Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From

Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas

Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

March 1992

OTA-BP-O-82

NTIS order #PB92-157619

GPO stock #052-003-01273-1
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From

Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion-Background

Paper, OTA-BP-O-82 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992).

ISBN 0-16 -036116-8
Foreword

The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the major statute

governing what are called solid wastes. Federal efforts to date under RCRA have focused on

controlling the management and disposal of certain ‘hazardous’ wastes. The remaining soli d

wastestream, the subject of this background paper, dwarfs that defined as hazardous. Although

not classified as hazardous, some of this remaining wastestream does contain toxic and other

undesirable constituents.

This background paper was requested by the House Committee on Energy and

Commerce, Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials in anticipation of the

reauthorization of RCRA. The paper examines wastes generated by industrial activities that

play a dominant role in our national economy-oil and gas production, mining and mineral

processing, coal combustion, and manufacturing. In previous reports on municipal solid waste

and medical waste, OTA examined other solid wastes not classified as hazardous.

Improving the regulation and management of solid wastes that are not classified as

hazardous, and preventing their generation where possible, poses many challenges for

Congress, EPA and other Federal agencies, the States, and the involved industries. Major

issues include how to best achieve environmental protection without impeding economic

development, how EPA and other Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management

should interact in managing wastes generated on Federal lands, what the relative roles of EPA

and the States should be, whether sufficient resources will be available to develop and

implement effective programs, and whether the current regulatory structure under RCRA is

an effective one.

OTA is grateful for the assistance provided by workshop participants, contractors,

reviewers, and other contributors during the preparation of this paper. These individuals

helped OTA obtain and examine a wide range of information and issues. OTA, of course,

remains solely responsible for the contents of the paper.

u JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

,.. Ill
Workshop on “Non-Hazardous” Solid Wastes, March 8, 1990

Barbara Bond William Mollere

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

David Bussard Julie Murphy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Amoco

John Dernbach

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources

Linda Greer

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council

Frances Irwin

The Conservation Foundation

Jessica Landman

Natural Resources Defense Council

David Lennett

Attorney

Ann Maest

Environrnental Defense Fund

John Novak

Edison Electric Institute

Joseph Peterpaul

Rohm & Haas

John Stone

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Marcia Williams

Browning-Ferris Industries

Karen Woodhouse

California Department of Health Services

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants.

The workshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. OTA assumes

full responsibility for the background paper and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff: Managing Industrial Solid Waste

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert Niblock, Program Manager

Oceans and Environment Program

Howard Levenson, Senior Associate

Kathryn Cox, Analyst

Kathryn Wagner, Analyst/Contractor

Administrative Staff

Kathleen Beil

Sally Vim Aller
Contents

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

General “Solid” Waste Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mining Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coal Combustion Utility Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oil and Gas Wastes . . . . . . . . .

Manufacturing Wastes . . . . . . .

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

A.

B.

Acronyms . . . . . . . . .

Federal Statutes and

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Public

C. Contributors and Reviewers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Law Numbers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

55

67

91

115

125

126

127
Chapter 1

Overview of RCRA and General

"Solid” Waste Issues
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Subtitle C Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Subtitle D Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GENERAL RCRA ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issues Regarding RCRA’s Design and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gaps and Inconsistencies Among Federal Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Implementation of Federal Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research and Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

4

6

9

15

16

19

23

23

Box

Box Page

l-A. Concentration-Based and Continuum-of-Control Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figures

Figure Page

1-1. The Universe of RCRA Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1-2. Estimated Quantities of Subtitle D Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1-3. Estimated Number of Active Subtitle D Waste Management Units, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . 11

1-4. States Requiring Liners for Subtitle D Landfills, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table

Table Page

1-1. Number of Subtitle D Surface Impoundments Using Various Release

Prevention Methods, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chapter 1

Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues

INTRODUCTION

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), the major Federal statute on solid waste,

was passed in 1976.1 RCRA broadly defines ‘solid’

waste-which actually can have any physical formas, for example, garbage, refuse, sludge from treatment processes and other pollution controls, and

discarded material from industrial, commercial,

mining, and agricultural operations (see “The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’ below for

additional details).2 Today, efforts continue to refine

the Federal system for regulating solid wastes and to

fully achieve RCRA’s goals of protecting human

health and the environment and conserving valuable

material and energy resources.

Federal efforts to date have focused primarily on

controlling the management and disposal of certain

wastes defined as “hazardous.’ Yet such wastes,

which are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA,

make up only a small portion of the wastes that

Congress intended RCRA to address. The remaining

solid wastestream, which statutorily is addressed by

Subtitle D of RCRA, includes any ‘solid’ waste not

currently regulated as hazardous under RCRA (e.g.,

medical, municipal, agricultural, construction and

demolition, oil and gas exploration and production,

mining extraction and beneficiation, mineral processing, coal combustion, and industrial manufacturing wastes; municipal combustion ash; cement kiln

dust; pollution control sludges; and conditionally

exempt hazardous wastes from small quantity generators). In 1980, Congress also exempted certain

‘‘special wastes”—from mining, fossil fuel combustion, cement kilns, and oil and gas production—

from regulation under Subtitle C, pending further

study and regulatory determinations by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

By weight, this highly diverse universe of Subtitle

D waste dwarfs that of Subtitle C (“hazardous”)

waste. According to the best available EPA data,

about 11 to 12 billion tons of Subtitle D waste is

generated annually in the United States; this estimate is an approximation only, because it is based on

data whose quality varies greatly among waste

types. In comparison, approximately 0.7 billion ton

of hazardous waste is generated annually (figure

l-l). The new Toxicity Characteristic (see below

and ch. 5) might double the amount of manufacturing waste that would be identified as hazardous but

which is managed in units that are exempt from

Subtitle C regulation.

Management of Subtitle D wastes is highly

variable, depending on waste type and characteristics, location, costs, and other factors. However,

much of this ‘‘solid’ wastestream-perhaps 70

percent—is wastewater that is at least temporarily

Figure l-l—The Universe of RCRA Wastes

(billions of tons)

Subtitle

11

Subtitle C

0.7

Excludes mineral processing wastes and

some wastewater discharges (see text) ‘

SOURCES: Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, F?epxf to Congress:

Wastes From the Extraction andBenefication of Metallic Ores,

Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden From Uranium Mining and Oil Shale, EPA1530-SW-85-033 (Washington, DC:

December 1985); Reporf to Congress: Management of

Wastes From the Exploration, Developmentr and Production

of Crude Oil, Natura/ Gas, and Geothermal Energy, EPA1530-

SW-68-003 (December 1987); Reporf to Congress: Wastes

From the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants,

EPA/530 -SW-88-O02 (February 1988); Report to Congress.’

Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, VOIS. 1-2, EPAf530-

SW-88-01 1 (October 1988); Report to Congress on Special

Wastes from Mineral Processing, EPA1530-SW-90-070C (July

1990); 1987 National B“enniel RCRA Hazardous Waste

Report, EPA/530-SW-91-061 (July 1991); Nationa/ Survey of

Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities in 1986, Hazardous Waste

Management in RCRA TSDR Units, EPA1530-SW-91-060

(July 1991).

l~ronvs Used in this paper ~e listed in app. A; Public Law numbers for cited statutes are listed in app. B.

%20ngress first established a Federal role in solid waste issues in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource Recovery Aet

of 1970.

–3–
4 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

managed, and sometimes disposed of, at on-site

surface impoundments. The current, nationwide

extent of pollution controls and monitoring at

surface impoundments is unknown; as of 1985,

however, many impoundments lacked sufficient

design controls to prevent or detect contamination of

the surrounding environment. Some wastewater is

also injected underground, recycled, treated, stored

in tanks, or discharged into surface waters and

sewers. Other, more solid material is managed in

landfills or waste piles, is spread on land, or is

recycled.

Many public and private industry officials and

public interest groups consider the management and

regulation of these Subtitle D wastes to be the next

item on the Nation’s solid waste agenda. In general,

EPA, some State officials, and environmental

groups are concerned about the potential for leachate

or other releases from surface impoundments and

other management methods to contaminate groundwater and to cause health risks and various environmental impacts; for manufacturing wastes, though,

EPA believes that it needs to collect additional

information and evaluate relative risks before making any regulatory decisions. Many State officials,

the Department of the Interior, and industry groups

disagree about the significance of contamination

from properly managed Subtitle D units and the need

for additional Federal regulation.

At the Federal level, regulatory programs under

other statutes cover certain wastes generated by the

mining, manufacturing, electric power generation,

and oil and gas industries. For example, wastewater

discharges are regulated by the Clean Water Act,

underground injection by the Safe Drinking Water

Act, and air emissions by the Clean Air Act. In

general, States have primary responsibility for

implementing these programs. Under RCRA, EPA

has developed an extensive regulatory program (i.e.,

Subtitle C) for hazardous wastes, issued criteria for

municipal solid waste landfills, and made regulatory

determinations about other, Subtitle D wastes generated by the mining and oil and gas industries. EPA

is attempting to develop a Subtitle D program for

active mining waste sites, but it has not yet proposed

actual Subtitle D regulations for mining or any other

industry. Thus, States currently are responsible for

developing and implementing their own programs

for Subtitle D wastes. Many States have improved

various aspects of their programs in the past few

years and now regulate many portions of the Subtitle

D waste universe. However, the programs still vary

in scope, stringency, and need for upgrading.

As part of the process to reauthorize RCRA,

legislation introduced in both the 101st and the 102d

Congresses included provisions on Subtitle D

wastes. In this background paper, the Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) examines available

information on the amounts, management, risks, and

statutory and regulatory frameworks for wastes

generated by the mining, coal utility, oil and gas, and

manufacturing industries.3

To understand issues that are specific to these

industries and cut across all industries, it first is

essential to understand RCRA. This chapter outlines

RCRA’s general structure; discusses how wastes are

identified and classified as hazardous under Subtitle

C; discusses the general nature of Subtitle D; and

briefly summarizes data on the amounts, management, risks, and regulatory status of Subtitle D

wastes. 4 It then discusses a number of crosscutting

RCRA issues, including whether separate regulatory

tracks are required for different wastes; the relationships among various Federal and State agencies;

efforts to promote pollution prevention and recycling; and alternative approaches to the current

Subtitle C/Subtitle D system. Chapters 2 through 5

present more detailed information on mining, coal

combustion, oil and gas, and manufacturing wastes,

respectively; each chapter ends with a discussion of

issues specific to that waste category.

THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION

AND RECOVERY ACT

The definition and classification of hazardous and

other “solid” wastes under RCRA directly affect

the way in which different wastes are regulated and

managed. Solid waste is defined broadly under

RCRA (Sec. 1004(27)) as:

. . . any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste

treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air

pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or con30TA ad~ss~ aspects Of rnticipal Solid Waste, medical waste, hazardous waste, and mixed nuclear/hazardous waste fi Wed mfiti reports (88,

89,90,91,94,95,96, 97).

‘k)TA did not attempt to gather or synthesize information on the costs of various methods of managing Subtitle D solid wastes.
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 5

tained gaseous material resulting from industrial,

commercial, mining, and agricultural operations,

and from community activities, but does not include

solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage,or

solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows

or industrial discharges which are point sources

subject to permits under section 1342 of Title 33, or

source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as

defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (68 Stat. 923) [emphasis added].

Hazardous waste is defined under RCRA (Sec.

1004(5)) as:

. . . a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes

which because of its quantity, concentration, or

physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may

[a] cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in

mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or

incapacitating reversible illness; or [b] pose a

substantial present or potential hazard to human

health or the environment when improperly treated,

stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

The term “solid” thus does not necessarily refer

to a waste’s physical form but rather is a general,

encompassing term that refers to all RCRA wastes

except those excluded in the definition.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act (the precursor to

RCRA) and initial drafts of RCRA itself focused on

“non-hazardous” wastes, particularly on eliminating open dumps, improving materials management,

and promoting resource conservation. However,

Congress was also concerned that other Federal

environmental protection statutes passed in the early

1970s were having unintended results. In some

cases, implementation of the statutes resulted in

greater amounts of hazardous and other solid wastes

requiring land disposal and, subsequently, resulted

in groundwater contamination through leaching;

surface water contamination through runoff; and air

pollution through open burning and evaporation (46,

48).

As a result, by the time RCRA was signed into law

in 1976, an integral part was a national hazardous

waste program-codified in Subtitle C of the

statute--with extensive Federal involvement (47).

Subtitle C granted EPA broad authority to develop

a comprehensive, “cradle-to-grave” program to

regulate the generation, transportation, treatment,

storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. EPA was

also authorized to set minimum standards that States

must adopt in order to run their own EPA-approved

hazardous waste regulatory programs. Subtitle C

tends to be highly prescriptive, with little flexibility

to change various requirements. However, States

can establish, and some have, broader or more

stringent Subtitle C programs than required by EPA;

for example, Wisconsin’s regulations apply to very

small quantity generators. Other States may feel that

the scope of EPA’s program is appropriate or that it

is too expensive and time-consuming to regulate

additional wastes as hazardous.

Subtitle D of RCRA dealt with wastes not

identified as hazardous. State and local governments

retained primacy in regulating these wastes. EPA’s

role was limited to establishing voluntary guidelines

for State solid waste management plans and developing minimum standards necessary to protect

human health and the environment from improper

management of the wastes. The Federal Government

was to provide incentives, in the form of financial

and technical assistance, for States and localities to

develop management plans.5 EPA issued specific

criteria and guidelines in 1979; while broadly

applicable, these were aimed primarily at municipal

landfill facilities.

In the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of

1980, Congress designated certain ‘special wastes’

as exempt from Subtitle C regulation, until EPA

studied their environmental and health effects and

separately determined for each type whether or not

Subtitle C should be applied. The Bevill amendment, Section 3001(b)(3), exempted high-volume/lowtoxicity mining wastes, fossil fuel combustion

wastes, and cement kiln dust. The Bentsen amendments, Sections 3001(b)(2) and 8002(m), provided

a similar exemption to oil, gas, and geothermal

production wastes. The exemptions were enacted

because Congress was concerned, after the oil crises

of the 1970s, about creating regulatory disincentives

that would impede development of the Nation’s

energy resources.

6 Congress was also concerned

about overregulating wastes as hazardous and believed that existing State and Federal regulations

would provide sufficient protection while EPA

5C)TA (IX) discusses me Subtitle D program with respect to municipal solid waste.

6~4FederazRegiSter 15319, Apr. 17, 1989+ The Bentsenamendments also spccfied that EPACOU1d not rc@te Oil, gas, and geothermal WiiSkS ~d~

Subtitle C without a subsequent act of Congress allowing such regulation.
6 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

conducted its studies and made regulatory determinations. 7

A decade later, EPA had issued some of the

required reports to Congress and made some regulatory determinations. As of 1991, EPA had submitted

reports on mining extraction and beneficiation

(111), mineral processing (127), oil and gas exploration and production (117), and coal combustion

wastes (118). Their current regulatory status is

discussed below (see ‘‘The Subtitle D Universe’ ‘).

The last major revision of RCRA was the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984,

which made major midcourse corrections to the

hazardous waste program.8 HSWA also directed

EPA to study Subtitle D waste management and

disposal facilities and evaluate whether current

guidelines and standards are adequate to protect

human health and the environment; to review the

domestic sewage exemption and determine whether

existing regulations are adequate; and to revise the

existing Subtitle D landfill criteria for those facilities

that accept household hazardous waste or small

quantity generator waste.9 The implications of

EPA’s resulting regulatory actions are discussed

throughout this report.

A major continuing tension in RCRA’S waste

classification system (explained in “The Subtitle C

Universe’ below) is that management under Subtitle C is stringent and expensive, whereas management under Subtitle D is relatively less stringent and

less costly. This does not mean that State regulations

for Subtitle D wastes are necessarily less protective;

that would depend on the characteristics of the

waste; the geographic site and management facility;

and the design and enforcement of State regulations.

The Subtitle C Universe

The “Listing” and “Characteristic”

Approaches

EPA uses two approaches—’ ‘listing’ and ‘ ‘characteristic’ ‘—to identify wastes to be regulated as

hazardous under Subtitle C. As discussed later in

this section, the Environmental Defense Fund has

sued EPA over several important aspects of the

Agency’s efforts to carry out congressional mandates regarding these approaches.

In the “listing’ approach, individual wastestreams

or sets of wastestreams are specifically listed as

hazardous (40 CFR 261, Subpart D). To date, EPA

has listed 33 wastestreams from nonspecific sources

(known as the F List);10 more than 100 wastestreams

from specific sources (the K List); and315 discarded

commercial chemical products, off-specification

species, container residues, and spill residues (the P

and U lists for acutely hazardous and toxic commercial chemical products, respectively).ll

In the “characteristic” approach, solid wastes

from individual facilities are classified as hazardous

if they exhibit one of four hazardous characteristics—

corrosivity, ignitability, toxicity, or reactivity (40

CFR 261.21-24)—provided they are not listed and

Ycon=ess spwtii~ certain factors that EPA was to include in its studies of different special wastes. Sees. 8002(f) and 80WP) ad~essed -g

wastes, Sec. 8002(m) addressed oil and gas wastes, See, 8002(n) addressed coal combustion wastes, and Sec. 8002(0) addressed cement kiln dust. In

general, EPA was to address the following factors: sources and volumes of discarded material; present disposal and utilization practices; potential danger

to human health and the environment from such materials; documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been proved; types

and costs of alternatives to current disposal methods; and impacts of alternatives on the given industry’s materials use and commodity production

activities.

8Subtifle c ~rovisiom ~clud@ for e-pie, rqfiements that EpA me “listing” d~isions for 22 wastestre~, establish restrictions On&d

disposal of hazardous wastes, and implement deadlines on permitting of interim status units. RCRA also was amended by the Medical Waste Tracking

Act of 1988 (see ref. 97).

%Mis latter requirement is the reasonEPAfocused its revision on municipal landfills, because they generally accept at least some household hazardous

waste.

lo~(.lud~gfiveremntlisfigs: F037 and Fo38, w~tesgenerated from Separationof Ofl, water, and solidsfiornpe~ole~ref~e~ prOCeSS WiiSkWakrS

and oil cooling wastewate~ (55 FederaZRegister 46354, Nov. 2, 1990, and55 FederaZRegister 51707, Dec. 17, 1990); and F032, F034, and F035, wood

preserving and surface protection wastes (55 Federal Register 50450, Dec. 6, 1990).

1140 C~261+31, 261.32, and 261.33, respativelyc Chemical products On we P and u fists are not considered bdous when used for their intended

purpose (e.g., pesticides); however, they are considered hazardous wheq for example, they are discarded, mixed with waste oil and applied to land for

dust suppression otherwise applied to land in lieu of their original intended use, or burned as fuel. Wastestreams containing these chemicals are not

considered listed hazardous wastes unless the streams themselves are on the F or K lists or exhibit a hazardous characteristic, but they still are subject

to other EPA regulations.
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 7

are not otherwise excluded from Subtitle C regulation. 12 Except for reactivity, which is defined in

descriptive terms, characteristics generaIly are based

on quantitative threshold levels. For the toxicity

characteristic, for example, a waste is considered

hazardous when the concentrations of certain toxic

constituents in the waste exceed specified levels in

laboratory leaching tests. The substances to be

tested, threshold levels, and test procedures continue

to be sources of controversy, as discussed below.

Two other rules and a procedure known as

‘‘delisting’ also determine whether a wastestream is

considered hazardous.13 Under the ‘‘derived from’

rule (40 CFR 261.3), any waste derived from the

treatment, storage, or disposal of a listed hazardous

waste is itself considered hazardous-regardless of

whether the original listed waste is undetectable

after the treatment or the final waste passes characteristic tests. Under the “mixture” rule (40 CFR

261.3), a mixture of a solid waste and a listed

hazardous waste also is considered hazardous.14

Delisting is the procedure by which EPA excludes or

removes an individual facility’s particular listed

hazardous waste from designation as hazardous (40

CFR 260.22); this might be done, for example, for

low hazard or very dilute wastes that are considered

hazardous under the derived-from rule. The derivedfrom and mixture rules are often cited by industry as

examples of Subtitle C’s cumbersome nature (11,

13); this is one reason the Chemical Manufacturers

Association petitioned EPA to establish de minimis

regulatory levels for hazardous constituents in listed

hazardous wastes (see ‘‘From C and D Toward a

New System?” below).

The Federal Government thus regulates as

hazardous only those solid wastes that are specifically listed, that fail a hazardous characteristic,

or that fall under the derived-from or mixture

rules. 15 EPA estimated that listed and characteristic

hazardous wastes totaled about 0.7 billion ton in

1986-87; some of these, however, were managed in

units exempt from Subtitle C regulation.l6 The new

Toxicity Characteristic (TC) might double the amount

of wastes characterized as hazardous (see below and

ch. 5); however, many of these additional wastes are

managed in RCRA-exempt units and thus would not

be subject to Subtitle C regulation.

Nevertheless, many States regulate more substances in their own hazardous waste programs and

set more stringent regulations (31). Usually this

means designating specific wastes, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or waste oil, as

hazardous. A few States (e.g., California, Oregon,

Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin) also include

characteristics such as carcinogenicity and acute

toxicity. California and Washington estimate that

their definitions double their regulated hazardous

waste universe.17

EPA’s relative reliance on the listing and characteristic approaches has shifted several times. In its

Izsome wastes me excluded by sta~te or rule from classification as hazardous. These include, for example, the “SpeCid” WW3S, cOnditiO@Y

Exempt Small Quantity Generatorhazardous waste (which refers to facilities producing less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month), industrial

wastewater discharges mixed with domestic sewage (which are regulated under the Clean Water Act), household hazardous wastes, and other

industry-specific wastes. Some exclusions, however, were based on assumptions that may no longer be valid. For example, specific chromium wastes

fkom the tanning and finishing industry were excluded in 1980 based in part on the alleged inability of trivalent chromium to oxidize to hexavalent

chromium under most plausible types of improper waste management. As a result of more recent evidence, however, EPA is now considering proposing

the deletion of this exclusion for chromium wastes that contain virtually no hexavalent chromium (55 FederaZRegister 11812, Mar. 29, 1990).

13~ Decem& 19gI, however, a Federal court of appeals ruled that EPA had not properly sought public comment when it promulgated the

“derived-from” and ‘mixture” rules; the court allowed EPA to maintain the rules temporarily ifit chose to do so, while the Agency opened anew public

comment period (SheZZ Oif Co. v. U.S. EPA, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 80-1532).

14~s tie was developed fi pm t. discowage dilution ~ a mmagement optio~ outright dilution is permissible only when expressly allowed by a

waste’s treatment standards (40 CFR 268.3). The exception to the rule is a mixture of a solid waste and a waste that is listed as hazardous solely because

it exhibits a hazardous characteristic; such a mixture is not defined as hazardous if the mixture itself does not exhibit the characteristic.

IsNote, ~so, tittie deffition ~d identification of ‘‘-dous’ wastes ~der RCRA are narrower ~the public’s p@CcptiOll Of what the term

means.

16EPA’S National Biermid waste Report (132) estimated that 238 million tons of tidous waste was managed in RCRA-regulated units in 1987;

it did not estimate how much was managed in RCRA-exempt units. EPA’s National Survey of hazardous waste generators and management facilities

(133) estimated that 457 million tons of hazardous waste was managed in RCRA-exempt units, including discharges into publicly owned treatmentplants

for municipal sewage, which are regulated under the Clean Water Act. The survey also estimated that 290 million tons was managed in RCIL4-regulated

units, but EPA considers the National Biennial Waste Report estimate for these units to be more accurate (U.S. EPA, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991).

17v+ Me~, was~~on @~ent of fiolo~, perso~ comm~~tioq J~q 1991; c. Markso~ Caltiornia Department of Health !hViC(3S,

personal communication Sept. 13, 1991. Even after accounting for the new TC, the amount of waste regulated as hazardous in California remains about

twice the amount that would be regulated as hazardous under RCRA, because the bulk of California hazardous waste is used oil.
B ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

first notice of proposed rules in 1978,18 EPA stated

its intent to use characteristics such as radioactivity,

mutagenicity, toxicity to aquatic organisms and

plants, bioaccumulation, toxicity to humans from

chronic exposure to organic chemicals, and infectiousness. The final rule in 198019 reduced the scope,

however, partly because test methods or laboratories

to carry out testing were not available for many of

these characteristics. EPA instead determined to use

four characteristics ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. EPA selected a leaching test, the

Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test, to evaluate

toxicity, because of concerns about the potential

contamination of groundwater by leachate from

hazardous wastes in landfills. The test covers 14

chemicals (8 metals, 6 pesticides) for which drinking

water standards have been promulgated under the

Safe Drinking Water Act.

EPA recently replaced the EP with the new TC. In

1984, as part of HSWA, Congress required EPA to

promulgate more characteristics by November 1986

and to add organic chemicals to the EP (Sec.

3001(h)). In 1990, EPA responded by issuing the

TC. 20 The TC uses a slightly different leaching

procedure than the EP, retains the municipal landfill

model, and covers 39 constituents-including 25

organic chemicals not covered under the EP. Regulatory threshold levels reflect health-based standards, with the same dilution attenuation factor for

each constituent, based on an environmental fate and

transport model.21

EPA also continued evaluating wastes to determine whether they should be listed as hazardous. In

the 1980 rulemaking, based on data from production

processes, EPA promulgated a long list of wastes,

based on data from production processes, that were

considered ‘hazardous’ by some criterion; much of

the data came from work by the EPA Office of Water

on effluent guidelines. In the early 1980s, EPA

decided to develop additional listings to supplement

the universe of regulated wastes, based on the

sampling of wastestreams to determine whether they

should be regulated as hazardous. In 1984, Congress

set specific deadlines in HSWA (Sec. 3001(e))

requiring EPA to list or make listing determinations

for 19 waste categories.22

Both the listing and the characteristic approaches

have been criticized. Some people (e.g., 50,51, 141)

believe that the four current characteristics are

insufficient and some Subtitle D wastes that perhaps

should be characterized as hazardous are not. For

example, wastes with constituents that may exhibit

non-RCRA characteristics such as carcinogenicity

or mutagenicity are not subject to designation as

RCRA hazardous wastes (5 1), although they maybe

regulated under other statutes. With respect to

toxicity, environmental groups believe that the EP

and TC underestimate potential risks, whereas

industry representatives believe that they overestimate risks.23 Industry generally considers the listing

process to be time-consuming, burdensome, and

often inappropriate for a given wastestream. Environmental groups believe that some solid wastes

would likely meet listing criteria but are either

exempt (e.g., certain industrial wastewaters discharged into sewer systems, where they mix with

domestic sewage, are regulated under the Clean

Water Act), improperly classified, or not yet studied

and listed by EPA.

1s43 Federal Register 58949, Dec. 18, 1978.

1945 Federa/Register 33107, May 19, 1980.

2055 Federal Register 11804, ~. 29, 1990.

21A different leac~g test (tie ~fly ~a~te ex~wtion procedme, Or OWEP) is used for de~ting oily wastes, because the Ep ~d TC tt%tS IIUly

underestimate the leaching potential of oily wastes (see ch. 5). However, the OWEP is not used to characterize or list oily wastes. In its Report to

Congress on oil and gas wastes, EPA used the TC to evaluate the toxicity associated with these wastes, despite acknowledging the inappropriateness

of doing SO (1 17).

