
SITE MAP
AS SHOWN
2-22-95
4356-E:X4

-£%
B
C
D
N. 800
E
N. 600
N. 400
G
H
O
^ > - ^
GROPMin SCALE IN riXT
not
THE: :*.="'j»MHTiON -0'= THIS DRAWirjC
w*^ ''•I'z.n fPOu if.-OTECH If- 3USS1DIAP'
OF ;'./r4D WJD A:;30C!ATE3) DRAWINO
NO £,'.C.OWG; fNFORMATtOH rROW ENCYCLi
SUP^f^aOP SAFCrv DEPARTMDiT ANO SUE^OLtuEtJ^El
wfTV- •NroRi*AnOfJ DEVELOPED BY NAlSMITh
ENGtrt££RiNG. INC. DwG. NO 3965-501.DwO
EN12700
Af PR. ' SATE
mi NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.
~m 1 ENGINEERING • ENYIKONMENTAL • SURVEYING
CORPUS CHHSn. nSXAS
GAJ
4356
SITE MAP
2-22-95
INC

1400
B
1200
c
1000
D
800
E
600
F
G
200
H
ZERO
O
\\\)%
0 30 :W 13D 21
ORAPHIC ICAt_E IN FtET
\ fHE ?i-0PM«TlON -OO THIS DPJ'Wit'G
WA5 '^fV. ^POi.* tfJOTECH r* SUBSlDlAf•-
OF O'w'MD AND ASSOCIATES) DPJVWINO
NO l.^C.DWC. IMFOBUATIOH FROM ENCVCLi
SUPtP'I'iOP ^AfCT' OEPiRluENT AND SUPPi.i.MEirLL
wm- •N'Oft'AnoN DEVELOPED BY NAISWITv-
ENCn'EEPlHO. INC. DWG. NO 3965-S01 Dv»G
EN12700
REV. RgViaiONE APPR. : DATE
tUMJ tr.
GAJ
NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • SURVEYING
GAJ
4356
CORPUS CHRIBTL TEXAS
SITE MAP
AS SHOWN
2-22-95
INC
4356-EX4

vmx. desfH aose
PliaiTIWlWa
AOMtNisnwTrc
omcss 4 Lfl
TSaocB MT
(Nro»«»i-ON OEVtlOPCD BY NAISMfTW
i^.:IMtE»»l^C < DWG. NC JSeS-SOi OWC
XST. myioHi APPIt I PACT
TSTT
AN ' G A J
TCTTTBr
11
NAISMITH ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • SURVEYING
coBFOi ciuuirn. nxit
SITE MAP
INC
AS SHOWN 43ae-£X4
mo
!

uSouD one
"-E 'ITO^M-'CH ''OP '^'5 ;RAWINC
.v»5 TAKES ""TM iNOTtC- * SuBSlOCAWr
:" :DV»C '•< owe. NC 39*5-501 0»»C

3D ID 130 200
SWHE SCALE IN FEET
'-1 'NFOPt/,i-CN FOP •T'-'S CRAWING
.••AS T.ij

N. 4S0
--r .jrpn^-CN FOP n--5 :iuw»JC
>«s r«Es ~':M INOTCC- » SUBSKXABV
:- ;DV»C •.< ASSocuTts' DHAimc
•.-s ENC.rw: •ifonuATio. -Ttou ENcrax
= J=t»V