22~ese ~cluded list~g c~o~ted dio~ ~d di~mfim by my 1985, ~ogenated dio~s md dilXIIZOfIKZUM by November 1985, ~d IW&@

deteruminations for 17 other waste categories by February 1986.

nFor ~mple, env~omen~ gIOUpS cl-itic~ed me EP bwause: 1) it only covers a few toxic COIIStihleIlk (~ COn@aSG EPA ~use host~toxic

constituents (40 CFR 261, App. VIII) as one means of detemining whether to Iist wastestreams as hazardous on the ba.sia of toxicity); and 2) its threshold

levels are based on a dilution factor 100 times greater than the drinlan“ g water standards, rather than 10 times greater as fwstproposed, which means that

fewer wastes are identified as having the toxicity characteristic. They criticize both EP and TC for not including other exposure pathways that might

be associated with wastemanagement sites-e.g., consumption of surface waters contaminated by runoff, consumption of fish taken from such watem,

or air inhalation (29, 76). Many industq groups, however, contend tbat the EP and TC do not simulate true conditions at most disposal sites, because

they are based on models that mimic codisposal in a municipal landfill, and thus do not accurately predict chemical behavior in the field. They also note

that some other exposure pathways are regulated under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Actj and Safe Drinking Water Act.
Chapter 1-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 9

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued

EPA in March 1989 for, among other things, failure

to meet the deadlines for listing determinations and

failure to fully meet the Sec. 3001(h) mandate to

promulgate more hazardous characteristics.24 The

two parties proposed a consent decree in June 1991

that outlined a schedule for EPA to make listing

determinations for 13 waste categories. However,

EDF’s claim regarding characteristics has not been

decided, although a decision is pending.25 EPA

believes that the listing schedule will need substantial revision if the Agency is required to promulgate

new characteristics beyond the TC; an industry

group also contends that this would divert EPA

resources from other Subtitle D efforts.26

Finally, HSWA also directed EPA to promulgate

treatment standards for hazardous wastes destined

for land disposal. The regulations prohibit placing

hazardous waste residues in land-based units unless

they meet treatment standards based on the most

stringent controls that can be provided by the best

demonstrated available treatment technology (BDAT).

However, Subtitle D manufacturing wastes are not

subject to the promulgated treatment standards,

although they can sometimes contain levels of

constituents that are higher than the standards (123).

As a result, hazardous wastes that meet the treatment

standards are managed in Subtitle C land-based

units, whereas untreated Subtitle D wastes—which

may contain higher levels of constituents-can be

disposed of in surface impoundments and landfills

with few or no environmental controls, depending

on applicable State regulations. Because the BDAT

standards are not health-based, some industry representatives argue that they may overregulate certain

Subtitle C wastes rather than underregulate Subtitle

D wastes.27

The Subtitle D Universe

Subtitle D generally covers solid wastes not

regulated under Subtitle C. These include many

diverse waste categories: “special” exempt wastes

(certain mining, oil and gas, cement kiln dust, and

fossil fuel combustion wastes); industrial manufacturing wastes; agricultural wastes; municipal solid

and medical wastes; construction and demolition

debris; Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) and household hazardous wastes;

municipal combustion ash; and pollution control

residuals (e.g., wastewater treatment sludge). These

wastestreams vary greatly in chemical composition

and physical form. In the manufacturing sector, for

example, wastes originate from industries as diverse

as pulp and paper, transportation equipment, and

organic chemical manufacturing, and they can be in

the form of solids, sludges, wastewaters, or even

contained gases. Some of these wastestreams are

regulated by statutes other than RCRA.

The following sections briefly describe estimated

amounts, current management practices, general

risks, and regulatory status of Subtitle D wastes.

More detailed information on these topics is presented by waste category in chapters 2 through 5.

Overall Waste Generation

Based on data obtained by EPA from industries

and the States, it appears that more than 11 billion

tons of Subtitle D waste was generated annually in

the United States as of the mid- 1980s (figure 1-2).28

This is a crude estimate, because the data are

relatively poor and not necessarily comparable. The

largest portion, about 6.5 billion tons, consists of

manufacturing wastes not regulated as hazardous.29

However, this does not include wastes that were

recycled on-site or off-site or disposed of off-site

(wastes for which EPA has no estimates), or other

wastestreams such as tires and soil cleanup wastes.

2’$EnVirOnmentalDefe~e Fund v. U.S. EPA et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civ. No. 89-0598.

tiK. F’Iorin.i, EDF, personal communication, Oct. 1, 1991.

MA. O’Hme, &nefic~ Petroleum Institute, review comments, July 26, 1991.

27E. ~~s, chefi~ M~~~c~e~ Associ~tio% review comments, Aug. T, 1991; J. M~hy, ALUOCO, review comments, Jdy 26, 1991.

xms excludes ~er~ proces~~g wastes, whose ~omt Cuot be estimated from tie ~o~tion available (see ch. 2). III additio~ solid wastes

mixed with domestic sewage are exempt from regulation under RCRA, although sludges from wastewater treatment are not.

2~m~ on dismssiom ~~ EpA ~d he cod combustion utili~ ~dus~, OTA assumed tit he 1 billion tom of elec~c utifity wastes included hl

EPA’s industrial survey (116) consisted primarily of coal combustion utility wastes. Hence, OTA reduced the estimate of manufacturing wastes by 1

billion tons to avoid double counting. However, OTA also decided to use EPA’s estimate (in EPA’s 1988 Report to Congress; ref. 118) that coal

combustion utility wastes amount to 85 million tons annually. The difference in the two estimates probably results from the inclusion of wastewater in

the former (also see ch. 3). Water is added, after wastes are generated, to facilitate transport andmanagemen~ generally the water is not disposed of in

landfills or surface impoundments, but rather is discharged to surface water or recycled in electric power generating operations.
]() ● Managing Industrial Solid wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Figure 1-2—Estimated Quantities of Subtitle D

Wastes, 1985

Billions of tons

“1——————~

7 j 6.5 I

m /

Excludes mineral processing wastes

Excludes produced waters used

for Enhanced Oil Recovery

1

2- [ I

1-

0

..- - ---- 1 1

1 hzzziz 0.18 0.08 n n!i

Manufac- Mining Oil/ Agricul- MSW Coal Other

turing gas tural

Type of waste

SOURCES: OTA, based on various review comments (see text in chs. 2 to

5) and on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Report to Congress:

Wastes From the Extraction and Benefication of Metallic Ores,

Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden From Uranium Mining and Oil Shale, EPA1530-SW-85-033 (Washington, DC:

December 1985); Report to Congress: Management of

Wastes From the Exploration, Development, and Production

of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy, EPA1530-

SW-88-003 (December 1987); Report to Congress: Wastes

From the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants,

EPA/530 -SW-88-O02 (February 1988); Report to Congress:

Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, VOIS. 1-2, EPA/530-

SW-88-01 1 (October 1988); Report to Congress on Special

Wastes From Mineral Processing, EPA1530-SW-90-070C

(July 1990). For agricultural wastes, The Conservation Foundation, State of the Environment:A View Toward the Nineties

(Washington, DC: 1987).

Perhaps as much as 1.4 billion tons consists of oil

and gas exploration and production wastes.30 OTA

estimates that the mining industry generated about

1.7 billion tons of extraction and beneficiation

wastes in 1987 but cannot provide a comparable

estimate for mineral processing wastes.31 Coal

combustion utility wastes amount to about 85

million tons.

These estimates are difficult to compare with each

other. Enormous portions of manufacturing and oil

and gas wastes, along with the unknown amount of

mineral processing wastes, are in the form of

wastewater. In contrast, most mining extraction and

beneficiation wastes, sludges, and coal combustion

utility wastes generally are solid rather than liquid.

Municipal solid waste (MSW), which OTA assessed elsewhere (95), totaled 180 million tons in

1988 (126). Estimated amounts of other Subtitle D

wastes are much lower (119): perhaps 32 million

tons annually of demolition and construction wastes;

12 million tons of municipal drinking water and

municipal wastewater treatment sludges;32 4.5 million tons of municipal solid waste combustion ash;33

2 million tons of infectious medical wastes from

hospitals; and less than 0.2 million ton of CESQG

hazardous waste.34

The amount of agricultural wastes that would fall

under Subtitle D has not been estimated by EPA,

although the Conservation Foundation (15) suggests

that more than 1 billion tons may be produced

yearly, much of which is crop residue left on the field

or animal manure used as fertilizer.

Current Management Practices

EPA examined Subtitle D waste management

units that were active in the mid- 1980s (119); these

were usually surface impoundments, landfills, waste

piles, or land application units.35 According to EPA

data, almost 85 percent of all active Subtitle D units

were surface impoundments (figure 1-3). Furthermore, although amounts and management tech30EPA estimated that about 3.8 billion tons of such waste, ahnost 98 percent of which represented “produced waters,” was generated in 1985.

However, produced waters reused in underground injection for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) are regulated (at least from the wellhead down) under the

Safe Drinking Water Act rather than RCRA. Because about 62 percent of produced waters are reinfected for EOR (6), this would leave about 1.4 billion

tons of produced waters to bemauaged as RCW4 wastes. Industry analysts, however, estimate that about 2.8 billion tons of produced waters was generated

in 1985, of which 2.5 billion tons was used for EOR operations (ch. 4).

31 EPA e5~at~ that 2.o billion tons of mineral processing wastewaster was generated annually, with 99 percent &fig pho~horic acid P~~s

wastewater (127). However, this represents the total amount of wastewater that cycles through various operations; much of this is process water that

is used several times, making it difficult to estimate the amount of new water tbat is actually used initially (ch. 2). EPA included reeycled process water

in its total estimate, but the Department of the Interior believes that such water should not be characterized as wastewater.

3254 Federal Register, Feb. 6, 1989.

33EpA e5~ted tit a~ut 8.2-5 ~lion tom of ~h is produced arm~y, abut half of which is water (S. bvy,U.S. EPA Municipal Waste

Combustion Inventory, Sept. 4, 1991). This k based on the design capacity for operating municipal combustion facilities and on the assumptions that

25 percent of municipal solid waste by weight is ash and the moisture content is 50 percent.

~H_dous Wwte re~ations ~ some Stites (e.g., wi~ons~) me more stringent ~Fc&~ re@tio~ d apply to CESQGS.

35A s~ace fipom~ent is a depression ~ the earth or a d&ed area that con~ liquid w~tes for treatmen~ storage, or dkpOStd. A kldfii k ~

excavated area in theearthwhere wastes arepe rmanently disposed. A waste pile is amass of waste generally placed on the ground for storage or treatment.

A land application unit is an area of land where wastewater or sludge is placed on or mixed in the soil for disposal and sometimes treatment.
Chapter l---Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 11

Figure 1-3-Estimated Number of Active Subtitle D Waste Management Units, 1985

Thousands of units

140 1

120

100

80

60

4 0

20

0

Oil/ Manu- Mining Agricul- MSW

gas facturing tural

Type of waste

= Landfill Surface

m Land application

Con- Coal Other

struction

Surface impoundment

Waste pile

NOTE: Construction = Construction and demolition debris. Manufacturing includes only on-site facilities. Mining does

not include waste piles or land application units, which EPA did not survey. Mining also does not include

impoundments from 8 States (California, Kentucky, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming).

Oil and gas does not include impoundments from 11 States (the 8 listed for mining, plus Indiana, Montana, and

Rhode Island). In addition, each oil and gas oil well also may have (at least temporarily) an associated surface

impoundment (i.e., reserve pit), which would bring the number of oil and gas impoundments to over 800,000.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, “Screening

Survey of Industrial Subtitie D Establishments,” unpublished draft final report (Washington, DC: December

1987); Report to Congress: Management of Wastes From the Exploration, Development, and Production

of Crude 0“/, /Vatura/ Gas, and Geotherma/ Energy, EPAKKK)-SW-88-003 (December 1987); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Reporf to Congress: Wastes From the Combustion of Coa/by Electric

Utility Power Plants, EPA1530-SW-88-002 (February 1988); Reporf to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in

the Lh?ited States, VOIS. 1-2, EPA/530-SW-88-011 (October 1988).

niques varied among waste types, the great majority of such controls varied greatly among waste manof wastes by quantity were managed in on-site agement facilities, depending on the industry, waste

surface impoundments. type, and State requirements and enforcement.36

EPA (114) also compiled data on pollution Overall, 2 percent of the units contained a synthetic

liner, 27 percent had a natural clay or dirt liner of controls and monitoring at Subtitle D units in the

mid- 1980s. Although many changes have occurred unknown quality, and 1 percent had a leak detection

since then, no nationwide compilation of current system. Surface impoundments, which handled perconditions exists (with the exception of a recent haps 70 percent of all Subtitle D wastes at some

survey on liners, discussed below). Nor do the EPA point, were frequently unlined and unmonitored

data reflect site- or waste-specific conditions for (table l-l). Among all Subtitle D surface impoundwhich controls might not be needed. Nevertheless, ments, 29 percent had synthetic or natural liners and

they still are useful in indicating that the frequency 27 percent had some groundwater monitoring (119).

36~ ~ener~, On.site facilities tend t. receive less oversight horn regulatory agencies than off-site commercial f=ifities.AW Subtifle D land-bas~

unit located in a facility with a Subtitle C permit however, is subject to RCRA corrective action requirements as a permit condition.
12 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Table l-l—Number of Subtitle D Surface

Impoundments Using Various Release

Prevention Methods, 1985

Type of waste

Management method Manufacturing Mining Oil or gas

Synthetic liner s. . . . . . . . . . .

Natural liners . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leak detection

systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Groundwater

monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface water

monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air emissions

monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overtopping

controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bans on certain

Subtitle D wastes . . . . . .

Discharge

permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of

impoundments= . . . . . . . .

756

(5%)

2,818

(17%)

896

(6%)

1,396

(9%)

3,151

(19%)

(<1%

3,672

(23%)

2,685

(17%)

4,738

(29%)

16,232

200

(l%)

868

(4%)

335

(2%)

5,399

(27%)

8,679

(44%)

(<l %

4,144

(21%)

4,358

(22%)

4,970

(26%)

19,813

2,950

(2%)

33,768

(27%)

1,406

(l%)

165

(<l%)

20,030

(16%)

(<1%

28,541

(23%)

30,509

(24%)

46,491

(37%)

125,074

NOTE: These data indicate the status of pollution controls during the

mid-1 980s. They do not indicate the current status of such pollution

controls, nor the recent development of additional State requirements. They also do not indicate whether variation in site-specific

conditions and potential risks might or might not warrant such

controls.

apercentages may total more than 100 because some establishments used

more than one management method.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, Repoti to Congress: Solid Waste

Disposal in the United States, VOIS. 1-2, EPA630-SW-88-011

(Washington, DC: October 1988).

Table 1-1 indicates the variation in use of these

controls among the manufacturing, mining, and oil

and gas industries.

Clearly, updated information on the frequency of

pollution controls and monitoring, and on their

relationship to site- and waste-specific conditions, is

needed. One recent survey examined State require -

ments for liners at Subtitle D industrial waste

landfills (33).37 The survey found that fewer States

require liners at these landfills than at municipal

solid waste landfills. Thirty States required some

form of liner, 12 did not require any liner, and 8

assessed the need for liners on a case-by-case basis

(figure 1-4). The survey did not determine the extent

of compliance with these requirements.

Environmental and Human Health Risks

Potential environmental and human health risks

associated with different Subtitle D wastes may be

significant for several reasons-e.g., relatively few

controls at Subtitle D waste management facilities,

the broad range of toxic constituents in these wastes,

and the large volumes involved. EPA admits that the

size and diversity of the Subtitle D universe, the

relative lack of information on facility controls and

waste characteristics, and violations of State standards at facilities are of concern (1 19).38 The presence

of old waste management sites, some of which

would be considered Subtitle D facilities, on the

National Priorities List (NPL) indicates the ineffectiveness of some past management practices; however, hazardous wastes may have been disposed of

at some Subtitle D units, making it difficult to

evaluate the contribution of Subtitle D wastes to

these sites’ problems.

Current management techniques for some Subtitle D wastes are less protective than those for

hazardous wastes, which may be warranted in some

or even many circumstances. Yet some Subtitle D

wastes do not differ notably from those currently

regulated as hazardous under Subtitle C, or they may

exhibit other characteristics that are of concern. For

example, manufacturing wastes could contain toxic

constituents at levels just below those regulated as

hazardous that nevertheless may be harmful in some

way; they might contain constituents at levels

known by EPA to be toxic, in wastes that EPA has

not yet listed or for which the TC is inapplicable

(e.g., pesticide manufacturing waste); they could

contain constituents at levels above those regulated

as hazardous but be exempt from Subtitle C regulation by statute or rule; or they might contain

37~e Swey data d. not diS@@h ~~ecn landf~S tit accqt o@ mm~act~g w~tes and hose tit accept a broader range of Subtitle D solid

wastes.

38sW, *oo’2 ~der Subtifle D au~o~~ EPA to s~dy, for tie requir~ repo~ to Congress, potenti~ dange~ from disposdandIfn.LSe Of the Sp~M

wastes. The authority, however, does not extend beyond the mandate for already-delivered reports. Even so, Sec. 3007 under Subtitle C allows the Agency

to collect data on hazardous wastes, and EPA’s broad interpretation that this applies to suspected or potential hazardous wastes has been supported by

the courts (NatiomzZStan&rd Co. v. A&mkus, 881 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 19.39)), although it has not been tested in the courts for Subtitle D wastes generally.

Regardless, EPA routinely conducts risk assessments in support of its rufemakings and has been trying to at least qualitatively rank human health and

environmental risks (129).
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 13

Figure 1-4-States With Regulations Requiring Liners for Subtitle D Landfills, as of 1990

Liner required.

~] No liner required.

m No liner required;

liners determined on

a case-by-case basis.

NOTE: Excludes municipal solid waste landfills; also excludes ash from coal and municipal solid waste combustion and residues from cement kilns. Does not

reflect whether variation in site-specific conditions and potential risks might or might not warrant liners.

SOURCE: W. Gruber and G. Rigatuso, “Landfill Liner Requirements, A State-by-State Summary of Subtitle D Criteria,” El Digest, February 1991, pp. 12-19.

chemicals such as sodium that are not considered

hazardous but can affect groundwater quality if

disposed of improperly (83). Some mining wastes

also may exhibit high acid generation rates or high

levels of cyanide; some oil and gas wastes may

contain high levels of benzene, be highly saline, or

exhibit some radioactivity. However, because Subtitle C regulations are designed to be protective when

concentrations of toxic constituents are much higher

than the regulatory thresholds, industry representatives argue that some wastes with concentrations just

above threshold levels might still be overregulated. 39

Of course, actual risks from Subtitle D wastes

depend on numerous waste- and site-specific factors

—the constituents in, and the physical form of, the

waste; how it is managed; the design and monitoring

controls at management facilities; the occurrence of

leaks or emissions; hydrogeologic and topographic

features; precipitation; exposure pathways, etc. Relatively little information is available on a national

scale regarding risks associated with manufacturing

wastes, although some States have gathered information about such risks. In contrast, EPA has

evaluated, to some extent (in its reports to Congress), risks from the management of wastes from

the mining, oil and gas, and coal combustion utility

industries. In these reports, EPA has tended to focus

on risks to human health from existing waste

management facilities; some risks (e.g., due to

releases from unlined surface impoundments or

mismanagement of tank bottoms) often have not

been assessed. Potential future risks posed by the

construction of new facilities in other locations or by

new suburban or recreational developments near

existing facilities are rarely discussed, although it

39E. ~es,Chefid Mantiacturers Associatio~ review comments, Aug. 7, 1991.
14 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

would be difficult to make such projections without

a wide error range.40

Regulatory Status

Congress did not require that a cradle-to-grave

regulatory system be developed for Subtitle D

wastes. Instead, it focused on issues such as establishing criteria for Subtitle D land-based disposal

facilities, closing open dumps, and developing a

State solid waste management planning process. Its

intent was to retain State primacy in regulating these

wastes while ensuring that an adequate overall

structure existed for such regulation.

In 1979, EPA promulgated Federal Subtitle D

criteria (40 CFR 257) for all facilities handling

Subtitle D wastes—including landfills, surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.

Any facilities not meeting these criteria were defined as open dumps and required to close. The

criteria established minimum national performance

standards that addressed floodplains, endangered

species, surface water, groundwater, land application, air emissions, and occupational safety.

The criteria were generally considered incomplete

(e.g., see ref. 95). For example, although they

prohibited contamination of groundwater used for

. . drinking water, they did not require monitoring or

specify corrective action requirements should contamination occur. Nor did they address closure of

facilities, postclosure care, financial responsibility,

or appropriate engineering controls to minimize

contamination.

HSWA required EPA to revise the Subtitle D

criteria for facilities that may receive household

hazardous waste or small quantity generator hazardous waste, especially by taking into account potential effects on groundwater. In response, EPA

recently issued revised criteria for municipal solid

waste landfills.41 The revisions address location

restrictions; design criteria based on performance

goals; operating criteria; groundwater monitoring

and corrective action requirements; financial assurance requirements for closure, postclosure care, and

known releases; and closure and postclosure care

standards based on performance goals.42

The revision focuses on MSW landfills, even

though only a small fraction of the Subtitle D

universe consists of municipal solid waste (figure

1-2) and landfills are used to manage only a small

fraction of the Subtitle D universe (figure 1-3).

However, MSW landfills are the facilities most

likely to receive hazardous wastes from households

or small quantity generators (119).43

RCRA (Sec. 4002(b)) also required EPA to

promulgate minimum guidelines to assist States in

the development and implementation of solid waste

management plans; the guidelines were promulgated in 1979.44 To receive EPA approval, State

plans were to address resource conservation and the

collection and subsequent management of solid

wastes, including hazardous and Subtitle D wastes.

Through 1981, 25 States had EPA-approved solid

waste management plans. In that year, the Federal

Government ceased routine finding for the development of State plans; however, many States have

continued to update and implement plans on their

own.

As noted earlier, the 1980 Bevill-Bentsen amendments exempted “special” wastes from regulation

as hazardous, pending study and regulatory determination by EPA. Thus far, EPA has determined that

mining extraction and beneficiation wastes, certain

mineral processing wastes, and oil and gas exploration and production wastes should not be regulated

under Subtitle C (chs. 2 and 4). EPA expects these

wastes to be controlled by a combination of new

programs under Subtitle D, existing programs under

the Clean Water Act and other Federal statutes,

improved State regulatory programs, and possibly

@Nevertheless, considering this factor may be particularly important in rapidly growing States such as Hotida, where comiderable mining activities

take place (J. Reese, State of Florida, review comments, February 1991).

4156 Federal Register 50978, Oct. 9, 1991.

42~e re~ations as fist propos~ ~Clud~ a ~otific~tion rq~ment for ~1 ~dus~~ Subtifle D solid wrote facilities ~d construction/demolition

landfills, so that EPA could obtain information on their locatioq design, and environmental impacts. According to the preamble to the fii rule, a

notMcation requirement is no longer anticipated. Instead, EPA is exploring alternative information-gathering strategies, including a statistical survey

or series of surveys to obtain detailed information that will emble the Agency to better assess potential risks and the need for developing any future

industrial solid waste guidelines.

A3EPA’S lg87 scree@ survey (116) estimated that only 5 percent of all industrial solid VVaSte m~gen managed CESQG waste in their on-site,

land-based units.

444.4 Federal Register 4570!3, JI@ 31, 1979.
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 15

some new Federal statutory authorities.45 It has not

yet proposed Subtitle D regulations for these wastes,

although it has drafted approaches for mining

extraction and beneficiation wastes.

EPA has not made a regulatory determination for

coal combustion utility wastes, and it is not statutorily required to do so for manufacturing wastes.

However, its 1988 Report to Congress recommended that high-volume coal combustion wastes

(i.e., ash, bottom slag, flue gas desulfurization

sludge) be regulated under Subtitle D and that

low-volume wastes be studied further to determine

if regulation under Subtitle C is warranted (118).

Cement kiln dust, also temporarily exempted in

1980, has been the subject of some rulemakings (see

box 5-A inch. 5).

How these special wastes should be regulated

continues to be disputed. Many industry representatives are concerned about overregulation, even

under Subtitle D. Many environmental groups believe that some of the wastes should be regulated

under Subtitle C and doubt that the combination of

Subtitle D, existing State, and other Federal programs will be sufficient. All are concerned about the

availability of EPA resources to develop and implement Subtitle D regulations in a timely manner.

GENERAL RCRA ISSUES

For hazardous wastes, Congress long ago established the now-familiar goals of reducing risks to the

public and the environment by minimizing generation of these wastes and safely managing (particularly by recycling and treatment, as opposed to

land-based disposal) any that are generated. Most

people consider these to be prudent policies from the

long-term perspectives of protecting human health

and the environment and reducing future liabilities

from environmental damages. During the late 1970s

and the 1980s, EPA developed and implemented an

extensive regulatory program under Subtitle C for

hazardous wastes.

EPA’s progress in establishing a Federal Subtitle

D regulatory program has been highly variable,

depending on the waste type. The Agency recently

revised its municipal solid waste landfill criteria

and, during the last few years, has made regulatory

determinations on the classification of most mining

wastes and oil and gas wastes. However, it has not

issued regulations or guidelines for a Subtitle D

program for mining or oil and gas wastes. In

addition, EPA has not made regulatory determinations for other special wastes (coal combustion ash,

cement kiln dust), nor has it made significant

progress in evaluating manufacturing wastes. Reasons for this include the magnitude of resources

required to implement Subtitle C and the general

lack of resources for work on Subtitle D wastes.

Thus, improving the management of Subtitle D

wastes, including those covered under the Bevill and

Bentsen amendments, poses many challenges for

Congress and for EPA. One challenge facing EPA is

how to devise a sufficiently stringent program(s) to

attain the goals mentioned above without harming

the economic viability of the regulated industries

and facilities. This dilemma is reflected, for example, in EPA’s recent decision to consider regulating

mining wastes from phosphoric acid production

under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),

rather than under RCRA (ch. 2). To what extent

should additional Federal regulation of Subtitle D

wastes consider the impacts of such regulation on

commodity production (e.g., domestic oil and gas,

phosphate-based fertilizer), access to domestic reserves, domestic employment, balance of trade, and

national security?

Another issue concerns the relationships among

different Federal agencies and between the Federal

Government and the States in regulating Subtitle D

wastes. States already bear the primary responsibility for managing these wastes, and many have

developed regulatory programs for specific Subtitle

D waste categories. These and similar questions are

even more germane given the relatively limited

resources available to EPA to implement existing

environmental protection programs or develop new

ones.

Other challenges abound. Any discussion of

Subtitle D wastes, for example, inevitably raises the

questions of how wastes are identified as hazardous

and whether the arbitrary division between Subtitles

C and D is conducive to effectively reducing risks

associated with solid waste management.

Issues specific to the mining, manufacturing, oil

and gas, and coal combustion industries are discussed in chapters 2 through 5. This section is

‘$SFor emp]e, see 53 Federal Register 25446, JUIY 6, 1988.
16 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

concerned with issues that cut across these categories to the heart of the Subtitle C and D systems.

Issues Regarding RCRA’s Design

and Structure

Separate or Uniform Regulation of Wastes

Under Subtitle D?

Federal (and most State) programs are generally

on separate regulatory tracks for manufacturing,

mining, and oil and gas wastes; some States have

separate tracks for coal combustion wastes, whereas

others include them in their manufacturing waste

regulatory programs. The status of Federal regulatory determinations and programs for these different

industries varies greatly: the most advanced is for

mining wastes; the least advanced, for manufacturing wastes. One issue, then, is whether EPA should

attempt to develop a single program that encompasses all Subtitle D wastes, with regulations

tailored to specific waste types where appropriate, or

continue with the current approach of separate

regulatory tracks but—perhaps-simultaneously study

the feasibility and appropriateness of consolidating

the different Subtitle D programs into a single

program at some time in the future.

Representatives of various industries, as well as

some State and Federal officials, generally believe

that focusing separately on each industry is the best

approach—because of differences in waste types

and characteristics, environmental hazards, site conditions, production processes, management techniques, and economics, and because regulatory and

industrial personnel are often most knowledgeable

about a single industry. Industry representatives also

contend that industry -specific standards would enable better coordination between existing programs

and statutes at the State and Federal levels. In

contrast, environmental groups and some other

government officials believe that largely consistent

regulation of the different industries is preferable

because:

1. it would facilitate similar reductions in health

and environmental risks across all industries;

2. only a relatively limited number of overall

technologies exist to manage waste anyway;

and

3. developing several separate programs will be

time-consuming and resource-intensive.

In addition, they believe that a tailored approach,

where needed, can be accomplished within an

otherwise generally applicable framework.

Federal and State Roles in Managing

Subtitle D Wastes

Several factors influence one’s view of State and

Federal roles in regulating Subtitle D wastes. For

example, how can a Federal program of any scope

provide sufficient authority to EPA and direction to

the States, without hindering existing State efforts

that are proving effective? How can a need for

minimum or ‘‘baseline’ national controls and programs be balanced against a need for flexibility to

address the diverse situations found among or within

States (e.g., climate, hydrogeology, regulatory resources) and industries (e.g., type and size, nature of

wastes)?

States are already responsible for developing and

implementing most of the existing regulatory framework for Subtitle D wastes, and EPA believes that

States should, in general, have the lead on all

programs under Subtitle D. At the same time, EPA

is moving toward issuance of minimum Federal

guidelines for State programs pertaining to certain

wastes, particularly mining wastes, while trying to

avoid superseding adequately designed and operated

State programs.

Not surprisingly, the States and regulated industries tend to disagree strongly with environmental

groups about the nature and scope of an expanded

Federal program. The former argue that State-level

programs can adopt regulations appropriate to the

nature and types of waste practices and environmental conditions in a given jurisdiction. This

inevitably means great variation among States in

regulatory requirements, resource allocations, and

enforcement efforts, which is not necessarily bad

because diverse wastes disposed of under different

conditions might require distinct controls. However,

environmental groups argue that a more stringent

Federal program is needed to ensure some degree of

consistency in State programs (including performance standards and enforcement), as well as to

~EPA can &ady instigate enforcement actions under the substantial heat and imminent hazard provisions of RCRA (Sec. 7003), the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensatio~ and Liability Act (Sees. 104 and 106), and TSCA Sec. 7. However, this requires demonstration

on a case-by-case basis, of a Federal cause for action and usually involves much litigation.
Chapter 1-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 17

sufficiently regulate large companies that may have

undue influence in some States.%

One problem is that, although significant legislative and regulatory activity on solid wastes has

clearly occurred at the State level during the last 5

years, little comprehensive, up-to-date information

exists about these developments. An expedited data

collection effort on the extent and effectiveness of

State programs—for all sectors, but particularly for

manufacturing-could help Congress and EPA in

their legislative and regulatory efforts, provided that

adequate resources are available to collect and

analyze the data.

If Congress decides to expand EPA’s role in

managing Subtitle D wastes, several issues concerning EPA’s authority to carry out such a role may

need clarification, including the following:

●

●

●

Should EPA be given the authority to regulate

production processes (e.g, heap and dump

leaching in the mining industry) or treatment

and storage facilities (e.g., reserve pits in the oil

and gas industry) under Subtitle D, in addition

to its existing authority to regulate disposal

processes? Should it instead rely on TSCA and

other statutes, or on existing closure regulations?

Should EPA enforce Subtitle D programs if a

State either does not do so or requests assistance in its own enforcement efforts?

Should EPA receive more authority, in the

absence of known or suspected hum-an health

effects, to focus on environmental risks (e.g.,

bird and fish kills) and to regulate activities

contributing to these effects? Or are programs

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other

Federal or State agencies sufficient?

Another question is whether interim requirements

are needed; precedent for such requirements at the

Federal level exists in Subtitle C. Given the diversity

of situations that could be regulated and the relative

lack of Federal or State resources to finalize and

implement programs, some wastes or practices that

should be regulated may nevertheless remain unregulated for lengthy periods. In theory, interim requirements could be developed to address specific wastes

(e.g., from manufacturing) or practices (e.g., groundwater monitoring, closure of surface impoundments), or they could be applied generally with

exemptions as needed. Chapter 5 describes an

ongoing effort to develop a consensus on interim

requirements for manufacturing wastes, requirements that would be as self-implementing as possible. EPA is participating in this effort, although the

Agency believes that it lacks sufficient data and

resources to support the development of interim

requirements for manufacturing wastes.

Finally, another factor to be considered is the

situation in which two or more Federal agencies, as

well as their State counterparts, have overlapping

jurisdiction over an industry’s waste management

practices. This is most relevant for the mining and

the oil and gas industries, particularly on Federal

lands. Activities there may be overseen or affected

by, for example, the Bureau of Land Management,

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

and EPA, as well as by several agencies within a

given State. The relationships among Federal agencies are often poorly defined, as is the authority of

State agencies to intervene on Federal lands (see chs.

2 and 4). A related issue is whether facilities owned

or operated by Federal agencies should be subject to

EPA enforcement actions and State-levied fines for

noncompliance with RCRA corrective action requirements.47

Pollution Prevention and Recycling Under RCRA

RCRA’s stated goal is to encourage the prevention of waste generation and the recycling or

recovery of waste materials when possible. The

Nation’s experience with hazardous waste indicates

that incentives to reduce waste generation and

increase materials recovery have grown as the

liabilities and direct costs of waste disposal and as

right-to-know reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 198648

have increased. To date, however, EPA has not

strongly promoted prevention and recycling of

Subtitle D wastes, which may reflect the general lack

of resources and lower priorities given over the years

to Subtitle D compared to Subtitle C wastes. In

addition, EPA is unable under RCRA (see above) to

regulate production processes in terms of their later

47~@ation ~r~~~S~d in both the Iolst and Iozd congresses wo~d m~e Feder~ facilities subjatto such compliance aCtiOm. hllpehlS fOr tie

legislation stems largely from hazardous waste conlamination problems at Department of Energy nuclear weapons production sites and Department of

Defense facilities.

4s~s act was pm of the Supetid &endments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
18 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

impacts on risks associated with the management of

Subtitle D wastes (although EPA can regulate

production processes under TSCA).

The success of pollution prevention efforts for

Subtitle D wastes—at the Federal, State, and private

sector levels—thus is likely to depend largely on the

extent to which such efforts are accorded high

priority and adequate resources. Many reports (e.g.,

18, 38, 59, 86) suggest enhancing overall pollution

prevention efforts, for example, by:

●

●

●

●

increasing technical and financial assistance to

businesses and States;

increasing the use of market-based incentives

(e.g., emissions taxes or trading systems) to

encourage innovative technologies and practices, as well as to fund State and Federal

pollution prevention programs;

removing existing regulatory disincentives to

prevention and recycling (e.g., overlapping and

conflicting requirements under different statutes for pollution controls and compliance; see

ref. 11); and

increasing public disclosure of emissions.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Pollution Prevention Act,49 requiring EPA to develop and implement

a strategy to promote source reduction. This strategy

is to include, among other requirements, development of a clearinghouse on managerial, technical,

and operational approaches to source reduction; a

program providing matching grants to States; and a

data reporting provision covering the reduction and

recycling of all toxic chemicals included in the

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (which was established under Sec. 313 of the 1986 Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act). Significantly, the TRI and the reduction and recycling

reports apply to many chemicals in both the Subtitle

C and the Subtitle D universes.

EPA recently issued a pollution prevention strategy that has the stated goals of eliminating regulatory barriers to cost-effective investments in prevention efforts, encouraging voluntary actions by industry, and targeting up to 20 high-risk chemicals as an

initial focus for these efforts (130). As part of this

strategy, EPA intends to establish regulatory “clusters” (i.e., of different Agency offices with relevant

jurisdiction) for certain chemicals and their sources

to foster improved cross-media evaluation and

earlier investment in pollution prevention technologies. It also intends to include pollution prevention

conditions in enforcement settlements and to provide financial assistance to the States for multimedia

pollution prevention programs.

No consensus exists about how to regulate or

encourage the recycling of industrial residues and

byproducts that are considered hazardous (see box

5-B and ch. 2). Some industry representatives argue

that existing burdensome regulations, primarily

under Subtitle C, discourage the recycling of these

materials, and they are concerned about regulatory

intrusions into production processes. EPA, too, is

concerned about the technological, economic, and

administrative feasibility of regulating recycling

facilities under Subtitle C. However, EPA and many

environmental groups also are concerned about

“sham recycling” companies that claim to be

recycling and thereby circumvent regulation under

Subtitle C as hazardous waste treatment facilities.

The situation is even more complex because considerable variation exists in the potential risks associated with different recycling activities. Suggestions

about how to regulate recycling exhibit a wide range,

from continuing to rely on existing programs under

Subtitle C and other statutes to control solid wastes

and water or air emissions from recycling facilities,

to regulating the facilities themselves under Subtitle

C, to setting tailored standards for recycling under

Subtitle D or a new subtitle (e.g., more stringent

standards for materials and processes with greater

risks).

From C and D Toward a New System?

The present system of identifying hazardous

wastes relies on two approaches: whether a waste

exhibits certain characteristics or is specifically

listed as hazardous. As discussed above (see “The

Subtitle C Universe”), these approaches may exclude some wastes that should be regulated as

hazardous and may overregulate others. Moreover,

the gulf between Subtitles C and D in the stringency

of regulatory requirements and subsequent management costs is enormous, even for wastes that differ

only slightly in toxicity or some other measure of

risk. These factors tend to focus the debate about

AgA~ ~ ~~ of tie ofibu~ Budget Re~~n~iliati~n Act of 19~, co~eren~ Repofl to a~omp~y H.R. 58s5, Report 101-964, Oct. 26, 1990, SCC.

6601.
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 19

how to regulate solid wastes on two contrasting

views:

1.

2.

Include more wastes under Subtitle C, either

by expanding the scope, or number of characteristics or listings; and/or by determiningg that

some Bevill-Bentsen wastes are no longer

exempt from Subtitle C.

Strengthen Federal and State Subtitle D programs, to avoid including more wastes in

Subtitle C and/or to allow more flexibility in

regulating relatively less hazardous wastes.

Subtitle D thus cannot be considered in isolation

from the broader issue of whether we should

continue to develop this system or should begin

moving toward a different type of system. With this

in mind, box 1-A describes two alternatives—

“concentration-based’ and “continuum of control” (or “tailored management standards”) approaches—for regulating solid wastes. Admittedly,

developing and implementing alternative approaches

such as these could require major rethinking and

restructuring of current regulatory programs. Not

least, defining what types of risks should be evaluated, determining relative levels of risk, and fitting

or tailoring regulations to those risks will be difficult

and time-consuming. 50 In addition, how various

social, economic, and political factors should be

considered in any new regulatory or management

scheme must also be addressed.

Any such system is thus likely to have important

consequences for priority setting, resource allocation, data collection, regulatory development, and

research. Currently, at both the State and the Federal

levels, such activities are affected by the need to

meet the most immediate statutory requirements,

which may not always result in long-term improvements in managing Subtitle D wastes. For example,

data gathering may focus on immediate requirements to characterize a particular waste, which is

important but could mean that insufficient resources

are available to investigate pollution prevention

opportunities, current management practices, or

potential risks associated with these practices.

Gaps and Inconsistencies Among

Federal Statutes

Many Federal statutes besides RCRA affect the

management of “solid” wastes generated by the

industrial sectors of concern in this paper. These

statutes include, for example, the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Water Act (CWA);

Safe “ Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Clean Air Act;

Toxic Substances Control Act; Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act; and Federal Land

Policy and Management Act. The States have

primary responsibility for implementing some of

these; the issue of Federal and State relationships has

been discussed above.51 However, not all aspects of

managing Subtitle D wastes are necessarily covered

by Federal statutes, regardless of who has primary

implementation responsibility.

In some cases this can result in varying (and often

unknown) levels of overall risk reduction, even for

similar wastes or management practices. Examples

of such “gaps” include (but are not necessarily

limited to) the following:

●

●

●

SDWA regulates the underground injection of

produced water from oil and gas operations and

of process water from mining, but neither it nor

RCRA regulates ponds used for storing such

water prior to injection.

CWA generally regulates effluent discharges to

surface waters, but no effluent limitations

guidelines have been promulgated for oil stripper wells.52

Few Federal (and apparently few State) regulations cover inactive and abandoned non-coal

mining sites,53 inactive and abandoned oil and

gas pits, or inactive and abandoned waste sites

containing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).

%PA’s ongoing effort to assess relative human health and environmental risks associated with different polluting activities (e.g., ref. 129) may shed

light on some of these risk-related issues.

51S~te s~~~s ~dre~atio~ gene~ly ~e fiW t. & more s@ent ~Fede~ pro~~. rnpractice, the Undergromd Injection Control program

under SDWA and the National Pollution Discharge Elimina tion System (NPDES) under CW?A, which are either delegated to the States by EPA or run

by EPA in nomuthorized States, tend to be very similar across States.

szHowever, permits breed on best professional judgment (see ch. 4) can still be tittenfor stipper wells.

SqHowever, EpA*s rq~emnts for appl~g for stem water disc~ge ~~ts (55 Federal Register 47990, NOV. 16, 1990) include inactive ~d

abandoned mines; they also classify nonpoint source storm water discharges as point sources subject to NPDES regulations.
20 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 1-A-Concentration-on-Based and Continuum of Control Approaches

In contrast to HSWA (which was passed in 1984), legislation proposed in the 101st Congress to reauthorize

RCRA (i.e., H.R. 3735) did not require additional listing determinations. However, it did include two attempts to

expand the Subtitle C universe: 1) explicit specification of additional characteristics (rather than authorizing EPA

to determine them) for identifying hazardous waste,l and 2) a “concentration-based” approach.2 The text of this

chapter briefly discusses the issue of identifying these additional characteristics. This box discusses the

concentration-based approach and a third approach known as “continuum of control” (EPA now uses the term

“tailored management standards” for the latter). The overall potential for any of these approaches to move us

toward RCRA’s goals of waste minimization and resource conservation is unstudied.

Concentration-Based Approach

In a concentration-based approach, EPA would set threshold concentrations in wastestreams for each of the

almost 400 “Appendix VIII” constituents that it can use in determining whether to list a wastestream as hazardous.3

A threshold could be based on either a constituent’s total concentration in a waste or its concentration in leachate

derived from the waste, which is the current Toxicity Characteristic approach. Several exposure pathways, not just

groundwater, could be included. Any waste with an Appendix VIII constituent above the level specified could be

considered hazardous.

RCRA uses a concentration-based approach in a few instances! For example, two Appendix VIII constituents

(warfarin and zinc phosphide) are designated as “P” wastes when present above specified concentrations and as

“U” wastes when below. According to one report, EPA also used total concentration as a factor in listing some

wastes, for example, the presence of heavy metals in wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations

(ref. 29, citing an unpublished EPA background document for electroplating wastes). Furthermore, EPA is

considering establishing de minimis levels of hazardous constituents in treated, listed hazardous waste-a process

that would employ a related concentration-based approach.5

Proponents of the concentration-based approach cite EPA’s slow progress in meeting HSWA’s deadlines to

list more wastestreams and specify additional characteristics (see “The Subtitle C Universe” above). They contend

that this approach would do a better job than the listing system in relating the stringency of management

requirements to a waste’s hazard. Some suggest that the use of total concentration would acknowledge additional

ls~fied c~cteristicsin the legislation included acute toxicity, persistence, bioaccmmdation, aquatiC tOXiCity, mdioactivity,

carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and phytotoxicity.

2~eprovisiom detai~g ~s approachwme droppedfkom H.R. 3735 (which itself was not passed) dotie mar~P Pm@ss in the IOlst

Congress.

3These comtitients are listed in 40 CFR 261, App. VIII, hence the name.

4sworaI Shtes kve si.mikir, aIthough generally more limited, approaches. Rhode Island uses a threshold level of 0.1 percent by weight

for known carcinogens (as identiled by EFA, the Occupational Safety and Health Mrmms “ “ tration(OSHA), the Food and Drug Adrmrus “ “ tratiou

or the Consumer Product Safety Commission) or teratogens (as identified by OSHA) (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Rule 3.53 (L)(l)(2), amended Oct. 20, 1988). California uses a threshold limit of 0.001 percent for any of 16 carcinogens listed by OSHA

(California A&rum“ “strative Code Title 22, R. 666%(a)(5)). Oregon uses a level of 10 or 3 percent for any chemical on El?A’s U and P lists,

respectively (Oregon Administrative Code 340-101-033(2)(a), (2)(b)). The State of Washington uses a level of 1 percent for known or suspected

carcinogens recognized by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health or the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Wash.

Admin. Code R. 173-303-103, 1983). Pennsylvania is considering using both total concentration and leachate concentration to evaluate wastes

in its proposed residual waste regulations (Pennsylvania BuZZetin, vol. 20, No. 8, Feb. 24, 1990).

5~g the TC ~le-process, comm~tators contended that although wastes with very 10W (de ~“ni~”$ concen@atio~ of

hazardous constituents can be excluded via delisting from regulation as hazardous, the delisting process is expensive, time-consuming, and

sometinm impractical (55 FederalRegister 11831, Mar. 29, 1990). Thus, in 1989, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (13) petitioned EEA

to establish self-implementing de m“nimis exemption levels for hazardous constituents in listed hazardous wastes. The CMA proposed that EPA

make such determinations for constituents on both the App. VIII and IX lists-i.e., those App. VIII constituents for which an analytical method

exists to detect the constituent in groundwater (the CMA also suggested extending the TC to all App. VIII constituents as one way to provide

more control and eventually replace the listing and delisting progrsms (E. Males, review comments, Apr. 30, 1991)). In such an approack listed

wastes that meet the exemption levels would not be considered hazardous and could bemanaged as non-hazardous wastes unless they exhibited

a hazardous characteristic. The CMA suggested this would reduce overregulation of dilute wastes while still maintaining Subtitle C regulation

of wastes containing constituents above de nu”nimi”s levels. 13PA recognized that some inequities of this type do occur but also maintained that

its rules are appropriate for dealing with waste mixtures and treatment residues (55 FederaZRegMer 11831, Mar. 29, 1990). Nevaelem EPA

stated that it would consider amending the deftition of hazardous waste to establish self-implementing de m“nimz”s exemption levels for

hazardous constituents found in listed wastes. However, EPA has not yet done so; i.e., it has not yet responded to the CMA’S & nu”nim”s petition

(A. Collins, U.S. EPA, personal communication Oct. 3, 1991).
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Wrote Issues ● 21

possible exposure pathways such as volatilization, inhalation, ingestion, and food chain contamination. They also

suggest expanding the Appendix VIII list to include additional constituents (e.g., active ingredients in pesticides).

Opponents contend that this approach would result in overregulation because it does not account for the

probability that potentially hazardous constituents might be released and, if so, whether they would be mobilized

and reach a point of exposure.6 For example, some constituents can be in chemical or physical forms that restrict

mobility or exposure (e.g., insoluble metal complexes, constituents encased in glassified slag). Opponents also

contend that: 1) the approach would require great resource expenditures by waste generators because each

wastestream would require testing; 2) the Appendix VIII list contains some constituents that it should not; and 3)

EPA would find it difficult to set the required threshold levels within the proposed 18-month timeframe (and that

using a default value in such cases would be arbitrary).7 Setting threshold levels would depend on health-based

standards, which are lacking for many constituents, and on the availability of analytical methods for testing wastes.8

Neither the listing/characteristic nor the concentration-based approaches really solve the problem of

distinguishing between a low-volume waste with a constituent just over a threshold value and a high-volume waste

with a constituent just below the threshold. For example, lead has a threshold level of 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L)

of soluble lead in the TC extract. A large amount of waste containing 4.8 mg/L in the TC extract would be classified

as non-hazardous, whereas a small amount containing 5.1 mg/L would be classified as hazardous.

Continuum of Control Approach

An alternative strategy to bridge the gulf between Subtitles C and D might be to consider that the universe of

solid wastes exhibits a spectrum of risks and that management requirements should be related to case-specific risk

levels. EPA has examined at least one such alternative, known as “continuum of control” or “tailored management

standards” (115).

A continuum of control approach recognizes that solid wastes exhibit a continuum of risks based on case-and

site-specific factors such as: 1) constituents in the wastes (and their physical and chemical characteristics); 2)

subsequent toxicity and mobility of wastes and constituents of concern; 3) exposure pathways; and 4) unique

management needs (e.g., waste volumes, certain technologies, economics) that may require special management

standards. It might encourage use of those management practices best suited to a given situation or waste, with the

overall goal of regulating wastes at a relatively similar risk level (1 15).

This is consistent with suggestions elsewhere that wastes be managed on the basis of their physical and

chemical characteristics and that consideration be given to multimedia issues (58, 95). EPA suggested that such an

approach would improve its ability to write permits based on potential hazards of specific facilities, to set waste

minimization goals, to monitor progress accordingly, and to better minimize risks in more economically efficient

ways (115). Concerns about the concept, particularly in comparison with the current system, include its complexity

and resource-intensiveness; its equal or greater dependence on testing; the need for many design and performance

standards; and, possibly, greater difficulty in enforcement.

6utiIi~ Solid waste Activities &oup, review comments, Aug. 23, 1991.

7~e ~roW~ le~s~tion ~Wl~ a d~a~t conmn~tion of 0.1 percent for any one constituent if WA did not Pmm~g*e ~shold

levels within 18 months; this level wqs intended in part to minimize overregulation of non-hazardous wastes.

*~ese problems are not necessarilyinsurmountable. As of August 1990, EPA had developed health-based standards and analytical

methods for 204 App. VII and VIII compounds (App, ~ a subset of App. VIII, lists the constituents that caused the listing of a given

wastestream) (S. Cochran, U.S. EPA, personal communication August 1990).

Moreover, Federal statutes other than RCRA Clean Air Act and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency

define the terms “hazardous” and “toxic” differ- Response Act; and wastewater discharges are reguently, given their particular goals, the environments Iated by CWA. CERCLA (or “Superfund”) desigbeing addressed, etc. As a result, they regulate some nates as a ‘‘hazardous substance” any substance so

substances as hazardous or toxic that would not be designated by one of the other Federal statutes. This

designated hazardous by RCRA: for example, PCBs means that a waste that was legally managed under

are regulated by TSCA; asbestos is regulated by the Subtitle D could contribute to the creation of a
22 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Superfund site if it is mismanaged.54 The TRI also

requires companies to submit information on releases of specified toxic chemicals, many of which

are not listed as hazardous under RCRA (128).55

The definition and management of hazardous

waste discharges under RCRA and CWA further

illustrate the complexity of this issue. RCRA covers

storage, treatment, or management of such wastes

prior to discharge. 56 CWA regulates discharges to

surface waters (ch. 5). This is not necessarily a

problem, except that the two acts cover different

constituents and regulate them differently. CWA

focuses on 126 “priority pollutants” and uses

technology-based standards, which often specify a

required removal percentage for a particular pollutant. RCRA focuses on a much different list or on

testing leachable concentrations of specified constituents. This means that different constituents may be

regulated at different points in the processing of one

wastestream.

For example, hazardous waste discharges are

exempt from RCRA requirements (under the domestic sewage exclusion) if they are discharged into

municipal sewers, where they mix with domestic

sewage on its way to publicly owned treatment

works (POTWs), which are regulated under CWA.

Pretreatment regulations require dischargers to not@ the POTW of hazardous wastes entering the

sewer, and POTWs can require monitoring and

treatment of any constituents that might cause

problems (see ch. 5). However, hazardous RCRA

constituents may not be adequately addressed by

POTWs unless they are covered by local “pretreatment” requirements (which must be developed and

implemented by the POTW) (ch. 5; ref. 92). Thus, a

constituent that is contained in waste considered

hazardous under RCRA could damage a POTW or

pass through it and be discharged to surface waters

if appropriate local limits were not in place.57 (Also

see the following section regarding the development

of pretreatment standards themselves.) In addition,

sewage sludges from POTWs are subject to RCRA

to the extent that a sludge fails the TC leaching

procedure and therefore is considered a characteristic hazardous waste.

HSWA required EPA to close these gaps by

August 1987. In response, EPA promulgated regulations in 1990 that prohibit discharges to POTWs of

pollutants that result in toxic vapors, require at least

annual inspection and sampling of effluents from

each of a POTW’s significant industrial users, and

require industrial users to report hazardous waste

discharges to POTWs.58 However, some environmental groups believe that EPA should include more

industries (e.g., the hazardous waste treatment

industry, petroleum refineries, textile mills, paint

manufacturers, commercial solvent reclaimers) in its

schedule for promulgating pretreatment standards

(1). 59 The new rule does not address potential air

emissions from POTWs, although they may be

addressed under the Clean Air Act.60

Another potential problem concerns asbestos,

which is considered a hazardous substance under

Superfund because it is a hazardous air pollutant

under the Clean Air Act. Under the Asbestos Hazard

Emergency Response Act, asbestos removed as a

result of abatement efforts should be disposed of in

accordance with existing waste management regula-

~Al~ough MS iS tec~~ly ~onect, EpA believes that its current listing ad c~~teristic appmmhes cover most of the worst substances; my

of the organic chemicals now included in the TC, for example, were chosen because they were present at current Superfund sites and are meas~ble

in leachate tests, and because toxicological data exist for them (U.S. EPA, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991). However, other compounds of potential

concemwere not included because data were lacking or they could not be measured in a leachate test (M. Williams, Browning-Ferris Industries, review

comments, July 23, 1991). As noted above, environmental groups contend that the new TC is still inadequate. An additional issue, the merits and demerits

of the Hazard Ranking System used to place sites on the NPL, is beyond the scope of this paper.

55S~ce the~includes ~ssions ~to ~~d water, this sho~d not be surprising, On the other h~d, the TRI wodd not necessarily cOn~ data

on postproduction releases related to production transportation and use.

sGU~ess w~us~, which maybe regulated as CWA wastewater treatment units.

sTFor e-pie, the org~c chemic~ indusq disc~ged ~es-ted 2.5 ties more nonpriority pollumts than pliOlity pO~UtiUltS tO SeWerS in tie

mid-1980s (113).

5855 ~e&raZRegi~ter 30082, J~y 24, 1990. At the s~e time, HSWA’s prohibitions on ~d dispos~ of -dous waste could reSUlt in SOme WaSteS

being redirected to POTWS, making implementation of these requirements even more important.

5gJ.M-Nafi~ Resour~s Defense Council, person~ communication, OCtOber 1990.

@55 Federaz Regi~ter30082,J~y 24, 1990. Sec. 183 of the cle~ fi Act Amendments of 1990 r~uires EPA to issue control technology guidelines

for 11 stationary source categories of hydrocarbon emissions; POTWS may be one of the categories. States can use the guidelines as the basis for

source-specific regulations required by the act.
Chapter l-Overview of RCRA and General “Solid” Waste Issues ● 23

tions. Although RCRA does not list asbestos as

hazardous or specify special management requirements for it, the Clean Air Act includes some

requirements on the transportation of asbestos

wastes and the operation of disposal sites that accept

such wastes (40 CFR 61.140ff). The requirements

for disposal sites do not contain any provisions

regarding liners, leachate collection, or monitoring.

Although managing asbestos in accordance with

these requirements may not necessarily pose a risk

to human health, the need for more tailored requirements cannot be ruled out.

These inconsistencies might undercut RCRA’s

ability to improve solid waste management, particularly if exempted or non-RCRA wastes and substances are not managed adequately under other

statutes. Taken together with the issue of moving the

solid waste regulatory system in a new direction (see

“From C and D Toward a New System?” above),

this suggests that RCRA’s definitions of solid

wastes may need reexamination, that greater emphasis should be placed on filling the gaps, or that

Subtitle D programs may require great flexibility to

complement (or integrate) existing authorities under

other statutes without becoming overly burdensome.

It also raises the question of whether EPA should

include a “multimedia” approach in its Subtitle D

regulatory programs (also see ch. 2). On the other

hand, if such wastes or substances are properly

managed under other statutes, additional RCRA

controls may not be necessary.

Implementation of Federal Statutes

Problems can also arise because regulations to

implement existing statutory requirements are not

fully developed. For example, some POTWs may

not treat discharges from industries adequately

because “categorical” pretreatment standards under

CWA are lacking for that industry or the POTW does

not develop and enforce its own local pretreatment

standards for specific industrial facilities, rather than

because of problems noted above in RCRA and

CWA per se. Relatively few pretreatment standards

fully cover priority pollutants, and some industries

discharging priority pollutants are not covered by

any standards (92). Another example involving the

Clean Water Act is that effluent guidelines based on

the best available technology have not yet been

promulgated for coastal discharges of oil and gas

exploration and production wastes (ch. 4). Of course,

enforcement of existing regulations is a continuing

problem, as well.

Research and Data Needs

Some information about waste types, management methods, some types of risks, and regulatory

programs exists for certain Subtitle D wastes, as

described above and in subsequent chapters. However, it still is often difficult to readily evaluate the

adequacy of management techniques, their impacts

on reducing risks to human health and the environment, and the quality and efficacy of State or Federal

regulatory programs. This is particularly true for

manufacturing wastes (ch. 5), although it can also

apply to other waste types.

The difficulty sometimes stems from a lack of, or

lack of easy access to, data on environmental

monitoring of facilities, compliance, and State or

Federal enforcement efforts. Whether this means

that steps to improve the regulation and management

of Subtitle D wastes can or cannot be taken today is

a matter of opinion. It is clear, though, that a

concerted effort to gather and synthesize more

current, relevant information would help in making

additional regulatory decisions. For example, requirements for reporting data from environmental

and other compliance monitoring could provide

important feedback on the adequacy of existing

regulatory programs, and improving the overall

quality of data collection and management could

allow better access to this and other information.

These data needs might be addressed at either the

Federal or State level, depending on factors such as

how the data will be used, the availability of

resources, and the need for data that are comparable

across States. Data collection and research efforts

could potentially focus on many issues, including:

●

●

●

●

●

design characteristics of existing facilities,

particularly those built since the mid-1980s;

environmental impacts of existing facilities,

based on rigorous environmental monitoring;

characterization of certain wastestreams (particularly different manufacturing wastestreams);

costs of current management techniques, and

types and costs of alternative techniques;

incentives and disincentives (whether technical, economic, or political) to pollution preven-
24 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

tion, recycling, and improvements in waste . the relative risks involved in managing wastes

management; under different management schemes and stat-

. the quality and efficacy of current State Subtitle utes.

D regulatory programs; and
Chapter 2

Mining Wastes
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

WASTE GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Mineral Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

CURRENT MANAGEMENT METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Mineral Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Pollution Preventionwaste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

RISKS FROM MINING WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Mineral Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

CURRENT REGULATORY PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

State Mining Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Departments of Interior and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Current RCRA Status of Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Current RCRA Status of Mineral Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Other EPA Statutory Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Inactive and Abandoned Mine Sites, CERCLA, and RCRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

ISSUES/QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Boxes

Box Page

2-A. Sodium Cyanide, Gold, and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2-B. EPA’s “Strawman II” Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Figures

Figure Page

2-1. Amounts of Mining Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

2-2. Regulatory Status of Mining Wastes Under RCRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Tables

Table Page

2-1. Estimated Amounts of Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes Generated in 1987 . . . . 29

2-2. The 20 High-Volume Mineral Processing Wastes Conditionally Exempted From

Subtitle C Pending Final Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2-3. State Non-Coal Mining Legislation and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2-4. Interstate Mining Compact Commission Survey Data on Non-Coal Mining

Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter 2

Mining Wastes

INTRODUCTION

The “hard rock” mining industry produces metals (e.g., copper, gold, iron, lead, magnesium, silver,

zinc) and nonfuel minerals (e.g., asbestos, gypsurn,

lime, phosphate rock, sulfur).l The number of

production facilities in operation varies somewhat

from year to year, mostly because of small operations beginning or ceasing. As of 1987, there were

276 metal and 279 industrial mineral mines, with an

annual production value of almost $16 billion (106).

Mining wastes result from the extraction, beneficiation, and further processing of metal and indusmineral ores.2 Waste categories include:

waste rock—material moved to gain access to

the ore or mineral, including overburden (material overlying the area to be mined) but

excluding topsoil and other soil materials that

are reused in reclamation);

tailings—residuals (usually generated in a

slurry form) from beneficiation processes;

mine water—groundwater or precipitation that

infiltrates mines during extraction; and

processing wastes-residuals from processing

after beneficiation, such as smelting and electrolytic refining operations.

first three are known as extraction and beneficiation (E&B) wastes. The Departments of the Interior

and Agriculture (101) disagree on whether mine

water is subject to the provisions of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).3

The 1980 Bevill amendment to RCRA (see ch. 1)

temporarily excluded mining wastes from regulation

as hazardous waste until the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) assessed the wastes in a

Report to Congress and followed that with a

regulatory determination. Through a lengthy series

of rulemakings and court decisions, EPA has subsequently treated E&B wastes and processing wastes

separately.

EPA addressed E&B wastes in a 1985 Report to

Congress (termed the “1985 Report” in this chapter; ref. 111). The 1985 Report included dump and

heap leaching piles (i.e., materials resulting from

using chemicals to leach out metals) as waste.4 In

1986, EPA agreed that this designation was incorrect; that is, active leaching operations are production processes (as long as the materials do not escape

from the leaching pad) and leach liquor treated to

recover metals is a production materials The significance of this is that EPA does not have authority

under RCRA to regulate production processes.

When leaching operations cease, the spent leach

piles are considered E&B wastes. Leaching operations are thus unique in that cessation of the process

changes the material’s regulatory status.

In July 1986, EPA determined that Subtitle C

regulation of E&B wastes was not warranted.6 EPA

declared its intention to develop a State-implemented

IHard rock mining is distinguished from surface coal mining, wtich is regulated by the Department of the Interior and the States under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCW).

%eneficiation processes separate commodity metals or minerals fium interbedded nonmin eral material and unrecoverable or unwanted mineral

matter. They include crushing, grinding, washing, dissolutio~ crystallizatio~ fdtratio~ sorting, sizing, drying, sintering, pellet.izing, briquetting,

calcining to remove water and/or carbon dioxide, roasting inpreparationfor leaching, gravity concentratio~ magnetic separatio~ electrostatic separatio~

flotatio~ ion exchange, solvent extraction electrowinnin g, precipitatio~ amalgatio~ and heap, dump, va~ tank, and in situ leaching (4o CFR

261.4(b)(7)).

s~e BurMu of ~d-gement (BLM) also notes tbat in some cases it is not managed as a “waste” at all; for example, some mine water is potable

and subject to State water rights (S. Lamson, BL~ review comments, Aug. 9, 1991).

d~ heap l=c~g, wtich is USCXI p*y in gold ~d sflver mining, the material to be treated is placed in a pile on an impermeable pad over the

ground. The leaching chemical solution for gold and silver is commonly sodium cyanide. In dump leaching, which is used primarily for low-grade copper

ore, the material to be treated is placed on unlined foundations (i.e., directly on the ground). The leaching chemical solution typically is sulfuric acid

but sometimes is water. In contrast to heap and dump leaching, vat leaching takes place in fabricated vessels (i.e., internal containment of the solution).

Wiley fill leaching is similiar to heap leaching, except that it typically takes place in a hilly terrain where flat space for a heap pad is not available; the

impermeable pad is constructed in a valley or other natural depression.

551 Federal Register 24496, July 3, 1986.

651 FederalRegiSter24496, July 3, 1986. ~s dete rmination was upheld in 1988 by the D.C, Circuit Court of Appeals (EnvironmentaZDefenseFund

v. U.S. EnvironnzentaZProtection Agency, 852 F,2nd 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).

–27–

305-198 - 92 - 2 : QL 3
28 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

program for these wastes under Subtitle D but noted

that it might still consider using Subtitle C if

necessary. EPA issued a staff draft approach to a

Subtitle D program (“Strawman I“) in 1988 and,

after receiving comments, issued a second draft

approach (“ Strawman II”) in May 1990 (see “Current Regulatory Pathways” below).

Mineral processing wastes are subject to a separate rulemaking process, except for the six types

already listed as hazardous wastes.7 In January 1990,

EPA eliminated all but 20 “high-volume, lowhazard” processing wastes from the Bevill exclusion, making the remainder subject to Subtitle C

regulation if they exhibit one or more hazardous

characteristics or if they are listed as hazardous

wastes. 8 EPA addressed the 20 remaining processing

wastes in another Report to Congress in July 1990

(termed the “1990 Report” in this chapter; ref. 127).

On May 20, 1991, EPA finalized a regulatory

determination that retained the Bevill exclusion for

all 20 wastes and proposed regulating 18 of them

under Subtitle D.9 EPA concluded that the other two

wastes (phosphogypsum and phosphoric acid process wastewater) had significant risks associated with

current management practices and had caused environmental damage. However, EPA determined that

the wastes were not amenable to Subtitle C regulation and decided instead to explore their regulation

under the Toxic Substances Control Act TSCA; see

“Current Regulatory Pathways” below).

Although this background paper focuses on RCRA

and EPA, many mining operations (especially in the

western United States) are on Federal lands managed

under other statutes and by other agencies. Federal

land management agencies, particularly the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), have developed surface management regulations for mining operations

and guidelines or policies on cyanide management

for any mining facility that uses cyanide, including

for heap leaching. BLM’s rules have been developed

in response to requirements of the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976. In addition,

most States with mining operations have regulatory

programs that address mining operations, wastes,

and environmental conditions typical of each State.

Some of these programs were developed under the

Federal Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, primacy

for which has generally been delegated to the States.

Other programs, particularly for Subtitle D wastes,

were developed under specific State environmental

statutes. Thus, the relationships among Federal and

State programs are of critical importance in any

evaluation of how RCRA should apply to mining

wastes.

WASTE GENERATION

Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes

Ore production and waste generation vary yearly

in response to market and other conditions, particularly for copper, gold, and silver mining. Given this,

the following data simply illustrate the general

nature of mining waste generation; they do not

indicate long-term trends or current generation rates.

EPA’s 1985 Report (111) included data on six

metallic ores (copper, gold, iron, lead, silver, and

zinc ores), uranium overburden, and two nonmetals

(asbestos and phosphate rock) .10 It estimated that

these mining segments produced 2.2 and 1.4 billion

tons of E&B wastes in 1980 and 1982, respectively. 11 About 90 percent of the waste was waste

rock and tailings (two-thirds waste rock, one-third

tailings); 49 percent of the waste rock and tailings

came from copper mining, 24 percent from iron ore,

7~e Sk ~mte, ~c (40 ~261.32; ~~o ~ 53 Federal Register 35412, Sept. 13, 1988) acid p~t blowdown slurry/sludge from primary COpWr

production (K064); surface impoundment solids contained in and dredged from surface impoundments at primary lead smelting facilities (K065); sludge

horn treatment of process wastewater and/or acid plant blowdown from primary zinc production (K066); spent potliners from primary aluminum

reduction (K088); emission control dust or sludge from ferochrorniumsilicon production (K090); and emission control dust or sludge from

ferrochromium production (K091). A 1990 court decision upheld the listing of K088 but remanded K064, K065, K066, and, in some respects, K090

and K091, to EPA for further explanation of the need for listing (Amen”can Mining Congress v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 907

F.2nd 1179, D.C. Cir. 1990). EPA expects to issue the required explanation in 1992 (R. Hill, EPA, personal communicatio~ Apr. 29, 1991).

855 Federal Register 2322, Jan. 23, 1990.

% Federal Register 27300, June 13, 1991.

l~e reprt did not cover 1) wastes from clay, sand and gravel, and stone* g, ~ause EPA judged that these were less ~ely to pose hazards

than other wastes; 2) uranium mill tailings, which are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act of 1978, with assistance fromEPA; and 3) surface coal mining and beneficiation wastes, which are regulated by the Department of the Interior

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCFL4), with concurrence from EPA. It also did not include detailed information

on E&B wastes from other metal and nonmetal mining sectors.

IIThe Department of tie ~t~or considered the&@ ~ the 1985 Report to ~ inad~te but did not provide alternative estimates (101).
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 29

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison

Open pit Copper mine in Arizona.

16 percent from phosphate rock, and the remainder

from other operations.

The estimates of total E&B wastes are somewhat

misleading because the remaining 10 percent was

from dump and heap leach operations (98 percent

from copper mining, small amounts from gold and

silver production). However, as noted above, leach

piles are not considered wastes while they are used

in production. Thus EPA’s estimates of total E&B

waste and the relative proportion of waste rock and

tailings should be slightly lower and higher, respectively. Because spent leach piles are considered

wastes, however, the amount by which the estimates

would differ is unclear.

Table 2-l—Estimated Amounts of Extraction and

Beneficiation Wastes Generated in 1987

(thousand short tons)

Waste rock

Industry segmenta

(mine waste) Tailingsb

Metals

Bauxite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W

c

524

Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504,000 223,650

Gold

Lode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,000 76,190

Placer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,400 16,532

Iron ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,400 123,400

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,870 5,510

Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,100 —

Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w 5,011

Othersc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,200 —

Minerals

Asbestos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 5

Phosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289,000 119,100

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,121,580 569,498

Whe Bureau of Mines database did not include information on the amounts

of waste generated for the beryllium, magnesium, manganiferrous,

molybdenum, nickel, and tungsten segments.

bcalculat~ by OTAXthe difference between the amount of crude ore and

the amount of marketable product.

ew - data not reported for reasons of confidentiality.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals

Yearbook, Vol. 1, Metals and Minerals (Washington, DC: 1988).

The U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM) also collects

data on waste rock, crude ore, and marketable

products; the difference between crude ore and

products provides a rough estimate of the amount of

tailings. The Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA) used BOM data to estimate that the nonuranium mining industry generated 1.7 billion tons in

1987, about two-thirds waste rock and one-third

tailings (see table 2-1 and figure 2-1).12 Copper

accounted for 45 percent, phosphate 24 percent, gold

17 percent, and iron ore 10 percent. Although EPA

and BOM data are not strictly comparable in scope

and years of coverage, EPA’s 1985 Report included

the industry segments that generated 98 percent by

weight of the nonuranium E&B wastes in 1987,

according to BOM data.13

These estimates exclude mine water, for which no

figures were given because amounts vary greatly and

are difficult to estimate. However, the amount of

mine water may be quite high at some sites, and

effective management of acid mine drainage is a

challenge at many active and inactive sites (1 11). As

noted above, though, the U.S. Department of the

lzwwtes from clay and stone mining totaled another 138 million tons. BOM data do not cover uranium minin

(western Governors’ Associatio~ review comments, Jan. 23, 1991).

g, which has decreased signifkantly

13~ 198’7, W=terockmd ~~gs for tie s~met~~ ~over~ in the 1985 Repofiamo~t~ to slighflymore ~1.6 billion tons. Waste rock and taihl&S

from metals and minerals not covered in the report (excluding clays, sand and gravel, stone) totaled 83 million and 15 million tons, respectively.
30 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Ph ospha

24%

Figure 2-l—Amounts of Mining Wastes

(51% from phosphoric

acid production)

\

tewater

Gold

17%

E&B Wastes, 1987 Processing Wastes, 1985

(1.7 billion tons) (?? tons -- see text)

SOURCES: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, Vol. 1, Metals and Minera/s

(Washington, DC: 1988); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on Specia/ Wastes

From Minera/ Processing, EPA/530-SW-90-070C (Washington, DC: July 1990).

Interior (DOI) does not consider mine water an E&B

waste.

Mineral Processing Wastes

Processing ore to obtain marketable products

leaves behind waste residues, mostly in slurry form,

that must be managed. EPA’s 1990 Report covered

the 20 mineral processing wastes that met EPA’s

high-volume, low-hazard criteria and therefore remained exempt under the Bevill exclusion from

Subtitle C regulation, pending further study and

rulemaking. 14

The 20 Bevill wastes are generated by 91 facilities

in 29 States. For these 20 wastes, about 103 million

tons of solid waste (including slurry) is generated

annually, primarily consisting of phosphogypsum

from phosphoric acid production (51 percent), iron

slag (20 percent), and steel slag (14 percent) (see

table 2-2 and figure 2-1).15 EPA also estimated that

2.0 billion tons of process wastewater is generated

annually, 99 percent from phosphoric acid production. However, most of the phosphoric acid wastewater stream is recycled, either immediately or after

being used to transport phosphogypsum or for

process cooling. The 1.9-billion-ton estimate for

phosphoric acid wastewater thus counts water that is

used several times, but the amount of new wastewater generated is unclear.l6 According to the BOM,

wastewater from phosphoric acid production generally is recycled every three to four days and fresh

water inputs are typically less than 5 percent17

; even

so, inputs can still amount to millions of gallons per

day at individual plants.

Mineral processing wastes that do not meet the

high-volume, low-hazard criteria are no longer

exempt from Subtitle C regulation; depending on

their nature, they can be either hazardous or nonhazardous. EPA has not collated data on nonexempt

mineral processing wastes, but various Federal

Register notices contain information on more than

70 such wastes, with total waste generation of

around 7.4 million tons (however, data on solids/

Id’rhe high-volume criterion is 45,000 metric tons (49,500 short tons) per year per facility for each nonliquid wastestream ~d 1 million me~c tom

(1.1 million short tons) per year per facility for each liquid wastestream (54 FederaZRegister 36592, Sept. 1, 1989). The low hazard criterion has two

parts. For toxicity, if samples of a waste from tsvo or more facilities fail EPA’s Synthetic Precipitation leaching Procedure, then the waste is withdrawn

from the Bevill exclusio~ unless evidence indicates that test results are anomalous. For corrosivity, liquid wastes with a pH less than 1.0 or greater than

13.5 are not considered “low hazard.”

15These estfites my include some W=tes tit me process~ for me~s recove~ or recycl~ in other appli@iOnS (T.B. L,arSe~ CypIUS Miami

-, Persod communication Apr. 2, 1991).

MJ.P. Stone, BO~ personal communication Apr. 12, 1991.

17T. ~,BOM, review comments, JUIY 19, 1991.

~854FederalRegister 15316, Apr. 17, 1989; 54 FederalRegister 36592, Sept. 1, 1989; 54 FederalRegister 39298, Sept. 25, 1989; 55 FederalRegister

2322, Jan. 23, 1990. EPA also reclassified 12 wastestreams as beneficiation wastes and 6 wastestreams as other nonprocessing wastes.
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 31

Table 2-2—The 20 High-Volume Mineral Processing Wastes Conditionally Exempted From Subtitle C

Pending Final Rulemaking (amount of waste generated in thousand tons)a

Solids and

Waste slurries Liquids Comments b

Red and brown muds from bauxite refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Treated residue from roasting/leaching of chrome ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gasifier ash from coal gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Process wastewater from coal gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant sludge f from primary

copper processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slag from primary copper processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slag tailings from primary copper processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slag from elemental phosphorus production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Process wastewater from hydrofluoric acid production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air pollution control dust/sludge from iron blast furnaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iron blast furnace slag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slag from primary lead processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Process wastewater from magnesium processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Process wastewater from phosphoric acid production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air pollution control dust/sludge from basic oxygen furnaces and

open hearth furnaces from carbon steel production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace slag from carbon

steel production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production . . . . . . . . .

Slag from primary zinc processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,080

112

270

5,313

154

2,750

1,650

2,860

983

1,320

20,680

516

52,360

1,540

14,520

455

173

14,960

2,712

1,947,000

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Not considered a waste by DOI

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Not considered a waste by DOI

Potential C by Audubon et al.

Potential C by Audubon et al.

aThe names Onthis list,based on EPA rulemakings and EPA’s 1990 Report, should not beconsiderect exact; the names of individual Waste streams sometimes

change between rulemakings, and it is not always clear from first glance whether the changes are simply nominal in character or represent actual additions

or deletions in the waste stream being considered.

b{ipotentia] c by Audu~n et al.~~ refers t. wastes that the National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and Mineral policy Center considered

potential candidates for regulation under Subtitie C as hazardous; “Notcxmsidered a waste by DOl” refers to materials that the Department of Interior suggests

should not be considered wastes at all.

SOURCES: National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and Mineral Policy Center, “Comments of the National Audubon Society, the

Environmental Defense Fund, and the Mineral Policy Center on the Environmental Protection Ageney’s Report to Congress on Special Wastes

From Mineral Processing,” Washington, DC, Oct. 19, 1990; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Comments in Response to the Environmental

Protection Ageney Report to Congress on Speeial Wastes From Mineral Processing Released July 1990,” Washington, DC, Oct. 19, 1990; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on Special Wastes From Mineral Processing, EPA1530-SW-90-070C (Washington, DC:

July 1990); 54 Fedem/ Register 15316 (Apr. 17, 1989); 54 Federa/ Register 36592 (Sept. 1, 1989); 54 Federa/Register 39298 (Sept. 25, 1989);

55 Federa/ Register2322 (Jan. 23, 1990).

slurries versus wastewater are difficult to distinguish

in the notices) .18

The DOI (102) and the American Mining Congress (AMC) (4) object to the EPA classification of

some mineral processing materials. DOI asserts that

iron blast furnace slag and basic oxygen and open

hearth furnace slags should not be considered wastes

because they are byproducts that are processed and

sold as such. The AMC believes that materials such

as elemental phosphorus slag and copper slag are not

wastes when beneficially reused or reprocessed, and

that EPA’s definition of Bevill processing wastes

discourages recycling. EPA agrees that although

some materials such as iron slag are largely sold for

eventual off-site use, seldom (if ever) is 100 percent

of the material sold, and unsold materials are

typically stored on the ground (e.g., in waste piles) .19

In addition, the sold materials are usually destined

for use as road aggregate, filler, etc. The Agency’s

current position is that these on-the-ground uses

constitute disposal and that the materials therefore

are solid wastes. EPA, however, is reevaluating its

current definition of solid waste and intends to

publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

to solicit comments on revising the definition and

the impacts of such revisions on recycling and reuse.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT

METHODS

Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes

EPA’s 1985 Report estimated that 56 percent of

waste rock was disposed in on-site piles and 61

percent of tailings was disposed in on-site surface

lw.s. EPA, (Xtlce of Solid Waste, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991.
32 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

impoundments in the early 1980s.20 About 4,000

surface impoundments were used for metal and

nonmetal mining wastes in the early 1980s (110,

119). An estimated 9 percent of waste rock and 5

percent of tailings were used for backfilling previously excavated areas, often for support purposes.

Off-site utilization-for example, as construction

material-was limited (4 percent of waste rock, 2

percent of tailings). The remainder (31 percent of

waste rock, 32 percent of tailings) was reused

on-site.

These data do not necessarily represent current

management practices. In addition, much of what

EPA included as reused waste was dump leaching

material, which is a raw material rather than a waste,

at least until leaching operations cease. EPA (124)

and the States (e.g., 139) suggest that jurisdiction

over leach pads is necessary, even if the pad does not

become a ‘‘waste” until operations cease; however,

the AMC (4) disagrees.

The 1985 Report included limited data from the

early 1980s on the frequency of pollution controls at

E&B waste sites. For example, groundwater monitoring occurred at 18 of 47 tailings ponds, runoff

controls at 5 of 74 mine sites, and liners at 11 of 56

tailing ponds; the frequency of controls varied

among different industries. Use of these controls

probably increased during the last decade, but OTA

is unaware of systematic data indicating the extent

of current use. Most State mining regulations now

require monitoring at new facilities and some require

liners. Nevada’s rules presume that an engineered

liner system is needed for heap pads and process

ponds (Nevada Administrative Code Section 445).

Utah requires the use of best available technology to

prevent seepage (Utah Administrative Code 26-11,

Sec. R448-6); in its permitting process, the State

interprets this requirement as mandating engineered

liner systems for gold operations that employ

cyanide solutions. 21 However, the extent to which

States’ regulations apply to previously existing E&B

waste sites and the extent to which they are enforced

are difficult to ascertain (see “State Regulatory

Programs” below).

Quantities of mine water are unknown. In terms of

active management, mine water may be recycled as

milling process water, used on-site for other purposes (e.g., dust control, wildlife watering), or stored

in surface impoundments and tanks. In some cases,

stored mine water is then discharged (often after

some treatment) to surface waters in accordance

with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions (111); OTA is

unaware of data on the amount of mine water

discharged to surface waters. Some mine water,

though, is not actively managed and instead enters

the environment via drainage and nonpoint runoff.

Mineral Processing Wastes

By quantity, most processing wastes are wastewaters that are managed in surface impoundments or

ponds (127). Depending on the nature of the

material, some of it may then be reused on-site,

treated and discharged to surface waters, injected

underground, or treated and sold for off-site use.

Phosphoric acid production is the largest generator of processing wastes (table 2-2). The phosphogypsum component is mixed with process wastewater

and pumped to impoundments, where the phosphogypsum solids settle.22 The wastewater most often is

reused on-site for processing and other activities; in

these situations, no treatment or discharge is considered necessary. Some facilities treat and discharge

the wastewater, along with runoff and leachate from

gypsum stacks that is collected in perimeter ditches.

Furnace slag from iron and steel production

makes up 34 percent of solid/slurry processing

wastes; as noted above, DOI strongly asserts that this

should not be classified as waste. It typically is

processed (e.g., granulated, crushed, sized) and sold

for use as an aggregate.

The 1985 Report included limited data from the

early 1980s on pollution controls and monitoring

used at mineral processing facilities. For example,

groundwater monitoring occurred at 8 of 15 heap

and dump leaching operations, and collection of

secondary leachate occurred at 1 of 16 heap and

~~e ~~ did not distinguish between solids and liquids.

21s. Barringer and K. Johnsou Holland& ~ review comments, JulY 29, 1991.

22~e ~pom~ents ~located on top of on.~ite ~mtepfies ~ow ~ ~su stacks. As an impoundment dries, dewateredphosphogypsum k USd

to buildup the impoundment dike, and the stack increases in height. EPA has issued regulations on radionuclide emissions from phosphogypsurn stacks

(see “Other Statutory Authority” below).
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 33

dump leaching operations.23 As with E&B wastes,

the frequency of specific controls varied among

different industries.

Today, according to the Western Governors’

Association (WGA) and representatives of the

precious metals industries, liners are almost always

used in precious metal heap leaching operations to

confine the mineral-laden leachate and to maximize

mineral recovery.24 In addition, all new and virtually

all existing ponds at gold and silver heap leaching

operations have single or double liners (either a

composite synthetic/earthen liner or two synthetic

liners), and leak detection systems for ponds at silver

and copper operations are generally checked once

per shift.25

Pollution Prevention/Waste Reduction

The benefits of reducing hazardous waste generation in manufacturing are well documented (91, 93).

However, the mining industry differs from most

manufacturing because its processes generally require large amounts of raw material, with relatively

low concentrations of ore, to obtain the finished

product; furthermore, declining ore grades in the

United States mean that relatively more waste is now

associated with producing a given amount of ore.

Nevertheless, measures now used at some mining

facilities may reduce the potential toxicity of some

wastes (23, 52, 111).26 These include closed-loop

recycling of solutions; chemical or biological treatment of acids or cyanides; the use of drip leaching

instead of spray leaching; and the use of less toxic

leaching and flotation reagents (e.g., BOM is studying substitutes for cyanide compounds used in

leaching operations). DOI and the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, however, believe that changing the

reagents used in beneficiation “would require considerable research with little guarantee of success”

(101). They also noted that little opportunity exists

to reduce waste volume, most of which is waste rock,

although possibilities include: 1) blasting techniques that make fewer small pieces; 2) expansion of

underground mining to minimize exposed surface

areas; or 3) in situ leaching instead of surface or

underground mining. Underground mining is relatively costly and probably would be useful only for

high-grade, shallow deposits, which are not common. In situ leaching poses other environmental

problems; for example, gold and silver would

require the use of cyanide, which is better handled in

containers or lined units. Even so, biological in situ

techniques may be possible for some metals.27

EPA can offer some assistance (e.g., information,

R&D funds) in designing production processes to

prevent pollution problems and has a policy of

promoting pollution prevention in general.28 However, EPA currently does not have authority under

RCRA to regulate production processes, although it

does have some authority under TSCA (also see

“Other EPA Statutory Authority” below). DOI29

believes that the Bureau of Mines might be a more

appropriate agency to provide assistance in developing waste minimization techniques for the minerals

industry.

RISKS FROM MINING WASTE

MANAGEMENT

Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes

Some E&B wastes such as overburden and waste

rock are earthen materials that are not processed;

some of these may contain sulfides that can generate

acid when exposed to oxygen and moisture, and/or

metals that may be mobilized in surface or groundwater. Where precipitation is sufficient, uncontrolled

runoff from storage piles of these materials can

contribute to water quality problems in streams and

groundwater. The potential for acid generation

depends on factors such as the presence of sulfides

~EFA uwd the te~ “s~ond~ leachate collection system” to refer to leachate collection sumps and ditches that collect liquids escaP@ from the

primary recirculating leaching system.

‘WGA, review comments, Jan. 23, 1991.

~WGA, review cements, Jme 23, 1991; S*G. Bfiger, Holl~d & H@ review commen~, Apr. 24, 19$)1; G. ~c~ Amti~BtickRmomc6

Corp., review comments, July 23, 1991.

XAISo see 54 Federal Register 24498, July 3, 1986.

none prospWt is t. use ficrwrg~m ~ si~, which wo~d leave the ~ounding env~onmentre~tively und.is~~. More ~30 WrC~t Of the

copper produced in the United States results from a biochemical process involving a naturally occurring microorgan.bq ThiobaciZZus ferroxidans, in

an acid leaching solutio~ currently, thoug4 this is used after initial extraction and takes longer than conventional leaching processes (16).

u54 Federal Register 3845, J~. 26, 1989.

ZgS. Latnson, BLM, review comments, Aug. 9, 1991.
34 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Photo credit: U.S. Department of the Interior

Cyanide mist sprayer on leach pad.

and the nature and frequency of precipitation at the

site.

Releases from impoundments, leaching operations, and tailings ponds have generally been of

greater concern. EPA (11 1) reviewed known environmental damage cases and concluded that releases

(from failed impoundments, loss of liner integrity,

pond overflow, seepage, dam failure) at both active

and inactive sites have caused contamination of

groundwater, degradation of aquatic ecosystems,

and fish kills in some instances. However, these data

are from the 1970s and early 1980s.

In the early 1980s, EPA also conducted short-term

sampling of surface and groundwater for 40 parameters at eight mining sites and found that most

sampled facilities leaked constituents to soils, groundwater, and surface water (111). The data, however,

are based on conditions at the time of sampling and

do not address the long-term mobility of substances

in groundwater or the possibility of future urban or

recreational developments near old sites. Thus the

data do not demonstrate whether the constituents

migrated over long distances or reached concentrations of concern to human health.30

EPA also estimated that about 11 million metric

tons of waste from gold, lead, silver, and zinc

mining-about 1 percent of all mining waste—

exhibited one or more hazardous characteristics

(e.g., Extraction Procedure toxicity) and that an

unknown amount of escaped leach liquor is corrosive.31 Some environmental groups contend that the

Extraction Procedure (EP), Toxicity Characteristic

(TC), and Synthetic Precipitation (SP) tests are

inappropriate and that more mining waste would be

classified as hazardous, or at least be better characterized, if leaching tests that are more representative

of long-term weathering conditions were used.32 33

However, such tests would not be legally applicable

to wastes currently exempted from Subtitle C. In

addition, EPA’s determination to regulate E&B

wastes under Subtitle D has been upheld by the

courts (see ‘Current RCRA Status of E&B Wastes’

below).

EPA noted other potential hazards-acid generation; cyanide, radioactivity, and asbestos releases—

not included in RCRA hazardous characteristics that

also need evaluation. In the 1985 Report, EPA

estimated that at least the following materials might

be of concern:

. 25 million tons from gold and silver operations

(28 percent of E&B waste from these segments,

2 percent of all E&B waste), because of high

% additio~ although some of the environmental damage cases mentioned also involved potential human health effects (e.g., from &inking

groundwater contaminated by heavy metals; inhaling air or ingesting soil contaminated with asbestos), they did not document known human health

effects.

S154 Fe@ral Regi~ter 24498, J~y 3, 1986. me 1985 Report ident~led 61 million me~c tom (67 millon short tons) of waste flOm these industries

and the copper industry as exhibiting EP toxicity or corrosiveness. EPA’s estimate of 11 million metric tons (12 million short tons) excluded dump and

heap leach piles and process leach liquor, although EPA did not address how these materials should be considered after production.

32A. wes~ Environmental Defense Fund, personal communicatio~ July 29, 1991.

33~e Western GovmorsJ Assw~tion ~ not adopted a ~sition on tie Ep ad other tests, but it is investiga~g methods for @yzhlg cyanide

residuals in spent leaching wastes and for predicting the acid generation potential of wastes (R.D. Andrews, Boulder Innovative Technologies, personal

communicatio~ Apr. 16, 1991).
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 35

●

●

●

Box

cyanide levels34 and the potential for acid

generation and release of heavy metals;35

387 million tons from phosphate mining and

100 million tons from uranium because of high

radioactivity levels;36

105 million tons of copper mill tailings (7

percent of total E&B, 15 percent of copper

E&B), because of potential for acid generation

and release of heavy metals;37 and

5.5 million tons of asbestos waste rock (less

than 1 percent of total E&B waste), because of

asbestos content greater than 1 percent.38

2-A discusses the relationship among gold

production, sodium cyanide, and wildlife mortality.

In its 1986 regulatory determination, EPA noted

that threats posed by E&B wastes depend on

site-specific factors. A 1984 survey (12) indicated

more than 80 percent of active mines were west of

the Mississippi River-generally in areas with

relatively dry climates, where water tables are at

greater depths than in the eastern United States, and

well removed from current population centers,

drinking water supplies, and surface waters.39 These

sites thus might not be expected to pose significant

risks in the near future.

However, EPA was concerned about the potential

risks of mining sites and E&B wastes that do not

exhibit these characteristics-for example, sites

located in nonarid regions or near groundwater.40 It

also was concerned about risks to resident populations of threatened and endangered species (also see

box 2-A) and to relatively undisturbed natural

environments, as well as surface water and groundwater contamination, environmental degradation

and threats to human health from wind-blown dusts,

and the effects of catastrophic failure of waste

management units. A recent EPA report on relative

risk (129) did not specifically address mining wastes

but considered acid runoff into surface waters to be

a relatively low-risk problem to humans (albeit not

necessarily to aquatic life).

The presence of mining sites on the National

Priorities List (NPL) indicates that mining activities

or wastes have caused potential risks to human

health and the environment in the past.41 T h e

Superfund effort in the Clark Fork Basin of Montana, for example, consists of four separate but

contiguous sites encompassing the largest geographic area of all NPL sites (74). Some NPL mining

sites involved production practices that are still in

use today (e.g., froth flotation in copper mining), and

to some observers this suggests that current operations could become future Superfund sites. This is

possible but difficult to prove or to refute. Industry

representatives contend that sites on the NPL

indicate problems with past waste management

rather than past or current production practices, and

that current waste management is much improved.42

BLM notes that although the basic process of froth

flotation has not changed, the reagent addition rates

and current monitoring or other controls result in a

34Based on liquid waste samples from gold metal recovery and heap leach operations, and on a cyanide concentration greater b or M@ to 10

milligrams per liter (mg/L). The concentration of 10 m@L is 50 times greater tban EPA’s ambient water quality criterion for the protection of human

health (i.e., 0.2 mg/L, the same as the primary &inking water standard; the criterion for freshwater aquatic life is 3.5 micrograms per liter (~ #L) as

a 24-hour average, with concentrations not to exceed 52 #@L at any time) (45 Federal Register 79331, Nov. 28, 1990).

ssHowever, tie Bureau of Mines states that the effluents from gold and silver operations are normally alkaline and that tie possibility of acid

generation and release of heavy metals is unlikely (T.@, BOI@ review comments, July 19, 1991).

36~vels geat~ ~5 ~icoc~es @Ci) pa *W (i.e., tie cle~up s~dard ~EPA’s Stidards for protection Agfist Ufium Mill Ttilhgs). UShlg

a level of 20 pCi per gram (i.e., the “disposal design” portion of the standards) lowers the figures to 13 million and 80 million metric tons for phosphate

and uranium, respectively.

37EpA ~so es~~tit 200 fi~ion tom of copper d~p lexh ~tefi~ ~s he s~e potcn~ problems, but such matc~ is not considered waste

while being used in productio~ whether this estimate includes spent dump and heap leaching piles is unclear.

38~e Natio~ Emission S@@d for ~dous fi pollu~ts for ~~stos, However, EPA*s Effluent Guide~es Division earlier fo~d tit

controlling suspended solids in discharges from mining operations also controlled asbestos fibers.

sgMore ~60 Permnt of tie ~tive fies were c~act~md by ex~eme aridity (i.e., net rec~ge of () to 2 tiches), about 80 pacent had a d@h

to groundwater of greater than 10 fee~ and 78 percent did not have a drinkm“ g water system within 5 kilometers.

~ased on the 1984 survey (12), for example, 22 percent of the active mines had drinkm“ g water systems within 5 kilometers and most mines were

located near surface waters.

AIAs of AuWst 1990,68x sites were on tie NpL; ~o~er 227 sites Wme fi EPA’s da~base @o~ as CERC’LIS) of kdous substance SiteS

but not onthe NPL (ref. 140, citing EPAmemoranda). As of spring 1991, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) had completed, under contract

to EPA, draft Summary reports on 48 NPL mining sites.

42~ey ~so note tie diffic~~ ~ ~~bfis~g caus~ ~latiom~ps, partic~arly at sites wi~ my years of op~atiom or complex hydrogeological ad

topographical features.
36 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 2-A—Sodium Cyanide, Gold, and Wildlife

The environmental effects of cyanide use in gold mining operations have been of concern for many years,

recently because of reports of wildlife mortality associated with such operations. In general, the precious metals

industry, many State officials, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) believe that the industry has

responded adequately during the last few years to minimize wildlife mortality. However, environmental groups,

EEA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) disagree.

Wildlife mortality results when animals drink cyanide-contaminated waters derived from gold heap leaching

and milling processes. In heap leaching, sodium cyanide is used to extract gold from the gold-laden ore; the cyanide

solution is collected and placed in a “pregnant solution” pond. Other treatment processes are used to recover the

gold, and the remaining liquid is placed in a “barren solution” pond for storage and adjustment of cyanide levels

(in some cases, it may then be pumped back to a heap top and reused for leaching). Some milling operations also

use sodium cyanide, with the resultant slurry being discharged to large tailings ponds. Pregnant and barren solution

ponds tend to be small (generally less than 5 acres), whereas tailings pond are much larger (e.g., up to several

hundred acres) (131).

In recent years, mining and processing of low-grade gold ore deposits has become more profitable, because

of technological innovations in beneficiation, along with the depletion of high-grade ore deposits. As a result, gold

production increased from 2 million ounces in 1983 (39) to 9 million ounces in 1989 (131).

At this time, most of these operations are located in arid areas, where the presence of open water attracts

wildlife. l BLM estimated that in 1990 about 155 cyanide heap leach operations were located on public lands

managed” by the bureau (39). The F&WS estimates that 200 to 300 cyanide-containing processing or waste

impoundments are located in the entire Great Basin (107).

The only comprehensive data (of which OTA is aware) on wildlife mortality at these operations come from

Nevada (some mines in Arizona and California also report mortality data to BLM). Between 1984 and 1989, Nevada

gold mining operators voluntarily reported 7,224 wildlife deaths at ponds. These data consisted primarily of

cyanide-related mortalities, although a few operations included road kills found on-site and animals that most likely

died of natural causes.2

Some mine operators have taken steps to counter these problems. In some instances, nets have been placed over

pregnant and barren ponds, and fencing is used to deter wildlife; however, tailings ponds, which may cover large

areas, are often not netted.3 In addition, some operations use chemical processes to degrade or neutralize cyanide

compounds in effluents, ponds, and tailings (54). In Nevada, many, but not all, operators now use drip systems to

distribute water others crush residues to finer grades to prevent pooling of solutions.

Several States, including Nevada and California, have begun to actively address the wildlife mortality issue.

In 1989, Nevada enacted legislation that made the Department of Wildlife the permitting authority for

impoundments or ponds containing chemicals that might be deleterious to wildlife and required mining operators

to report wildlife mortality and subsequent corrective actions (62).4 The State’s regulations also require that

pregnant and barren solution ponds either be covered (e.g., with netting) or that their contents be rendered nonlethal

by dilution, chemical neutralization, or other means.5 In 1990, after mandatory reporting of mortality was required,

98 mines reported 1,644 deaths.6 Of these, 92 percent involved migratory birds and 8 percent involved snakes,

%OmO hmp leach opomtiom,however, are located in humid areas (e.g., South C~Oti).

2R+ M@u&~y ~J.W. King, Neva~ Dep~ent of Wtidlife, PerSolld COmm@@tiO~ ~.7~13* 1991”

Westof these methods require long-tam maintenance. Poorly maintained nets my SllOws-~and birds to @in =5S to

ponds; netsdarnagedby ice, snow, orwindalso allowacceas. TheF&WS and the State ofNevadado notconsi&rhazing anacceptablepreventive

measure (35; R. McQuivey, Nevada Department of Wildlife, personal communicatio~ July 26, 1991).

4- General Accounting Office (GAO) (87) concluded that Federal and State agencies generally have adequate authority to regulate

cyanide operations and to protect wildlife or the environment fkom their potential hazards. However, GAO noted that urdike Nevada, State

regulatory agencies in California and Arizona lack the authority to require that cyanide operations be designed or operated seas topreventwikllife

mortality, although their authority to prosecute violators for killing game species without a license could help deter cyanide-related mortality.

5“N@e~ lwe~” we mlc~t to define because tolerable concentrations of cyanide kve ~tkn de~~~, cyanide

toxicity may be affected by the type of ore and the presence of heavy metals, and dMferent animal species may exhibit varying sensitivities to

cyanide (E. Hill F&WS, personal Communication May 10, 1991).

6~W ~~ ~mwnt to~ rew~mo~~ for 1~ C. Mc@vey, Neva& Dep_@ of Wildlife, Persolld OXllllllltdCt@~ Jdy

26, 1991). Mandatory reporting was implemented beginning April 1,1990, but it took several montbs to bring existing operaticms into compliance

with the new regulations, Since therL cyanidemXated mortality has been lower.
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 37

lizards, mice, bats, and other small animals; no reports involved threatened or endangered species.7 Although these

data are self-reported by operators, Nevada officials consider them to be reasonably accurate, based on increased

State enforcement and inspection to ensure compliance with the regulations.

At the Federal level, BLM’s cyanide management policy encourages all mining operations using cyanide or

other lethal solutions to be conducted in a way that protects the public and ensures compliance with the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (i.e., protect migratory birds and other wildlife) (103, 104, 105). The policy sets forth guidelines

on fencing of all active and disturbed unreclaimed areas; monitoring of groundwater and surface water through

closure and final reclamation; posting of bonds by operators for full costs of reclamation; neutralization or

detoxification of cyanide solutions and heaps (but not tailings ponds); a minimum of quarterly inspections by BLM

staff of cyanide operations on BLM lands; training for BLM employees involved in surface management of cyanide

operations; and procedures for closure and reclamation. However, these guidelines have not yet been promulgated

as regulations, except for the bonding requirements. The National Park Service also has guidelines on cyanide

operations (42).

The F&WS, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, can cite or fine violators for killing migratory birds without

a permit and has done so in conjunction with State authorities. For example, almost 1,000 deaths were reported in

Nevada in the third quarter of 1989, largely from one operation.8 The operation was cited for noncompliance by

Nevada and the F&WS; the operator installed a cyanide detoxification process, and no subsequent mortality has

been reported. The F&WS considers denying access to ponds or maintaining cyanide solutions at nontoxic

concentrations to be appropriate preventive measures; it also suggests that the costs of such measures might be

reduced if migratory bird protection was considered during the initial design of new facilities (35).

In general, State officials, mining industry representatives, and BLM contend that sufficient steps are being

taken to control wildlife mortality. Many feel that although the problem was significant prior to increased State

regulatory activity, the industry has spent millions of dollars to develop satisfactory control procedures and too

much attention is now being given to the issue. To the extent that efforts such as those of Nevada continue to be

developed and BLM enforces its policy, this maybe true.

However, EPA and the F&WS still believe that additional controls may be necessary, and EPA is also

concerned about potential threats to surface water and groundwater posed by cyanide heap leaching. Questions have

arisen about the extent of mortality occurring on top of heaps, as opposed to ponds; heaps can look like disked farm

fields, with interspersed pools of water (from rainwater or from cyanide solutions pumped back to the top) that

attract wildlife. In South Dakota, dead birds and mammals have been found on the tops or edges of heap leach pads,

often in or near pools of water.9 The F&WS has initiated research on wildlife mortality at heaps in Nevada.10 The

State of Nevada has investigated heap tops (including conducting aerial surveys), however, and found only isolated

incidents of mortality due to inefficient operational procedures; State officials feel that this is not significant and

that increased enforcement and inspection will minimize mortality.

EPA regulates discharges of wastewater from leaching operations into surface waters under the Clean Water

ACT; however, EPA has limited authority to control mine leachate in order to prevent groundwater contamination

and must rely on best management practices or State authorities unless a leak to groundwater is detected EPA also

cannot regulate sodium cyanide use in leaching or in ponds under RCRA because the operations are production

rather than waste management processes.ll Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), however, EPA can

regulate a chemical when it presents or will present an unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the

environment.

EPA believes that there is a possible case for regulation of sodium cyanide under TSCA Section 6, to minimize

groundwater contamination and degradation of aquatic ecosystems. However, although much research has been

7Drou@tcOtitiw in the late 1980s and 1990 may have affected mortality patterns (1.W. King, NevadaDepartment of Wflwe, PA

wmummicatiorq Mar. 13, 1991). Prior to 1987, reported mortality was highest during the spring watafowlmigratory period. In 1989 and 1990,

when drought conditions in Nevada were the worst in recorded history, mortality was highest during the summer,

8R, McQuivey, Nevada Department of Wildlife, personal COmtlluniCatiom W. 7, 1991.

9D. Fries, F&WS, personal communicatio~ May 30,1991.

10c. Hay, I%cific Northwest Reseamh StatioG personal Communication my 23, 1991.

lluse ofs~u~~~ ~ te~ ofwo~= ~~e~, ~u~ my ~ ~~~~ertie ~patio~ s~e~ @ H~th Act of 1970 @

the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

Continued on next page
38 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 2-A—Sodium Cyanide, Gold, and Wildlife-Continued

conducted on the fate of cyanide and cyanide complexes in soil and water (e.g., 24, 54, 136), EPA believes that

insufficient information is available regarding the long-term effects on wildlife of sodium cyanide from mining

operations to warrant regulation at this time (131). Additional field research is needed, for example, on the long-term

persistence and fate of cyanide complexes in ponds (during and after leaching), patterns of wildlife exposure to toxic

forms of cyanide, and related patterns of wildlife mortality.12

EPA and the F&WS are addressing this through TSCA and its Interagency Testing Committee. Sodium

cyanide is exempt from TSCA reporting requirements, but Federal agencies can request through the Committee that

testing of a substance’s potential effects be conducted under TSCA (e.g., under Section 4). In response to a F&WS

nomination, the Committee “designated” sodium cyanide in November 1990, with chemical fate and ecological

effects as areas of concern (131). The F&WS proposed research to determine the tolerance of wildlife species to

cyanide-contaminated waters; the feasibility of developing diagnostic indicators; the fate of cyanide compounds in

heaps and tailings; and wildlife use of, and mortality at, heaps and ponds (107, 108). In 1989, the DuPont Co., the

major sodium cyanide manufacturer, agreed to provide funding for F&WS field studies on sodium cyanide and

migratory birds (131), although not on sodium cyanide’s effects on terrestrial animals or its presence in soil. As of

fall 1991, EPA had reached a tentative agreement for a consent order requiring chemical fate and terrestrial effects

studies with DuPont, FMC, Degussa Corp., ICI Americas, and Cyanco Co.13 Depending on the results, this research

would be useful in determining whether a rulemaking under Section 6 on sodium cyanide production and use should

be initiated.14

l%ss~ On OIE model,-deCOQCeIMIW@nSiu ponds might decline relatively quickly once ltxching O~tiOXiS -, but they Wodd

still be high while operations are ongoing because of continual inputs of cyauide solutions into the ponds (19; F. DeVries, Chem-Mining

Consulting, Ltd., personal communication May 8, 1991). In waters with a pH of less than 9, free cyanide would convert relatively quickly to

hydrogen cyanide, which would volatilize into the aiq some cyanide complexes that are soluable in weak acids also would volatilize; and other

cyanide complexes would precipitate iu insoluble forms. Free cyanide in tailings ponds is known to degrade relatively easily (54).

13K. C!ron@ U.S. EPA, review comments, Sept. 27, 1991.

14EPA co~d ~so develop “wdden rel~ regulations” under Section 6, based on known acute effects of SOdiUm Cytide on fa@

other aquatic organisms (131). These regulations would ad&ess the prevention of releases rather than the production and actual use of sodium

cyanide (e.g., EPA could require certain design features on ponds to prevent spiIlage).

much different set of chemical and physical characteristics for process materials and wastes. On the

other hand, EPA concluded that “it is not clear . . .

whether current waste management practices can

prevent damage from seepage or sudden releases.’ ’43

Mineral Processing Wastes

EPA’s 1990 Report (127) identified four mineral

processing wastes for which some form of Subtitle

C regulation might be warranted: 1) process wastewater from hydrofluoric acid production; 2) slag

from primary lead processing; 3) calcium sulfate

wastewater treatment plant sludge from primary

copper processing; and 4) chloride process waste

solids from titanium tetrachloride production. All

exhibited one or more hazardous characteristics;

EPA also documented damages from current lead

slag management and suggested that some known

groundwater contamination was possibly attributable to calcium sulfate sludge and chloride process

solids. EPA was uncertain if current practices and

regulations were adequate to prevent further health

and environmental problems.

For the other 16 processing wastes, EPA concluded that regulation under Subtitle C was not

warranted. Four wastes generally did not exhibit

hazardous characteristics, although EPA documented

adverse impacts from releases to surface water.44

These releases, however, are addressed under existing State or Federal regulations (e.g., the Clean

Water Act); in addition, industry representatives

indicate that glasslike slags from copper processing

43SI Federal Register 24499, JUIY 3, 1986.

~~onblat ~ceslag; slag from Primq COpper processing; basic oxygen and open hemth furnace skg from ~bon steel production ~d

fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid production.
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 39

do not leach when stored in piles in arid environments. 45 Four other wastes exhibited some hazardous characteristics but had no documented damage cases.

46 Two of these (dusts/sludges from iron

blast furnaces and carbon steel production), infrequently exhibited hazardous characteristics, some

wastes were being recycled, and facilities generally

were not located in high-risk settings; the other two

wastes are covered by existing State regulations.

EPA also noted that phosphogypsum and phosphoric acid process wastewater sometimes exhibit

hazardous characteristics and that managing them in

impoundments or cooling ponds had caused groundwater contamination at many facilities. EPA concluded, however, that regulating them under Subtitle

C would “significantly” increase expenses at several fertilizer production facilities (see “Current

RCRA Status of Mineral Processing Wastes’ below).

EPA also considered the radionuclides and associated potential for radiation risk in six wastes to be

of concern under some circumstances.47 Among

these wastes were phosphoric acid process wastewater and phosphogypsum, which account for most

of the mineral processing wastes that remain subject

to the Bevill exemption (see “Amounts” above).

For phosphogypsum, radon associated with air

releases from gypsum stacks is regulated by a

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP; see “Clean Air Act” below).48

The NESHAP does not address slag or other

radionuclide sources, so EPA noted its intent to

investigate potential risks from such sources and to

take steps, if needed, under RCRA and other statutes

to limit such risks.

The AMC (4) concluded that none of the 20

Bevill wastes warranted Subtitle C regulation. DOI

(102) criticized EPA’s conclusion that calcium

sulfate sludge might warrant such regulation.49 Both

AMC and DOI considered EPA’s risk and damage

assessments to be overly conservative. They argued

that:

●

●

●

The Extraction Procedure and Toxicity Characteristic tests are inappropriate because they rely

on a municipal landfill disposal scenario and on

the use of acetic acid, and the Synthetic

Precipitation leaching procedure is inappropriate because it was developed for soils; the

AMC suggested using a distilled water leaching test developed by the American Society for

Testing and Materials;

EPA relied on a linear nonthreshold model for

estimating carcinogenic risks that the AMC

believes lacks credence for low exposure levels; DOI criticized several assumptions (e.g.,

including in inhalation pathways some materials that occur as large particles or that form

surface crusts) and believes the model is not

applicable to groundwater because it was developed for soils at hazardous waste sites; and

The damage cases cited in the 1990 Report

cannot be attributed to Bevill processing wastes

or waste management practices.

In contrast, the National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and Mineral Policy Center

(60) believe that at least 11 mineral processing

wastes (noted in table 2-2) warrant Subtitle C

regulation. They criticized EPA’s risk and damage

assessments as inadequate because:

Risks posed by off-site disposal (e.g., of iron

blast, steel furnace air control dust/sludge,

slags from primary lead and zinc processing)

were not assessed, nor were future risks (e.g.,

to currently unused groundwater sources of

. . drinking water);

EPA’s model was developed for other situations and underestimates the potential for

subsurface migration of contaminants, does not

account for evaporation as a pathway, and does

4SR.D. Judy, @ms copper CO., perso~ communicatio~ Jan. 17, 1991; T.B. Larsen, CYPmS _-COW., Perso~ communicatio~ *Pr”

2, 1991. No slag generated by the Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. has failed the EP or TC tests.

~Slag from p-ZinC process~; process wastewater from primary magnesium processing by the anhydrous method; W pollution Wntrol

dust/sludge from iron blast furnaces; and air pollution control dust/sludge horn basic oxygen and open hearth furnaces in carbon steel production.

dv~uomgypsumfiom hydrofluol-ic acidproductio~ red~dbrownmudsfrombauxite refii; gmfler~fiomco~g~ ification; Slag frOmelementi

phosphorus production and phosphogypsum and process wastewater from phosphoric acid production.

4S~e 1989 ~S~ &cluded a provision ~~@tit phosphogypsum be &spos~ in sticks or old phosp~te ties. However, because

phosphogypsum is used by some farmers as a relatively inexpensive source of calci~ EPA revised the NESHAP in 1990 to provide a limited class

waiver for the use of phosphogypsum in agricultural practices (55 FederaZRegister 13480, Apr. 10, 1990).

d!@A concluded tit ~~ough -ds ~Soc~ted wi~ tie Sludge at existing facilities were gener~y IOW, Subtitie C regldation might SW be

warranted 1) because of the “inlrinsic hazard” of the waste; and 2) because other primruy copper facilities might generate the sludge in the future, in

settings where risks could be higher than at current facilities.
40 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

●

●

not include the effects of episodic events (e.g.,

storms);

Monitoring generally has been insufficient to

identify damage cases, and EPA failed to

review State Superfund sites for damage cases;

and

The EP procedure may vastly underestimate the

leaching potential of some processing wastes.

CURRENT REGULATORY

PATHWAYS

State Mining Waste Programs

Several organizations contend that most States

with significant levels of mining have welldeveloped programs for active sites, including

substantial management, closure, and postclosure

requirements (refs. 4, 43, 138, 139).50 Moreover,

these are implemented in conjunction with existing

Federal regulations under the Clean Water Act and

the Clean Air Act. Many States have also enacted

new legislation or promulgated new regulations in

the last few years (table 2-3).

The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) and

the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC)

both surveyed State non-coal mining regulations,

with responses from 17 and 47 States, respectively

(43, 138).51 The surveys show that States vary in

their regulation of mining activities, due partly to

independent development of regulations and to

differences in ores mined, processes used, hydrogeology, and climate.52 EPA, DOI, the States, and the

mining industry consider these differences to support the need for flexibility in Federal regulations for

mine waste management.

Despite the variations, many elements are shared

by most States:

. Permitting—Most States require a permit,

license, or reclamation plan for each mining

site; permit duration varies from 1 year (usually

renewable) to the life of the mine (43). Usually

more than one agency is responsible for permitting. Some States issue a comprehensive permit

covering all environments; others issue sepa-

●

●

●

●

rate permits for different media, often with little

coordination among agencies. Some States

provide exclusions or waivers based on the

operation’s size, mineral categories, or waste

characteristics (138).

Plans—Most States in the WGA survey require

companies to submit plans describing intended

activities. The plans vary in form and content,

and States differ in how they review them. Of

the 17 responding States, 16 require a plan

defining the operator’s course of action; 15

require a baseline monitoring plan prior to

initiation of mining; and all require an operational monitoring plan that provides for compliance verification.

Standards—All 17 States in the WGA survey

have some standards, mostly water quality

standards, to protect groundwater and surface

water. Sixteen regulate Clean Air Act criteria

pollutants from mining operations. Many, but

not all, require groundwater monitoring to

determine compliance; requirements vary by

location, monitoring parameters, and processes

during which monitoring is required (138).

Many States consider impoundments to be

wastewater treatment facilities and regulate

their construction and operation.

Closure and Enforcement-Sixteen States in

the WGA survey require a closure plan; requirements vary considerably and may include

physical stabilization, waste neutralization, flood

control, revegetation, restoration of wildlife

habitat, and long-term monitoring. All States

with regulations have enforcement mechanisms to correct or penalize violations, including civil penalties, permit suspension or revocation, injunctions, or administrative orders

(43, 138). Most States can take corrective

action in the event of an imminent hazard to

human health and the environment, but it is

unclear whether they can take action prior to

releases that lead to these hazards.

Financial Responsibility—Most States in the

IMCC survey and 13 in the WGA survey have,

or are developing, requirements that operators

provide financial assurance (e.g., by posting

me WGA reiterated this contention in ~view comments on this background paper (WG~ review comments, Jan. 23, 1991).

sl~e WGA represents 18 western StateS, many With active mining industries; it surveyed 13 of its members and 4 nonmember States (Florida,

Missouri, South Carolina, Wisconsin). The IMCC represents the mtural resource interests of its 17 member States, all with signiilcant mining activi~,

it surveyed all 50 States.

SzEven SO, some States have borrowed approaches from other States, for example, in regulating cyanide heap l~c~g (138).
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 41

Table 2-3-State Non-Coal Mining Legislation and Regulationsa

Most recent statute Most recent surface

States Areas of Iegislationb

or amendmentb mining regulations

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface mining

Mining and reclamation

Environmental

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation/groundwaterc

N/A

N/A

Reclamation

Mining

N/A

Mining

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Mining

N/A

Mining

N/A

N/R

Mining

N/R

Mining and reclamation/sand dune mining

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Limestone, etc./metallic minerals

N/R

None/uranium in future

Water law/reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Uranium exploration and mining prohibition

Mining and reclamation

Mined land reclamation law

Mining and reclamation

Subsurface mineral

Mining and reclamation

Mining lands reclamation

Reclamation

Mining, reclamation, health, safety

N/R

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Mining and reclamation of uranium/iron ore

Mined land reclamation

Mining

Health and safety/reclamation

Reclamation

Mining and reclamation

Metallic mining and reclamation

Reclamation/safety

1969

1983

1986

1987

1987

1988/recent c

1986

1985

1987

1989

1968

1968

1966

1985

1972/1989

N/R

1977/1979 

1971/1989

1973/1 989

1989

1988

1989

1979

1987

1987

1989

1983

1989

1984

1985

1989

1972

1979/1987

1987

1981

1989/1983

1971

1985

1978

1988/1 983

1969

1984

Guidelines-1989

1973

1976

1988

N/A

N/A

1989

1976

N/A

1988d

1975

Guidelines

NIA

N/A

1975

N/A

N/R

1989

N/R

1976

1980

1978

N/A

N/R

N/A

1989

Regulated by towns

N/A

Drafting in 1991

1976

1976

1976

1974

1983

Yes-no date

1990

N/R

1980

1988

1973

Yes-uranium/no-iron

1989 (C)

N/A

1989

1971

1981

1978 (metals only)

1975

NOTE: N/A - not applicable, usually because State regulations do not exist; N/R_ no response to question.

aResponses indi~te progr~ elements that nmy or may not be OXplidtly stated in statutes or regulations.

blnterstate Mining Compact Commission, Mav 1 Wo.

Western Govern~rs’ Association, August 1990.

dstate of Idaho, 1988.

SOURCES: Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Mineral Resources Committee, “Non-Coal Mineral Resources Questionnaire & Report,” Herndon, VA:

May 1990; State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, “Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 52: Ore Processing by Cyanidation, Effective Date

Jan. 1, 1988”; Western Governors’ Association, Mine Waste Task Force, “State Non-Coal Mine Waste Regulatory Programs: Tabulated Survey

Results,” Denver, CO: August 1990.
42 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

bonds) that a facility can be closed successfully. The type and amount of assurance vary

greatly: sometimes they are arbitrary amounts;

sometimes they are based on factors such as

projected closure costs or the magnitude or type

of operation. The IMCC survey showed that

State performance bond requirements range

from $150 to $5,000 per acre, although the

sufficiency of these requirements was not

assessed.

Although these surveys described the variety and

elements of many State programs, neither assessed

overall program quality or implementation. For

example, the IMCC obtained data on inspection

frequency (table 2-4) but not on violations or

subsequent enforcement actions. The WGA (139)

acknowledged some gaps in coverage (e.g., remediation of inactive and abandoned mines). EPA found

that the scope of State programs was not always clear

in States’ statutory and regulatory language; based

on its analysis of 18 States, for example, EPA

concluded that there was relatively little coverage of

mineral processing wastes under existing State

hazardous and solid waste rules (127).

Additional analyses across all relevant States are

necessary to evaluate the adequacy of environmental

controls imposed on mining facilities; the extent to

which permits contain relevant regulatory conditions; the availability of sufficient State personnel;

the quality of inspections and adequacy of enforcement actions; and the scope of financial responsibility requirements (e.g., for postclosure care, reclamation, corrective action, and financial adequacy) .53

One possibility is to have independent, publicly

available audits of State regulatory and enforcement

programs, perhaps following federally set guidelines

for audits.

Whether gold heap leaching is adequately regulated has received news media attention (e.g., ref. 2).

However, the WGA and others note that most

affected States (e.g., California, Idaho, Nevada,

Oregon) have specific regulations on heap leaching,

including requirements for liners, monitoring, and

structural stability analyses (139; also see box 2-A).54

Nevada, with the largest concentration of gold and

silver mining operations, requires impermeable

barriers such as liners for new impoundments and

other units; groundwater monitoring and remediation; and design and maintenance of tailings ponds,

heap pads, and other units so that they are nonthreatening to wildlife.

Departments of Interior and Agriculture

Several land management agencies in the U.S.

Department of the Interior (i.e., Bureau of Land

Management and National Park Service) and the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (i.e., U.S. Forest

Service) regulate mining development and waste

management on Federal lands.55 The relationships

among these agencies (especially BLM), EPA, and

the States are important because most current

mining in the western United States, and potentially

most future mining or oil and gas development, is on

Federal lands. OTA is unaware, however, of systematic analyses of the implementation and effectiveness of BLM, National Park Service, and Forest

Service mining regulations.56

BLM regulates hard rock mining activities on

Federal lands under statutes such as the 1872 Mining

Law and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).57 BLM’s actions are also subject

sq~eWGAandJMCC are con~~g their smeys and attempting to develop such analyses. The Environmental Law hstilute (22), witi agr~tfrom

EPA, is studying regulatory programs in 10 States to determine the quality and efilcacy of various approaches to regulating mining wastes.

54~so breed on: WGA, review cements, Jan. 23, 1991; J-p. Stone, BOM, review comments, Jan. 25, 1~1. me WGAdid nOte that dump leaching,

which is common in copper mining, is potentially less well controlled, although it is becoming subject to more State regulations.

55’f’he Bmeau of ~dim ~fis, B~eau of Mines, and Bmeau of R~lamation also administer some Federal tids with mining operations or conduct

operations at mining sites.

sb~e Natio~ Rmearch Council is evaluating BLM’s program for managing hazardous materials on Federal lands but has not released its findings

(61; R. Smythe, National Research Council, personal communication, Mar. 14, 1991). However, this program is distinct from BLM’s program for mining

development and mining waste, although internal coordination exists between the two programs, and all State and most district BLM offices have

hazardous materials coordinators assigned to minerals divisions or, recently, other organizational units (J. Craynon, BLM, personal communicatio~ May

14, 1991).

57~@s~tion fi~~uad ~ tie 102d Con=ess wo~d mend the_Law. S. 433 wo~d rquhe the BLM and tie Forest Senfice to revise hd

use plans to consider impacts ofmining on natural resources; to prohibit or restrict mining depending on the extent of the impacts; to require restoration

of the original landscape oncemining was complete~ and to establish a fund (similar to that for swface coal mines under SMCRA) for reclamation of

abandoned hard rock mining sites. The fund would be financed in part by “hoMing” fees paid by mining operators. H.R. 918 contains similar provisions,

although the reclamation fund would be f~ced slightly differently.
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 43

Table 2-4-interstate Mining Compact Commission Survey Data on

Non-Coal Mining Inspections

Number of inspections Number of regulated Number of acres

States per yeara mining operations under permita

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina ..,...... . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

293

10

768

111 (1 per site)

Unknown

7% to 10% of sites

N/A

N/A

5 per mine

900

N/A

N/R

400

40

150 to 200

N/A

1,100

N/A

N/R

842

N/R

100

40

600

35% of sites

N/R

N/R

N/R

N/A

Ail mines

Unknown

1,800

1,143

>12

2,100

3,987

600

2,865

N/R

2 per mine

1,200

1,120

24

80

N/A

2,471

800

2,400

4 per mine

1,300

312

450

867

111

1,600

2,005

N/A

N/A

38

526

N/A

N/R

132

6

1,600

N/A

172

N/A

N/R

380

N/R

120

13

275

700

N/R

694

N/R

N/A

100

400

2,400

780

1

808

495

620

1,462

N/R

530

2,000

128

3

184

N/A

663

1,200

100

5

822

6,943

Thousands

Unknown

5,473

Unknown

110,000

N/A

N/A

85,000

42,932

N/A

N/R

10,000

9,233

60,000

N/A

18,363

N/A

N/R

19,756

N/R

10,000

150,000

9,793

6,937

N/R

N/R

N/R

N/A

N/R

Unknown

25,500

100,000

40

26,962

20,014

4,143

62,475

N/R

15,000

10,000

N/R

3,873

19,426

Unknown

58,707

20,000

5,000

1,500

583,000

NOTE: Datadonotindicate ifa singlemining operationwasinspected morethan onceannually, nordothey indicate

whetherthe number of inspections includes inspections of all environmental media by all agencies having

responsibility over mining activities.

aNIA_notappl~able; NIR-noresponse toquestion.

SOURCE: interstate Mining Compact Commission, Mineral Resources Committee, ’’Non-Coal Mineral Resoumes

Questionnaire &Reportj’’Herndon, VA:May 1990.
44 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

to the procedural requirements of the 1969 National

Environmental Policy Act. BLM’s surface management regulations under FLPMA (43 CFR 3809)

establish three levels of mining activities-casual

use, surface disturbances of 5 acres or less, and

disturbances of more than 5 acres. For proposed

operations that would entail disturbances of more

than 5 acres per year, operators must submit a plan

that describes the operation, including waste management and reclamation. BLM must assess the

operation’s likely environmental impacts and approve the plan (104).58 For proposed operations that

would entail smaller disturbances, operators must

notify BLM and complete the reclamation of operations conducted under previous notices prior to

commencing new operations, but BLM approval of

the new operation is not required. BLM also

requires, at a minimum, quarterly inspection of

operations using cyanide, biannual inspection of

other producing operations, and biannual inspection

of nonproducing activities that result in a disturbance requiring reclamation (39); BLM considers this

policy as binding, although it has not issued formal

regulations. As with State programs, an independent

audit might provide an indication of the effectiveness of BLM’s enforcement efforts.

As part of its surface management program, BLM

issued a Cyanide Management Policy in 1990

requiring that all mining operations comply with the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s requirements to protect

migratory birds and other wildlife (103, 104, 105)

(also see box 2-A). The policy institutes bonding

requirements for all new operations using cyanide or

other toxic leaching solutions and phases in the

requirement for existing operations. Some aspects of

the policy are “discretionary” in that they may be

superseded by equivalent requirements in existing

State programs, including those of the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N’PDES).59

In July 1991, BLM proposed to amend its bonding

(i.e., financial guarantee) policies in the surface

management regulations.60 The proposed rule would

mandate submission of financial guarantees for all

operations greater than casual use, would create

additional financial instruments to satisfy this requirement, and would necessitate the filing of plans

of operations by operators with a record of noncompliance.61

BLM is also reviewing the status of reclamation

and the efficacy of different reclamation methods at

non-coal operations authorized and closed under its

surface management program, and is developing a

policy manual and technical handbook to address

reclamation issues (39).62 BLM intends that the

cyanide management, bonding, and reclamation

policies complement and reinforce each other.

The National Park Service is responsible, under

the 1976 National Park System Mining Activity Act,

for regulating mineral development on claims located under the 1872 Mining Law within park

boundaries.

The U.S. Forest Service requires mining operators

to submit a‘ ‘notice of intent to operate’ if proposed

activities on Forest Service lands might cause

surface disturbances. A proposed operating plan is

also required if the Forest Service judges that the

operations would cause ‘‘signitica.nt” surface disturbance; the plan must address operational impacts

and their management, and must include a reclamation plan for closure. All operations are required to

minimize environmental impacts to the extent feasible and to consider reclamation of disturbed lands.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), EPA can evaluate likely environmental

impacts from “major’ activities on Federal lands.

As provided by Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, for

example, EPA reviews BLM’s environmental impact assessments for proposed projects on BLM

lands. According to both agencies, EPA has accepted some BLM assessments and provided negative comments on others. In theory, conflicts be58some s~teS ~vemaormhof ~der~~~ @oUs) M~=S~tere@atoVmd Fed~ ~dzem~tagencies that am designed to assure

consistent and timely review of operating plans prior to commencement of the operation.

sg~e Gene@ ~cow~ offlm (GAO) (85) questioned whether BLM ~d the Forest Service ~ve adeq~te staffer resources to @eCt more ~

1.2 million active claims in support of their land management regulations. However, GAO (87) also concluded that BLM oversight and enforcement

had increased since the Cyanide Management Policy was issued.

@56 Federal Register 31602, J@’ 11, 1991.

61Bond -outs would~~ppdat$1,~per acre for exploration activities ~d $z,~ per acre for _activities. However, ~eXCeptiOIl tO

the caps would exist for those portions of operations that use cyanide or other leachates; bonds to cover IOOpercent ofreckunation costs would be required

for operators with cyanide operations.

GZJ. Crapon, BLM, personal communicatio~ my 14, 1991.
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 45

tween Federal agencies about NEPA assessments

can be adjudicated by the Council on Environmental

Quality.

Current RCRA Status of Extraction and

Beneficiation Wastes

In 1986, EPA concluded that universal application of current Subtitle C requirements to E&B

wastes was not warranted at that time.63 EPA’s

determination was supported by a U.S. Court of

Appeals as consistent with congressional intent.64

EPA instead decided to attempt to develop a

Subtitle D mining waste program (see figure 2-2).

B OX 2-B summarizes ‘‘Strawman II, ’ EPA’s May

1990 staff-level approach to a possible Subtitle D

program. However, EPA’s 1986 regulatory determination stated that it might still develop Subtitle C

regulations if an effective Subtitle D program could

not be developed-e. g., if State resources to develop

and implement programs or Federal oversight and

enforcement authority over State-implemented programs are inadequate. With respect to the latter, EPA

might use existing enforcement authority under

Section 7003 of RCRA and under Sections 104 and

106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to

respond to substantial threats and imminent hazards

to human health or the environment, but the Agency

questions whether this will be sufficient. EPA also

questions whether Section 4004(a) of RCRA provides it with authority to regulate storage impoundments, as opposed to disposal facilities such as

landfills and open dumps.

The WGA received $1.8 million from EPA in

order to provide grants to 20 States to: 1) analyze the

potential impacts on each State of a Strawman II

type of Federal mining regulatory approach; 2) fund

four special projects conducted by individual States

(e.g., on acid mine drainage, cyanide processes, and

inactive and abandoned mine sites); and 3) hold

meetings of mining States to discuss Federal approaches and to share regulatory ideas. In addition,

Figure 2-2—Regulatory Status of Mining Wastes

~~

Under RCRA

I Processing

Listed wastes )A

L 41

/

h

Characteristic wastes

Extraction and

benef iciation

’44’ wJ4 w 4 + 4 *

Hazardous ~Bevill exclusion wastes————i Unstudied

~~

TSCA Subtitle D

~

Subtitle D

7 (“Strawman II” or

other approach)

SOURCE: OTA, after C. McKinnon (Western Governors’ Association,

personal communication, Apr. 17, 1991).

EPA recently chartered a Policy Dialogue Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that

involves parties interested in mining waste issues.65

Current RCRA Status of Mineral

Processing Wastes

A 1988 court order directed EPA to narrow the

scope of mineral processing wastes covered by the

Bevill exclusion.66 In 1989 and 1990, EPA published final rules defining the “high-volume” and

‘‘low-hazard’ criteria by which such wastes were to

be identified.67 It identified 20 mineral processing

wastes that met the criteria (table 2-2; see “Waste

Generation” above). All other mineral processing

wastes (i.e., all non-Bevill wastes) are subject to

regulation as hazardous waste if they exhibit a

hazardous characteristic, are otherwise listed as a

hazardous waste, or are “mixed with” or “derived

from” a listed hazardous waste even if the mixture

6351 Federal Register 24496, July 3, 1986.

~EnyironrnentalDefenSe Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 852 F.2nd 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

6556 Federal Register 19358, Apr. 26, 1991.

66EnVironmnta1De fenSeFU& andHazardouS waste Treatment CoUnCil v. us, EnVirO~nral PrOreCtiOnAgen~, 852 F.2d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

6T54FederalRegister 36592, s~pt. 1, 1989; and 55 FederalRegister 2322, J~o 23, 1~. However, ~ese des we Udercwmge hlthe D.C. Cir@t

Court of Apperds (Solite Corporation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civil No. 89-1629).
46 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 2-B—EPA’S “Strawman II” Strategy

EPA’s 1990 staff-level “Strawman II” document (124) outlined a possible Subtitle D program for mining

wastes-including extraction and beneficiation (E&B) wastes; mineral processing wastes that either remain within

the Bevill exclusion or are non-Bevill, non-Subtitle C wastes commingled with E&B wastes; active heap and dump

leaching operations and associated leaching solutions; mine water mill tailings; and stockpiled or subgrade ores.

This group of “regulated materials” and “regulated units” is broader than the one addressed by the 1985 Report

(111) and subsequent regulatory determinations. The strategy applies only to active units (new and existing), not

to closed, inactive, or abandoned units (unless they are reactivated after the program’s compliance date or a State

includes them in its own program).

EPA intended Strawman II to be a tailored, risk-based strategy that would allow the Agency and the States to

respond to site-specific conditions. Major features included:

. EPA codification of a State management plan that meets Agency requirements (e.g., coordination with

Federal and State agencies; procedures to comply with Federal technical criteria; permits with enforceable

standards, reviewed every 5 years; public participation), after which the State would have primacy in

implementing and enforcing the plan;

. limited EPA oversight and enforcement in codified States (with intervention based on “triggers’ ‘), but

broader EPA authority to develop State plans and to issue and enforce permits in noncodified States;

. State numerical performance standards for groundwater (e.g., for parameters such as acid generation,

radioactivity, asbestos, and cyanide levels for specific mining industries) or Federal standards, such as

maximum contaminant levels, for groundwater used as drinking water;

● minimum Federal technical criteria for groundwater protection (e.g., design and operating standards,

performance standards, monitoring, closure and postclosure care, financial responsibility, corrective action);

and

● a multimedia approach, with States expected to incorporate site-specific performance standards (e.g., State

water quality standards for surface waters) into permits.

The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) (139), American Mining Congress (AMC) (3), the Department

of Interior (DOI), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) (101) each criticized Strawman II for various reasons,

several of which were common to all critiques:

● providing overly prescriptive requirements, rather than guidance, for the development of State plans;

o hposing dorm technic~ criteria (e.g., cm monitoringand inspection frequency, permit lengths, closure

periods) that restrict States’ flexibility to address site-specific conditions and might disrupt existing State

programs;

. proposing overly broad triggers for EPA oversight of State programs, particularly for intervention in permit

issuance and enforcement; and

. failing to distinguish between existing and new facilities, other than to grant a 5-year compliance period for

the former.

The AMC, DOI, and USDA also criticized Strawman II for: 1) imposing performance standards and monitoring

requirements on environments (air, soil, surface water) already regulated under Federal and State statutes other than

or derivation does not exhibit a hazardous character- others (noted in “Risks from Mining Waste Manistic. 68 agement” above) possibly under Subtitle C. EPA

In its 1990 Report, EPA suggested two ap- concluded that the economic impacts of full Subtitle

preaches to regulating these Bevill wastes: 1) C regulation probably would not be significant for

regulate all 20 under a State-implemented Subtitle D hydrofluoric acid process wastewater but would be

program, or 2) regulate 16 under Subtitle D and 4 for the other three wastes that might warrant Subtitle

68~A ~rom~g~t~ ]~d diSpoS~ ~eS~ctiom ~d ~eatment rqi.rements for hazardous wastes in 1990 (55 Fedemlk?gisw22520, June 1S 1990)

(also see ch. 5).
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 47

RCRA; and 2) expanding the universe of regulated materials to include process materials (e.g., from leaching

operations), exploration wastes, mine water, stockpiled and subgrade ores, and tailings.1

DOI and USDA also criticized EPA for failure to address: 1) the possibility that Federal agencies (such as

BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs) could be held jointly liable, on the basis of their trustee

or leaseholder status for Federal lands, for compliance with remedial action requirements under CERCLA (also see

ref. 53); 2) the manner in which Strawman II would be coordinated with existing regulations of these agencies for

mining on Federal land; and 3) the way that State responsibilities would be carried out on Federal lands, in concert

with BLM and Forest Service surface reclamation requirements. To underscore differences between mining and

other wastes, DOI has supported a Federal program of State-based management under legislative authority separate

from Subtitle D, possibly as a separate RCRA subtitle (39, 137).

Environmental groups represented by the Environmental Mining Network (23) generally do not believe that

States will design and enforce effective regulatory programs. They would like to see a Subtitle D program with

stronger oversight authorities for EPA and increased public participation provisions. They favor performance-based

design standards (as opposed to risk-based standards) to limit releases; a multimedia approach; greater specification

of the required technical components of State programs (e.g., regarding design, operation, monitoring, closure,

postclosure); minimum reclamation standards to ensure effective closures; and stronger financial responsibility

requirements, as well as enforcement standards for these requirements.

Considerable disagreement exists on whether materials in heap and dump leaching operations should be

regulated under RCRA. The WGA believes they should be regulated from the beginning of the process, because

they typically are not relocated for treatment and disposal after leaching and a leach pad or dump must be properly

designed before it is built to effectively regulate subsequent disposal. The AMC disagrees, contending that these

production processes should not be subject to EPA statutory authority and furthermore, are already subject to State

water quality regulations. However, DOI and USDA suggested that heap and dump leaching operations might be

unique enough for regulation of a production process to be justified, and that RCRA be modified to allow EPA to

address processes or materials. Another possibility is regulation under Section 6(b)(2) of TSCA, which addresses

manufacturing quality control issues.

With respect to pollution prevention, EPA suggested that the costs of monitoring, corrective action, closure,

postclosure care, and financial responsibility requirements in Strawman II would encourage operators to undertake

measures prior to disposal that reduce the risks posed by mining wastes. The Environmental Mining Network (23),

however, felt that Strawman II fell short in this area and recommended that EPA include specific provisions to

promote pollution prevention—for example, establishing pollution prevention performance standards; requiring

owners/operators to identify prevention technologies and demonstrate that they will use the technologies unless

such use is infeasible; imposing permit fees proportional to waste volume, toxicity, and environmental degradation;

and requiring owners/operators to report prevention measures undertaken. These provisions would require that EPA

be given statutory authority under RCRA to regulate production.

IAMC wnte~ that mine waters are sufllciently regulated under existing State programs and that tailings W@ for co~~ction or

agricultural pulposes do not present a threat and need not be regulated under Subtitle D. DOI and USDA contend that mine waters are

appropriately addressed under the Clean Water Act. AMC ako believes that all relevant mining wastes (i.e., E&B wastes, non-Bevill mined

processing wastes) should be subject to a single Subtitle D program rather than to several different R(XU programs that apply simultaneously

to individual facilities.

C regulation.69 EPA also concluded that it lacks ing wastes should be classified as hazardous. They

authority to adopt or enforce a Federal program if a also disagree on the design of a Federal program for

State fails to adopt and enforce its own program. these wastes. The AMC (4) contends that Bevill

As noted above (see “Risks From Mining Waste processing wastes are controlled by other State and

Management”), the AMC and environmental Federal regulatory programs; it favors continued

groups disagree about whether any mineral process- development of State programs, with any Federal

6~e~c (AJ ~dDOI ~d U.S. r)ep~e~t of A@-~~e (101, 102) contend tittie costs of Subtifle C re@tionwo~d be~eater than estimated

by EPA, forexamplebecause of corrective action requirements tbat would subject miningoperations to Subtitle C land disposal restrictions and minimum

technical requirements. Environmental groups (60) assert that corrective action requirements might be equally expensive under either Subtitle C or D.
48 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

program being very flexible and focused on sitespecific conditions. Environmental groups (60) contend that although some States are improving their

mining regulations, progress is uneven, damages are

still occurring at active facilities, and there is no

evidence that States in general will adequately

regulate processing wastes in the immediate future.

In June 1991, EPA determined that it would not

regulate any Bevill processing wastes under Subtitle

C and instead plans to address 18 of them under

Subtitle D (see figure 2-2).70 For the other two

wastes, phosphogypsum and phosphoric acid process wastewater, EPA is considering developing

regulations under TSCA (see figure 2-2), including

addressing waste minimization in the production

process and using existing authorities under RCRA

Section 7003 or CERCLA Section 106 to address

substantial and imminent hazards arising from their

management.71 Although the State of Florida (where

most phosphogypsum production occurs) has drafted

proposed regulations requiring, for example, that

phosphogypsum stacks be constructed with composite liners and leachate collection systems (29), EPA

believes that a more stringent regulatory approach is

necessary. In the rulemaking, EPA also postponed

considering a possible ban on the use of slag from

elemental phosphorus production in construction or

land reclamation.

Other EPA Statutory Authority

EPA implements other Federal laws that affect

mining waste, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA), Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and

possibly the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Mining operations, especially those involving remining and cleanup of inactive and abandoned sites, are

also affected by potential liabilities under CERCLA

(see next section).

In comments to OTA, many industry representatives contend that the combined coverage of these

statutes, along with programs of other Federal

agencies such as BLM and of the States, is sufficient

to address issues not strictly covered under RCRA.

This appears to be true in terms of general statutory

coverage, but with some major exceptions such as

protection of groundwater, control of nonpoint

source pollution, regulation of heap and dump

leaching operations, and regulation of inactive and

abandoned mine sites. Of course, the question of

adequate Federal and State enforcement of existing

regulations under these statutes always looms. In

addition, EPA believes that existing programs for

groundwater, surface water, air, and soil do not

always provide the requisite authority to address

specific risks associated with mining wastes (124).

As a result, EPA’s Strawman II approach for E&B

wastes proposed that States incorporate site-specific

multimedia requirements into mining permits (see

box 2-B).

Clean Water Act

Under the Clean Water Act, effluent discharges of

pollutants from a point source into navigable waters

are legal only if the operator has obtained an NPDES

permit.72 These permits specify compliance conditions (such as applicable effluent guidelines, water

quality-based effluent limitations, best management

practices). Technology-based effluent guidelines

have been established for 10 mining commodity

sectors (of the 12 covered in the 1990 Report) for

existing sources and for 9 sectors for new sources

(127). 73 In general, the NPDES process is implemented by the States with Federal oversight, although in some cases EPA is the primary permitting

authority. OTA is unaware of analyses of the scope

of the guidelines or the enforcement of mining

discharge permits.74

m56 Federal Register 27300, June 13, 1991.

71EpA ~~nClud~ tit management of these wastes poses potential health and environmental problems and that more stringent regulation (including

possible Subtitle C regulation) is both necessary and desirable. However, EPA also concluded that regulation under a modified Subtitle C or Subtitle

D program would cause economic hardships for, and threaten the continued viability of, several facilities in the fertilizer industry.

TzDisc~ges of solids may require a dredge and fdl permit under Section 404 of the Cl- Water Act.

TaFor new sowc=, the Wideties ~i~ly: 1) prohibit the discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters, ad 2) specify ~lowable

concentrations of substances (e.g., dissolved iron, total suspended solids, various metals depending on the categoxy of mining) in mine drainage. In the

absence of effluent guidelines, the permitting authority (EPA or the State) will establish technology-based effluent limitations based on “best

professional judgment.’ Water quality-based effluent limitations are established whenever technology-based limitations are insufilcient to protect water

quality.

74~DES e~orumatdewnds Onthe efistenceof ~propfite Feder~waterq~ty criteria ~d subsequent Stiteuseof these critenato develop water

quality standards (92).
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 49

EPA also has promulgated regulations defining

which entities must apply for a NPDES permit for

stormwater discharges.75 For mining operations, a

permit application is required when discharges of

stormwater runoff come in contact with any overburden, raw material, intermediate or finished product,

byproduct, or waste product located on-site. This

includes inactive mining sites that have an identifiable owner/operator.76 Deadlines for the permitting

process have not been reached, so it is too early to

ascertain the effectiveness of the regulations.77 DOI,

however, has already concluded that the regulations

cannot be effectively implemented, based on its

concerns about the inclusion of abandoned mines

and landfills; the complexity of the general permit

process, particularly with respect to States with

primacy to develop and implement regulations; the

potentially higher costs being imposed on the

affected community and on the Department’s programs than those estimated by EPA; and apparent

conflicts with DOI’s obligations under the Historic

Preservation Act (64).

Mineral processing facilities that discharge effluents into publicly owned treatment works are subject

to “pretreatment” standards. For the mining industry, pretreatment standards have been developed for

new sources in the bauxite, copper, lead, and zinc

sectors and for existing sources in the lead and zinc

sectors (127). However, although much success has

been demonstrated in implementation and enforcement of the pretreatment program in general, major

areas for improvement were delineated in a recent

EPA report on pretreatment (133a).

Safe Drinking Water Act

The SDWA requires EPA to set drinking water

regulations and Maximum Contaminant Levels for

toxic water contaminants, to regulate underground

injection of wastes to protect groundwater, and to

protect sole source aquifers. SDWA regulates injection wells from the wellhead down but does not

regulate surface activities associated with injection

wells. In general, wells used for injection of hazardous wastes, including waste from in situ leaching,

are regulated as Class I wells. RCRA does give EPA

the authority to regulate Subtitle D disposal facilities

and Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment, storage,

or disposal facilities. However, EPA lacks authority

under Subtitle D to prevent groundwater contamination from production facilities (unless a demonstrable hydrologic link exists between surface water,

which EPA can regulate, and groundwater) and may

lack authority to regulate impoundments used for

storage of Subtitle D wastes at injection sites (see

‘‘Current RCRA Status of Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes’ above).

Clean Air Act

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has issued National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter and NESHAPS for radionuclide emissions from the stacks of elemental phosphorus plants

and phosphogypsum stacks78 and inorganic arsenic

emissions from primary copper smelters. The Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 expanded the list of

hazardous air pollutants to be considered by EPA

and required the Agency to develop emissions

performance standards for major emitters of these

pollutants. It is thus conceivable that some mining

operations will be subject to additional regulations

(e.g., for fine mineral fibers, or for beryllium

compounds, asbestos, and radionuclides from sources

other than those currently regulated). Whether these

regulations will cover toxic pollutants in fugitive

dust is unknown; EPA (124) noted that State

Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act

typically do not address this source at mining sites.

Toxic Substances Control Act

Under TSCA (e.g., Section 6), EPA has authority

to regulate the production, use, and disposal of

specific chemical substances. The possible application of TSCA to the use of sodium cyanide in gold

heap leaching operations is discussed in box 2-A.

Application of TSCA to processing wastes, such as

wastewater from phosphoric acid production and

gypsum processing, is also being considered (see

“Current RCRA Status of Mineral Processing

Wastes” above).

7555 Federal Register 47990, NOV. 16, 1990; 56 Federal Register 12098, ~. 21, 191.

76~e re~tiom exclude active or ~ctive cod mining operations tbat have been reclaimed under SMCIU, and active or inactive non-coal mining

operations that have been reclaimed under similar applicable State or Federal laws.

77~ additiom tie ~eficm -gCoWess ad o~er petitioners ~ve c~enged tie stormwater mgu~tions in tie U.S. COW of Apptds fOr the

Ninth Circuit (5).

7854 Federal Register 51674, Dec. 15, 19*9.
50 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Inactive and Abandoned Mine Sites,

CERCLA, and RCRA

Virtually all parties believe that remediation of

problems at inactive and abandoned non-coal mines

is a major issue. A study by the Western Interstate

Energy Board (140) collated anecdotal evidence of

environmental, public health, and safety problems

associated with these mines, but noted that the

nature of the problems and potential reclamation

costs are largely unknown. Based on the study, the

total number of sites is probably well over 140,000.

For example, Arizona estimated 80,000 sites, and

Colorado, Montana, and Texas each estimated more

than 20,000 sites; however, definitions of abandoned sites differ among the States. The WGA,

AMC, IMCC, and Western Interstate Energy Board

are gathering additional data on these sites (140).79

These facilities generally are not subject to

Federal regulations, except for the new stormwater

requirements (see “Clean Water Act” above) or if

a specific site is on the NPL for cleanup and

remediation under CERCLA.80 One related issue is

what will happen to the many sites that may be

having environmental impacts but are not on Federal

or State Superfund lists.

Moreover, CERCLA may inhibit remining and

cleaning up inactive and abandoned sites, contrary to

the ‘resource recovery’ goal of RCRA. Technological advances in processing and increases in market

prices have made remining and reprocessing of

wastes at such sites more feasible. However, operators may not undertake such efforts because of

potential liabilities under Superfund for past environmental problems at these sites and because of the

costs of conducting remining in compliance with

future Subtitle D regulations for new facilities (3,49,

101, 130, 139, 140). In addition, Federal land

management agencies fear that they might be held

liable for compliance with remedial action requirements under CERCLA.

EPA, WGA, and DOI are investigating policy

options for encouraging remining of inactive and

abandoned mines, including changes in existing

CERCLA regulations.81 AMC (3) recommended

removing CERCLA liabilities for exploration activities, which are necessary to evaluate the feasibility

of remining, if the activities do not exacerbate

existing problems; one reviewer recommended that

EPA expand its NPL deferral policy to cover mining

waste sites and allow delisting from the NPL of

mining sites that meet eventual Subtitle D design,

operation, and corrective action requirements.82

EPA did not include these sites in Strawman II

(see box 2-B) because it believes that RCRA does

not provide the authority or funding mechanisms to

adequately address cleanup problems at the sites,

although the Agency can use RCRA Section 7003

and CERCLA authorities to deal with significant,

imminent threats to human health and the environment. EPA also lacks sufficient data on the number,

location, characteristics, and potential risks of these

sites to implement and enforce technical criteria.

WGA (139) and AMC (3) agreed that inactive

abandoned mine sites should not be covered in

Strawman II but did not suggest alternative approaches. WGA, however, agreed that remediation

of these sites is important; it is sponsoring a study

(through the grants described in “Current RCRA

Status of Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes”

above) on the scope of environmental, public health,

and safety problems associated with them and on

potential policy options for addressing the problems

(140).83 WGA also questioned whether RCRA is the

appropriate statute for cleanup efforts at such sites.84

In contrast, environmental groups recommend

that Strawman II include inactive units at active

facilities and inactive facilities at which the owner/

T9wGA, review ~mments, J~. 23, 1991+

~Au~ofi~ ~fi~ts ~der SMCRA for s~te~ tit ~ve completed work on l~ds fied for coal to use ~ds available under SMCRA’S Abandoned

Mine Lands Fund for cleanup and remediation of metal and industrial mineral mine sites, although the funding source is coal mining (funds derived from

a tax on coal production are distributed to the States for reclamation projects) and priority generally is given to coal lands and coal mining States (R.D.

Andrews, Boulder Innovative lkchnologies, personal communication, Apr. 16, 1991; J.P. Stone, BOM, personal emnmunicatioq Apr. 12, 1991).

81ALS0 see box 5-B inch. 5 regarding recycling at smelters of sludges from manufacturing processes.

%. Crozier, Phelps Dodge Corp., personal C0111111uIlk2tiOIL Mar. 6, 1991.

83~c (3) did not ~ectly ~&a5 how t. de~ ~i~ such sites, o~er ~ to encourage m~l~tion of RCRA ~d C.ERCLA liability provisions tO

remove disincentives for remining.

~As noted fi foo~ote 57, le@.s~tion ~~odu~d fi me l~d Conwss to mend tie -g~wwo~d au~orim afid forrmtition of abandoned

hard-rock mining sites.
Chapter 2-Mining Wastes ● 51

operator is known, and that EPA retain CERCLA

liability for new contamination (23). They believe

that inactive units at active sites might be appropriately included in a mining waste regulatory program

to: 1) avoid the need to identify whether contamination at a site originated from an active or inactive

unit, which can be an expensive and complex

undertaking; and 2) ensure that owners/operators are

not encouraged to close problem sites simply to

avoid corrective action obligations.

ISSUES/QUESTIONS

Congress could consider several major issues and

questions that are specific to mining wastes or that

address the relationship between mining and other

wastes, as part of oversight hearings or the RCRA

reauthorization process. These include but are not

necessarily limited to the following:

●

●

Relationships Among Federal Statutes and

Programs-What are the most appropriate

Federal statutory vehicles for regulating mining wastes? How should relationships among

statutes such as RCRA, TSCA, the Clean Water

Act, the Mining Law, FLPMA, and others be

coordinated? Are EPA, BLM, and U.S. Forest

Service efforts to regulate mining wastes on

Federal lands consistent with each other and

coordinated with existing State regulatory programs? Should BLM and the Forest Service be

given additional directions on the nature of

surface mining waste regulations? Should EPA

develop a multimedia approach within a RCRA

Subtitle D mining program?

Relationships Among Federal and State Agencies—what degree of primacy does Congress

wish States to have in managing mining

wastes? Within RCRA, for example, should

EPA continue developing a State-implemented

Subtitle D program (i.e., States develop their

own regulations with Federal oversight and

enforcement), focus instead on simply providing technical and financial assistance to individual State programs, or switch to developing

●

●

●

●

a Federal Subtitle D program (i.e., EPA sets

forth basic requirements that States must implement)? Does EPA need additional oversight

and enforcement authority (and, if so, what

types) to support an effective State-implemented Subtitle D program? How should EPA

regulate existing, as opposed to new, units?

Resources for Administration and Enforcement of Programs-Are existing resources

sufficient to administer and enforce Federal and

State mining waste regulatory programs? If not,

what mechanisms are available to provide such

resources? Should independent audits be conducted to assess how effectively various Federal and State regulations are being enforced?

Regulation of Inactive and Abandoned Mining Sites-Should Congress establish new

mechanisms and funding for cleanup of inactive and abandoned non-coal mining sites and

if so, under the auspices of what agency or

agencies? Should CERCLA be modified to

allow the waiver of liability-related disincentives for remining old sites? Does EPA have

sufficient authority to regulate new operations

at such sites?

Regulation of Mining Production Processes

Should EPA be given authority under RCRA to

regulate mining production processes (e.g.,

active heap and dump leaching operations,

stockpiled ores) that exhibit some linkage with

subsequent waste management? Would TSCA

(Section 6) be a more appropriate statutory

vehicle for regulating production processes?

Should wastes from phosphoric acid production be regulated under TSCA in lieu of RCRA?

How could EPA enhance the prospects of

pollution prevention/waste reduction?

Adequacy of Existing Toxicity Tests-Are

existing toxicity tests such as the EP and TC

adequate to determine the potential for longterm leaching and migration of contaminants

from mining wastes?
Chapter 3

Coal Combustion Utility Wastes
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ... ... ... ... ... ... ... o.. .**. ... ... ... ..*. ... *.. .$*. .*. **. **. c*e 55

WASTE GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Relative Use of Impoundments and Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Recycling and Waste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

RISKS FROM COAL COMBUSTION WASTE MANAGEMENT ...................59

CURRENT REGULATORY PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Current RCRA Status of Coal Combustion Wastes ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

State Coal Combustion Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

ISSUES/QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Figure

Figure Page

3-1. Typical Stages in the Life of a Surface Impoundment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table

Table Page

3-1. Methods of Handling, Treating, and Disposing of Low-Volume Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Chapter 3

Coal Combustion Utility Wastes

INTRODUCTION

As with mining and oil and gas wastes, the 1980

Bevill amendment to the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) exempted wastes resulting

from the combustion of fossil fuels from regulation

as hazardous wastes until the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a Report to

Congress on the adverse effects, if any, of these

wastes and determined whether hazardous waste

regulation was indeed warranted.1 The amendment

included utility wastes in this special category

because of congressional concern that the imposition of unnecessary and costly regulation could

reduce the use of coal as a fuel source and thereby

increase the Nation’s reliance on foreign energy

sources (134). EPA’s subsequent Report to Congress covered only wastes from the combustion of

coal by the electric utility industry because these

wastes were believed to account for 90 percent of all

wastes generated by the combustion of fossil fuels

(118).

Coal combustion utility wastes consist of “highvolume’ wastes produced directly from coal combustion and “low-volume” wastes formed during

equipment maintenance and water purification processes. The high-volume wastes include:

●

●

●

●

fly ash—smaller ash particles entrained by the

flue gas and generally captured in the air

pollution control device;

bottom ash—larger ash particles that settle on

the bottom of the boiler;

boiler slag—bottom ash that has melted and

reformed into a solid; and

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludgesludge generated when sulfur dioxide is removed from other flue gases.

Low-volume wastes include boiler and cooling

tower blowdown (i.e., boiler water removed from

ash or sludge), coal pile runoff, demineralizer

regenerants and rinses, boiler cleaning wastes,

pyrites, and sump effluents. They are generated in

smaller quantities than high-volume wastes, although some (e.g., cooling tower blowdown) can be

generated in substantial amounts (118).2 In contrast

to high-volume wastes, many low-volume wastes

are also produced periodically at each plant rather

than on a continuous basis (e.g., boilers may be

cleaned, hence boiler cleaning waste produced, only

once every 2 to 3 years).3

About 10 percent of the amount of coal burned

remains in the form of ash.4 More than 95 percent of

all ash (i.e., fly ash, bottom ash, and bottom slag)

produced by utilities is composed of oxides of

silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium (1 18). Ash also

contains many other trace elements that vary by type

and level depending on ash particle size, source of

the coal, and other factors; these elements can

include arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, and selenium, among

others. Many are in the form of oxides tied up in

complex silicates.

The composition of FGD sludge depends in part

on the reagent used to absorb sulfur dioxide from the

gas (e.g., lime or limestone, sodium hydroxide, or

sodium sulfate). In addition, FGD sludge can

contain oxides and trace elements derived from fly

ash that is caught in air pollution control scrubbers;

the type and concentration of trace elements would

reflect their levels in the ash. FGD sludge maybe of

more concern than ash because of higher concentrations of sulfur and other contaminants. Implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will

significantly increase the amount of FGD sludge

requiring disposal.

Low-volume cleaning wastes can contain signifi

cant levels of trace elements like lead and cleaning

reagents such as chlorides, algicides, and phenols.

1RCIL4 Sec. 3001(b)(3)(A).

?I’he Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), review comments, Feb. 22, 1991.

SK. L.adwig, Wisconsin Electric Power Co., personal cmnrnunicatiom Feb. 28, 1991.

4USWAG (review ~o-en~, Feb. 22, 1991) ~dicate~ tit ash con~nt us~y is between 8 ~d 10 percent, wh~em EPA (119) indicated thtit mh

content generally is more than 10 percent.

–55–
56 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

WASTE GENERATION

EPA estimated that coal-burning utilities account

for 90 percent of the wastes produced by fossil fuel

combustion in the industry (118). EPA provided two

estimates for quantities of coal combustion wastes—

85 million tons and 1 billion tons—that differ

primarily in the inclusion of wastewater in the

higher estimates The Utility Solid Waste Activities

Group (USWAG), which represents most of the

electric generation industry,6 believes that the estimate of 85 million tons of high-volume wastes is

more accurate. The industry explains that water is

added simply to facilitate management of the wastes

and should not be included in measurements of

waste generation because it is either discharged to

surface water under a National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit or recycled

back to the electricity generating process; it is not

disposed of in surface impoundments.7 Furthermore,

the industry has stated that the water does not add to

the potential toxicity of the waste. 8 However,

discharges to surface waters may contain trace

elements derived from the ash or from FGD sludge.9

CURRENT MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES

Coal combustion wastes can be treated, stored, or

disposed of either in landfills or in surface impoundments (see figure 3-l). In general, coal ash and other

wastes are sluiced into a surface impoundment

where the solids settle out, leaving relatively clear

water at the surface. The solids may accumulate in

Photo credit: Electric Power Research Institute

Surface impoundment at coal-fired electric utility.

the surface impoundment until it is full, or they may

be dredged periodically and taken to another disposal site such as a landfill (118). The water in the

impoundment is often discharged to surface water,

with or without treatment, under a NPDES permit;

95 percent of all coal combustion utilities have

NPDES permits. Approximately 20 percent of all

surface impoundments recirculate sluice water back

to the combustion process.l0 Ash and flue gas

desulfurization sludges are generally disposed of in

landfills after they are generated or after they have

been dredged from surface impoundments (118).

Most low-volume wastes are disposed of in

landfills or surface impoundments. Some are codisposed with ash or FGD sludge, sometimes with

treatment such as neutralization. USWAG believes

SFirst, EPA ~~ted in its Re~rt to Congress that coal-f~ed powerplants generated 85 million tons of wastes in 1984-about 69 million tom of

all types of ash and 16 million tons of FGD sludge (118). EPA expected the quantities of ash and FGD sludge to increase to 120 million tons and 50

million tons per year, respectively, by the year 2000, due to increased dependence on coal for electricity production. These quantities do not include the

weight of wastewater used to sluice the ash and FGD sludge into surface impoundments. Also, EPA did not estimate the quantities of low-volume

cleaning and maintenance wastes. Seeond, EPA conducted a screening survey of industrial Subtitle D facilities (116). For the eleetric power generation

industry (Standard Industrial Classification C~e 491 1), EPA estimated that almost 4,000 establishments produced nearly 1 billion tons of waste in 1985

(1 16). This quantity includes the weight of wastewater used to sluice ash into surface impoundments from the boilers and other wastewater involved

in the coal combustion process. It also includes all eleetric power generating facilities, not just those burnin g coal. Although EPA is not certain how the

data in the two studies are related, it appears that wastes from the appmximately 500 coal-burnin g electric utilities included in the Report to Congress

(1 18) would be included among the electric power generation industry wastes in the screening survey (R. Tonetti, U.S. EPA, personal communieatiorL

August 1990).

GUSWAG is ~ tio~~mofiu ~mws~ of tie li!dison Eleetric Institute, the American Public Power Assoeiationj the National Rural Ek$ctric

Cooperative Association, and approximately 75 electric utility operating compauies. Together, USWAG members represent more than 85 percent of the

total electric generating capacity of the United States.

71ssues such as ~ese @w ~to ~estion tie v~di~ ~d compmabili~ of genemtion es~~tes across different hdus~es ad ShldieS. Thk3 IIUly SkO

meau that some RCRA-exempted wastes are included in the total volume of Subtitle D manufacturing wastes estimated by the screening survey.

8USWAG, review cements, Feb. ’22, 1991,

gAdditio~ FGD sludge ~~ l&ely ~ generated as facilities comply ~~ new emission s~dmds rqfied in tie 1990 cl&uI h Ad (CA4)

Amendments. The effects of the clean coal technologies and new emission standards in the CAA Amendments on the generation and management of

coal combustion wastes have not been fully assessed.

10J. R~wer, Edison Electric Institute, personal commticatiou APfl 1991.
Chapter 3-Coal Combustion Utility Wastes ● 57

Figure 3-l-Typical Stages in the Life of a Surface Impoundment

hi

Active pond

Slurried \ I — Effluent

coal waste

\

,,,,, ,,,,: s~ttied’ “~ol i~S’~{”~~~~\jjj~ {~j{;,j::{:,,:,,.,,.,,, ,,

, ,. . :.. :.,’... . . , . . . . . . ., . .: . . .“ . . ,., : ., (..... .,$ . “.. ” ..,.,:.:, .. ...,: ,. ,., ,,, ;

. . . . . . ., . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ,., ..:

Closed storage pond

(with wastes removed)

WY kw)(fw+flw’kv

Closed disposal pond

(with wastes remaining)

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Wastes From the Combustion of Coa/ by Eleetric Utility Power Plants,

EPA/530-SW-88-O02 (Washington, DC: February 1988).

that about 30 percent of utilities codispose high- and

low-volume wastes; however, this does not indicate

the volume of waste codisposed. Table 3-1 lists

different management scenarios for typical lowvolume wastes (118). No estimates are available on

the amount of low-volume wastes that are handled as

hazardous by the utilities and sent off-site for

management. 11 

Clay or other liners may lower the rate at which

leachate is released from impoundments. As of the

mid-1980s, however, only 25 percent of all units—

including about 40 percent of landfills and 13

percent of surface impoundments-for which information was available had some type of liner (118).12

Of the generating units built since 1975,40 percent

had liners; 60 percent of units built since 1975 that

handled FGD sludge had liners. EPA estimated that

only about 15 percent of all units had leachate

collection systems and about 35 percent had groundwater monitoring systems. The extent to which

liners, leachate controls, and groundwater monitoring occur at today’s waste management units is

unknown.

IIKO ~~g, wixom~ Ekxf& power Co., personal comnnmicatio~ Feb. 28, 1991.

1~. 1 discmses ~remnt-ey (33) of Stite r@aents for lfiers at non--dous indus~ w~te l~dfiis; tie WUVey dati do not distin@h

landfiils that accept only coal combustion wastes from kmdfiis that accept a broader range of Subtitle D solid wastes.
58 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Table 3-l—Methods of Handling, Treating, and Disposing of Low-Volume Wastes

Low-volume waste Treatment Predominant disposal method

Waterside cleaning

waste

Fireside cleaning waste

Air preheater cleaning

wastes

Coal pile runoff

Wastewater treatment

Makeup water

treatment

Cooling tower basin

sludge

Demineralize

regenerants

Pyrite wastes

If organic chelating agents are used,

waste can be incinerated. If acids are

used, waste is often neutralized and

metals are precipitated with lime and

flocculants.

Sometimes neutralized and precipitated.

For coal-fired plants, most often

diverted to ash ponds without

treatment. If metal content is high,

chemical coagulation and settling are

used.

Settling in ash pond; neutralized and

coagulated if combined with other

streams before treatment.

Neutralized by diverting to alkaline ash

pond. Fine coal material caught in

perimeter ditch is often diverted back

to coal pile.

Usually ponded with ash or as a separate

waste. Sometimes solids redisposed

with bottom ash.

Usually codisposed in ash pond.

Very little information; infrequent waste.

Sludge commingled with wastewater

treatment sludge.

Equalized in tanks, then commingled into

ash ponds.

Disposed in landfills with bottom ash or

diverted to ash pond.

1. Codisposal with highvolume wastes in pond or

Iandfill following treatment

2. Disposal by contractor

1. Codisposal with highvolume wastes in pond

without treatment

2. Pending following treatment

1. Codisposal in pond without

treatment

2, Pending with treatment

1. Codisposal of sludge in

landfill after treatment

2. Codisposal in ash pond

1. Pending

2. Landfilling

1. Codisposal in pond

1. Landfilling

1. Pending

1. Pending

2. Landfilling

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Wastes From the Combustion of Coal by

Electric Uti/ity Power P/ants, EPA/530-SW-88-O02 (Washington, DC: February 1988).

Relative Use of Impoundments and Landfills

According to EPA, 80 percent of coal combustion

waste from utilities in 1984 was treated, stored, or

disposed of in land-based management units (1 18).

The remaining 20 percent was reused in various

ways. Disposed materials were most often managed

in surface impoundments (also called ‘‘wet ponds’

and landfills. Based on data for 1,094 electricity

generating units (including non-coal-burning units)

for which management practices were known, 54

percent (578) disposed of their wastes in landfills

and 44 percent (483) disposed of wastes in surface

impoundments; the remaining facilities may have

disposed of wastes in quarries, mines, or waste piles

(118). The utility industry estimates that 49 percent

of all units at coal combustion utilities currently

manage coal ash in surface impoundments, temporarily or permanently .13

EPA estimated that almost 70 percent of all

electric utility generating units managed coal combustion wastes on-site. Two-thirds of the on-site

facilities were surface impoundments; most of the

remaining on-site facilities were landfills. Landfills,

however, accounted for about 95 percent of all

off-site disposal. The trend in recent years is toward

increasing use of on-site landfills (118).

EPA’s screening survey examined more than

4,000 facilities in the electric power generation

industry, including about 3,500 non-coal-burning

and 500 coal-burning plants (116). EPA estimated

that on-site waste management units at these facilities in 1986 consisted of 1,220 surface impoundments, 155 landfills, 110 waste piles, and 43 land

application units.

These data may indicate a greater reliance on

surface impoundments for electric power generation

as a whole than for the coal-burning portion of the

industry. The coal combustion industry believes that

EPA’s Report to Congress more accurately portrays

management of coal combustion wastes. Furthermore, the industry believes that the screening survey

13J. Roewer, Edison Electric Institute, personal communication APfi 1991.
Chapter 3-Coal Combustion Utility Wastes ● 59

Photo credit: Electric Power Research Institute

Wastewater from coal-fired electric utility is stored or

disposed in surface impoundment.

estimate of 1,220 surface impoundments must include wastewater treatment and storage impoundments in addition to disposal impoundments.14

However, the generally continuous storage or treatment of wastewater in a surface impoundment

results in wastewater being present in the impoundment for as long as it is active. The impoundment

essentially becomes a disposal site, except for the

wastewater in it, which is either recycled or discharged to surface waters under a permit.

Recycling and Waste Reduction

Although most coal-fired electric utility waste is

land-disposed, about 20 percent (27 percent of all

coal ash and less than 1 percent of FGD sludge) was

recycled in 1985 (118). This percentage increased

steadily between 1970 and 1985. The industry

estimates that between 20 and 28 percent of coal ash

being generated today is recycled annually.15 Currently, about one-third of all bottom ash is recycled

in products such as blasting grit or road an d

construction fill material. About 17 percent of fly

ash is used as a concrete or cement additive, among

other uses.

EPA’s procurement rules under RCRA already

promote the use of coal fly ash in cement and

concrete .

16 Coal ash can also be used as structural

fill, a soil substitute, or an antiskid material, and for

mine subsidence control and other applications.

Pemsylvania’s proposed residual waste regulations

would encourage such uses without requiring a

permit, if the practices meet certain limitations and

the Department of Environmental Resources is sent

basic information about the use. 17 The rate of reuse

varies among States, depending on market conditions and utility efforts. Wisconsin, for example,

currently reuses about 50 percent of its coal ash.l8

A logical question is whether any opportunities

exist to reduce the amount of waste being generated.

According to industry representatives, the ability to

prevent generation of high-volume coal combustion

wastes is minimal because of the composition of the

coal itself. Moreover, the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments and its provisions on increased sulfur

dioxide pollution controls will result in the generation of even greater volumes of combustion wastes.

The only way to lower these waste volumes significantly would be to use a fuel other than coal,

although demand-side management (i.e., utility

programs designed to encourage changes in energy

use patterns to balance energy supply and demand)

might also affect overall coal use. Reducing the use

of coal in generating electricity would have detrimental effects on the U.S. coal industry; however, it

also is one means of reducing emissions of carbon

dioxide, which is the major gas contributing to

potential global climate change (98). The industry

and EPA see utilization, or recycling, of ash ash and

FGD sludge as the most realistic way to lower the

volume of waste requiring disposal.

RISKS FROM COAL

COMBUSTION WASTE

MANAGEMENT

According to EPA’s Report to Congress (118),

virtually no high-volume coal combustion wastes

exhibited toxicity levels that would characterize

them as hazardous, based on data using the Extraction Procedure (EP), Toxicity Characteristic (TC),

and other tests. Cadmium, chromium, and arsenic

were the only metals found in ash or FGD sludge at

IAUSWAG, review comments, Feb. 22, 1991.

15K. ~~g, Wiscomk Electric Power Co., personal conmnmicatiou Feb. 28, 1991.

1648 Federal Register 4230, J~. 28, 1983.

1T20 PennV/vania Bulletin, vol. 20, No. 8, 1160-1163, Feb. 24, 1990.

18K. LadWig, Wisconsin Electric Power Co., personal communication% Feb. 28, 1991.

305-198 - 92 - 3 : QL 3
60 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

potentially hazardous levels, but this occurred rarely

and depended on the content of the coal.

Some low-volume cleaning wastes, however,

were found to be potentially hazardous. Specifically,

some samples of boiler cleaning wastes were found

to be corrosive, and some had levels of cadmium,

chromium, and lead that exceeded EP toxicity limits.

However, these wastestreams do not always exhibit

hazardous characteristics after disposal. For example, boiler cleaning wastes codisposed with coal ash

showed no hazardous waste characteristics (118).

EPA concluded that additional research on lowvolume wastes was necessary before a clear decision

on their risks could be determined.

Moreover, the industry believes that the EP and

TC tests overestimate hazards associated wit h

wastes. Both tests attempt to mimic conditions in a

municipal solid waste landfill that the industry

asserts is much more likely to leach constituents than

a landfill used only for coal combustion wastes

(134).

Some EPA and industry studies generally show

only limited migration of leachate from coal combustion waste facilities, although the data ar e

somewhat limited by the relatively low frequency of

groundwater monitoring.

For example, EPA’s Report to Congress contains

data on the concentration of constituents (for which

drinking water standards have been promulgated) in

groundwater and surface water downgradient from

coal combustion waste disposal sites which show

some migration of trace elements from certain sites

into surrounding water bodies. Elevated levels of

cadmium, chromium, lead, fluoride, iron, manganese, sulfate, and boron were found downgradient in

groundwater; cadmium, chromium, and fluoride

were found downgradient in surface water. However, drinkin g water standards were only exceeded

infrequently, and only 3.7 percent of the sampling

sites had downgradient concentrations of drinking

water standard constituents higher than those measured in upgradient wells. 19 Furthermore, in some of

these instances, the constituent was found in relatively equivalent concentrations upgradient as well

as downgradient, which suggests that contamination

was not necessarily caused by the waste disposal

sites.

The Radian Corp. (67), at the request of the

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), studied

leaching potential from codisposal of low- and

high-volume wastes in a coal ash pond (i.e., surface

impoundment). Results from monitoring over a

2-year period showed that the majority of constituents analyzed were found in statistically equivalent

concentrations in groundwater upgradient and downgradient of the ash pond or were not detected in

either location. Only calcium, magnesium, strontium, and sulfate were found in significantly greater

concentrations in the downgradient well, whereas

other trace metals from the ash were not detected in

downgradient groundwater. Constituents that might

be most expected from low-volume wastes (ammonium, bromate, and hydrochloric acid from cleaning

solutions; iron, copper, and other scale and metal

deposits removed from equipment surfaces during

cleaning) were not found in the downgradient

samples. Radian concluded that the comanagement

of low- and high-volume wastes had no impact on

groundwater outside the ash pond. The reason given

for this finding was that toxic metals in low-volume

wastes are generally insoluble unless the pH of the

solution is less than 1.5, which the investigators

consider very rare. Furthermore, even if the metals

did dissolve, they would be expected to be attenuated in the soil below, where the pH would likely

exceed 5 (except in some coniferous and other

forested areas). EPRI (21) obtained similar preliminary results from a second study site.

EPA (118) also concluded that the potential for

exposure of human populations is likely to be

limited, despite some migration of leachate off-site,

because: only a limited number of contaminated

sites were found; groundwater in the vicinity of

utility waste disposal sites is not typically used for

. .

drinking water; and most management sites are not

near populated areas.

However, these conclusions may be limited by

several caveats:

1. 29 percent of the disposal sites in 1984 had

people living within 1 kilometer, with popula1~ ~n~a~~ ~~ from 21 ~o~ mh ~onofifl~ ~ Pemsylvtia indicate 17 sites with groundwater tit exceeded &ix&@ wakr stid~(k for SUlfattX

and occasionally exceeded drinkm- gwaterstaudards forirou Iead, arsenic, chromium, andzinc(J. Dembac&PennsylvaniaDepartment ofl%wiromnental

Resources, review comments, July 23, 1991).
Chapter 3--Coal Combustion Utility Wastes ● 61

2.

3.

4.

tions near these sites ranging between O and

3,708 people;

34 percent of the sites had public drinking

water systems downgradient from the site, half

of which each served more than 5,000 people;

a high percentage of sites had populations of

rare plant and animal species within 5 kilometers, and EPA found that a high potential

existed for exposure of these species to some

constituents of coal combustion wastes; and

the conclusion that potential exposure was

limited did not account for the ‘location of

future utility sites.

In addition, EPA did not attempt to compile a

complete census of damage cases by conducting

extensive field studies (118). Even so, EPA was

unable to identify any proven damage cases in the

seven years prior to its report.

CURRENT REGULATORY

PATHWAYS

Current RCRA Status of Coal

Combustion Wastes

Based on findings from its report to Congress,

EPA (118) made three preliminary recommendations, subject to change based on public comment,

regarding the management of coal combustion

wastes. RCRA (Sec. 3001 (b)(3)(C)) required EPA

to make a regulatory determination on these wastes

within 6 months of submitting the report to Congress. However, EPA has yet to do this and its

activity on these wastestreams is currently on hold.20

EPA’s three recommendations were as follows:

1.

2.

Because coal combustion wastestreams generally do not exhibit hazardous characteristics as

defined under RCRA Subtitle C, high-volume

wastes (e.g., fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,

and FGD sludge) should not be regulated

under Subtitle C.

The utilization of coal combustion wastes

should be encouraged as one method for

reducing the amount requiring disposal, to the

3.

extent this can be done in an environmentally

protective manner.

Because some low-volume wastes may exhibit

the hazardous waste characteristics of corrosivity and toxicity, EPA intends to further

study and seek comment on these wastes and

to consider whether they should be regulated

under Subtitle C.

Although industry representatives concur with

EPA’s first two recommendations, they do not

believe that low-volume wastes require further

research or regulation. Instead, they interpret the

Bevill amendment as requiring EPA to study, and

base its findings on, the efficacy of “real-world”

utility waste management practices and any environmental effects of these practices, not only on

laboratory-generated characteristics (e.g., EP toxicity) of the wastes themselves. Furthermore, they

contend that codisposal of low- and high-volume

wastes is an environmentally sound way to manage

the former. As noted above, EPRI is conducting field

studies on the codisposal of low- and high-volume

utility wastes.

Environmentalists contend that low-volume

wastes should not have been included by EPA in the

exemptions because they are not “high volume, low

hazard” wastes within the Bevill exclusion as

interpreted by the courts and that codisposal may

encourage dilution as a management method for

characteristic wastes.

State Coal Combustion Waste Programs

Coal combustion wastes are currently exempt

from RCRA hazardous waste regulation (coal ash

sites may still be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) if necessary), and Federal

Subtitle D regulations are generally incomplete (see

ch. 1). These wastestreams are regulated primarily

under State hazardous or solid waste laws. EPA’s

Report to Congress (118) listed disposal and management requirements promulgated under each State’s

solid waste regulations; these data were based on a

1983 USWAG report that was updated by EPA.

~~@rd@ t. ~A*~ review ~o-ents on &~~ of ~s pqer, the de~y is p~y beca~e of a J~y 1988 co~ riding tit directed the Agency tO

undertake a series of rulemakm“ gs and issue a Report to Congress on exempt mineral processing wastes, under a schedule that contained very tight

deadlines (Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). This court order diverted a significant portion of staff snd

management attention away from utility-related activities, from 1988 through issuance of the mineral processing Report to Congress in July 1990 and

the subsequent regulatory determination in May 1991. EPA has received a Notice of Intent to file a citizens’ suit over the Agency’s failure to issue a

final regulatory determination for coal combustion wastes.
62 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

However, the EPA report was unclear as to what

years the update included.

Based on EPA data, State regulations appear to

vary widely, both in general requirements and in the

specific details of each requirement. As such, it is

difficult to generalize about the extent and quality of

regulation of coal combustion disposal facilities.

Moreover, no information on implementation and

enforcement of these regulations is currently available. In addition, some regulations are likely to have

changed since the report was issued.21

Forty-three States have exempted coal combustion wastes from hazardous waste regulation. Of the

seven States that do not exempt them from such

regulation, California burns little coal to produce

electricity. The other six (Kentucky, Maine, New

Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington)

require that coal combustion wastes be tested for

toxicity; if they prove to be toxic, some or all

hazardous waste regulations may apply. Classification by the States of a utility’s waste as hazardous,

however, apparently has been rare (118).

Solid waste regulations of every State require that

off-site solid waste disposal facilities be permitted

or have some form of approval. EPA has not updated

its information on State regulatory programs since

issuing its Report to Congress in 1988. Based on that

report, a facility operator must meet the following

requirements in different States:

●

●

●

Permitting—Forty-one States required permits for both on-site and off-site facilities,22

whereas eight States exempted on-site facilities.

Site restrictions-Thirty States restricted placement of solid waste disposal facilities; these

restrictions varied, but they may include banning placement in a 100-year” floodplain or

requiring a minimum depth to groundwater.

Liners-Only five States required all solid

waste facilities to have a clay or synthetic liner;

six other States could require a liner on a

case-by-case basis.

Leachate control systems-Twelve States required leachate control systems at all solid

waste disposal facilities, and eight other States

could require them on a case-by-case basis.

Groundwater monitoring-Seventeen States

required groundwater monitoring at all solid

waste disposal facilities, and eleven other

States could require groundwater monitoring

on a case-by-case basis.

Closure/postclosure—Twenty-six States required some closure or postclosure care, although the details of these requirements were

not delineated.

Financial assurance-Thirteen States required

some financial assurance requirement, such as

a bond or participation in a waste management

fund, to ensure the long-term safety of closed

facilities.

ISSUES/QUESTIONS

The previous sections suggest several issues

specific to coal combustion utility wastes that

Congress might address during the RCRA reauthorization process:

. Relationships Among Federal and State Agencies-Is there a need for regulations specific to

coal combustion wastes, or can they be adequately managed under existing or future State

and Federal programs for other manufacturing

wastes? What degree of primacy does Congress

wish States to have in managing coal combustion wastes? Should EPA develop uniform

national guidelines for the management of coal

combustion wastes and require States to submit

detailed management plans for approval, or

should EPA limit its efforts to technical and

financial support of State-implemented Subtitle D programs?

. Efficacy and Enforcement of Existing Programs-How effective are existing State pro21 Fore.mplc, fiAuwSt 1988 ohi~ eS~bliShed s~ct~ design ~d Siting req~ements for “non-toxic” fly ashandbottom mh (i.e., Constituent levels

in extract from the EP toxicity test of the ash less than 30 times the Drinking Water Standards); however, these ashes remain exempt from solid waste,

as well as hazardous waste, regulation (Ohio EPA, DWPC Policy 4.07, Aug. 1, 1988). Pennsylvania’s proposed residurd waste rules will increase

requirements (e.g., liners, Ieachate control, groundwater monitoring) on all residual waste facilities, including those accepting coal combustion wastes.

Facility requirements will vary depending on the concentration of certain hazardous constituents in each wastestream or in a leachate analysis (e.g., EP

or TC test) of the wastestream (Pennsylvania BuZZetin, vol. 20, No. 8, Feb. 24, 1990).

22~ ohio, $$non-tofic~ ~ fly ~h ~d ~ttom @ (but not FGD sludge) ~e subj~t to d~i~ con~o~ tit ~e similm to non-exempted wWteS, but th~

also are subject to more lenient permitting, siting and fucial assurance requirements (E. Brdic@ Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, personal

communicatior4 Oct. 21, 1991).
Chapter Meal Combustion Utility Wastes ● 63

grams? Should independent audits be con- ●

ducted to assess how effectively various State

and Federal programs and regulations are being

enforced? Are existing resources sufficient to

administer and enforce Federal or State coal

combustion waste regulatory programs? If not,

what mechanisms are available to provide such ●

resources? What emphasis should be given to

the enforcement of coal combustion waste

programs relative to other Subtitle D wastes?

Regulation of Treatment and Storage Facilities and Other Production Process Units—

Does EPA have sufficient authority under

RCRA Subtitle D to regulate production processes (which may include waste treatment and

storage facilities) in addition to disposal practices? (Also see ch. 2).

Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion WastesShould Congress encourage the beneficial reuse

of coal ash? If so, what would constitute

beneficial use? Should any limits be placed on

such use?

Regulation of Low- and High-Volume WastesShould codisposal in Subtitle D units of lowand high-volume wastes be allowed, or should

high- and low-volume wastes be managed

separately, given their different characteristics?

In either case, what design features should be

required for new and existing waste management facilities? Should Subtitle C regulation of

low-volume wastes be required if they exhibit

a hazardous characteristic?
Chapter 4

Oil and Gas Wastes
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

WASTE GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ****O*.****.**. 70

Management of Basic Waste Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Management Technologies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

RISKS FROM OIL AND GAS WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Hazardous Characteristics and Health Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Environmental Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

CURRENT REGULATORY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

State Oil and Gas Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Current RCRA Status of Oil and Gas Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Other EPA Statutory Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Other Federal Agency and General Statutory Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

ISSUES AND QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Box

Box Page

4-A. Risks and Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figures

Figure Page

4-1. Typical Oil and Gas Production Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4-2. Relative Amounts of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes, 1985.......70

4-3. Management Methods for Produced Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4-4. Drilling Fluid Discharges to Reserve Pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Tables

Table Page

4-1. Estimated Volumes of Produced Water and Drilling Wastes, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4-2. Oil and Gas Wells, Injection Wells, Regulatory Agencies, and Enforcement

Personnel, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

4-3. Examples of RCRA Exempt and Nonexempt Oil and Gas Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Chapter 4

Oil and Gas Wastes

INTRODUCTION

In 1985, approximately 842,000 oil and gas wells

in the United States produced 8.4 million barrels of

oil, 1.6 million barrels of natural gas liquids, and 44

billion cubic feet of natural gas daily (117). Along

with this high commodity production inevitably

comes the generation of waste, most of which is

disposed of through underground injection.

In searching for oil and gas, exploratory drilling

usually results in “dry” wells that are plugged and

abandoned. When an oil or gas reservoir is discovered, development wells are then drilled to extract

the oil or gas. More than 70,000 exploration and

development wells were drilled annually in the

mid-1980s, although drilling activity decreased

sharply in 1986 and has remained depressed (99,

117). These exploration and production (E&P)

activities generate three types of “solid” wastes:

produced waters, drilling fluids, and other “associated’ wastes. Figure 4-1 illustrates the manner in

which oil, gas, and water are separated in a typical

production operation and the basic wastes that are

generated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) estimates that 3.7 billion tons of E&P waste

was generated in 1985, whereas the America n

Petroleum Institute (API) estimates that about 2.9

billion tons was generated that year. The two

estimates differ primarily in the amount of produced

water generated, as well as in how much of the

produced water is subject to jurisdiction under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

(see “Waste Generation” below).

Produced waters are mixtures of the naturally

occurring (and typically salinel

) water in the geologic formation being drilled, naturally derived

constituents such as benzene and radionuclides, and

chemicals added for treatment (e.g., corrosion inhibitors). The produced waters must be separated from

the oil and gas products before their entry into crude

or natural gas pipelines. Produced waters account for

96 to 98 percent of all oil and gas wastes.

Drilling fluids include drill cuttings (i.e., rock

removed during drilling) and drilling muds (wateror oil-based fluids with additives, pumped down the

drilling pipe to offset formation pressure, provide

lubrication, seal off the well bore to avoid contamination of various geologic layers, and remove

cuttings) (117).2 Drilling fluids account for about 2

to 4 percent of oil and gas wastes.

Much smaller quantities of associated wastes are

produced. These include well completion, treatment,

and stimulation fluids; sediment, water, and other

tank bottoms; oily debris; contaminated soils; and

produced sands.3 They amount to about 0.1 percent

of oil and gas wastes. In addition, naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) such as radium

may also be brought to the surface with crude oil (see

box 4-A on page 77).

The exploration, development, and production of

oil and gas reserves vary markedly from region to

region. For example, wells range in depth from 30

feet in some areas to more than 30,000 feet in others,

with an average depth of about 5,000 feet (7, 117).

Production can range from fewer than 10 barrels per

day for thousands of small ‘stripper” wells to about

11,500 barrels per day for wells on the Alaskan

North Slope. Only 14 percent of total U.S. production comes from stripper wells, yet they account for

about 70 percent of all U.S. oil wells (117); because

of their large numbers and potential environmental

impacts, these wells pose significant regulatory

challenges (e.g., concerns about enforcement and

economic impacts).

The 1980 Bentsen amendments to RCRA exempted drilling fluids, produced waters, and associated wastes from hazardous waste regulation pending further study and regulatory determinations b y

EPA. The amendments also directed EPA to distinguish between large-volume wastes (i.e., produced

l~e ~oncen~ation of ~~~ride~ fi pr~du~~ waters ~~ ~ge from 5,000 to lgQ~O p- per million. ~ contit, semwlter is 35,()()() pUtS tOtid

dissolved solids; a portion of the total dissolved solids are chlorides, typically about 19,000 parts per million (117).

Themicals added to drilling muds include acids and bases, salts, corrosion inhibitors, floccukuts, surfactants, viscosifiers, dispersants, fluid loss

reducers, lubricants, and biocides (117).

353 Federal Register 25453, July 6, 1988; also see ref. 25.

-67–
68 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

=

0.

“.

a)

c1

ci-

-r

h

.j’

.,.

J-’i I

:..:...:. ..>. :..- .....1
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes .69

Photo credit: ARCO Alaska, Inc.

A 5-foot-thick gravel pad in the Prudhoe Bay field on the

North Slope of Alaska supports drilling and production

equipment and contains above-grade reserve pits.

waters and drilling fluids, including fluids from

offshore operations that are disposed of onshore) and

associated wastes. In 1988, EPA determined that

Subtitle C regulation of these exempted wastes is not

warranted (see “Current RCRA Status of Oil and

Gas Wastes” below).4 This means that the wastes

are subject to existing State and Federal Subtitle D

regulatory programs. Oil and gas wastes that are not

exempt from Subtitle C regulation include refinery

wastes, waste solvents from equipment maintenance, and spills from pipelines or other transport

methods (117).

WASTE GENERATION

Oil and gas waste generation depends on the level

of industry activity, which in turn varies with

petroleum prices. Thus, oil and gas waste generation

can vary considerably from year to year; it also

varies geographically. Table 4-1 (based on data from

API, cited in ref. 117) shows how the number of

wells and the generation of drilling fluids and

produced waters varied among States in 1985.

Based on data in its 1987 Report, EPA estimated

that 3.7 billion tons of produced water was generated

in 1985 (17). However, produced waters reinfected

Table 4-l—Estimated Volumes of Produced Water and

Drilling Wastes, 1985a

Produced Drilling

water wastes

Number of (thousand (thousand

State wells drilled barrels) barrels)b

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . .

367

242

3

1,034

3,208

1,578

21

1

3

2,291

961

1

5,560

2,482

4,908

91

870

594

23

623

282

36

1,780

436

514

3,818

7,690

5

2,836

49

228

23,915

364

91

4

1,419

1,497

69,734

87,619

97,740

149

184,536

2,846,978

388,661

64,738

—

—

1,282,933

—

—

999,143

90,754

1,346,675

—

76,440

318,666

—

223,558

164,688

—

445,265

—

59,503

—

3,103,433

—

—

5,155

—

7,838,783

260,661

—

—

2,844

985,221’

20.873.24@

5,994

1,816

23

8,470

4,529

8,226

1,068

2

94

2,690

1,105

1

17,425

4,874

46,726

201

3,866

14,653

18

4,569

761

335

13,908

1,277

4,804

8,139

42,547

5

8,130

289

795

133,014

4,412

201

15

3,097

13,528

, . 361.406

aBased on American Petroleum Institute survey reported in EPA (December 1987). EPA and API estimates for drilling waste and produced waters

differed significantly in some cases (see text).

bBased on total volume of drilling muds, drill cuttings, completion fluids,

circulated cement, formation testing fluids, and other water and solids.

‘-%Vyoming estimated that 1.72 billion barrels of produced water were

generated in the State in 1985.

d[ncludes only those States surveyed.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, Report to Congress: Management

of Wastes From the Exploration, Development, and Production

of Crude oi~, Natural Gas, and Geoffrermal Energy, EPN530-SW88-003 (Washington, DC: December 1987).

underground for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations are not subject to RCRA jurisdiction because

this practice-at least from the point of the wellhead

down-is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water

du~e tie o~w ~~~pec~$$ ~a~te~, co~e~~ ~ a seine resend tie ul~te re@tory decisiom abut oil ~d gas wwtes to itself because EPA

is prohibited from regulating these wastes as hazardous without approval by an act of Congress.
70 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Act.5 Since about 62 percent of produced waters are

reinfected for EOR (6), this would leave about 1.4

billion tons to be managed as RCRA wastes. The

API disagrees with these figures; based on data from

its 1985 survey (6), industry analysts estimate that

about 2.8 billion tons of produced water was

generated in 1985, of which 2.5 billion tons was used

for EOR operations.6 In any event, produced waters

clearly make up the largest portion of oil and gas

E&P wastes (figure 4-2).

EPA and API estimates of the amount of drilling

fluids generated in 1985 also differ by almost an

order of magnitude (table 4-l). However, EPA

concluded that API’s method of predicting volumes

was more reliable7 and therefore used the API

estimate of 361 million barrels (117).8 EPA later

used this volumetric estimate to calculate that the

amount of drilling fluids generated in 1985 was 63

million tons, based on the assumption that the

density of each waste type is equal to that of water

(17). 9 About 65 percent of drilling mud is fresh

water, 21 percent is salt water, 3 percent is oil, 2

percent is polymer, and the remainder is other

materials (25); the specific type used in drilling

depends on factors such as well depth and reservoir

characteristics.

Associated wastes represent an estimated 0.1

percent (1 1.8 million barrels, or 2.0 million tons) of

all oil and gas wastes.l0 The EPA/API estimate is

based on the assumption that their densities are the

same as the average density of water, which may

result in underestimating the actual tonnage (17).

However, it may be a reasonable estimate because

much of the waste is oil-based and hence lighter than

water. About half of the associated wastes are

aqueous, and the remainder range from slurries to

sludges and solids.

Figure 4-2-Relative Amounts,of Oil and

Gas Exploration and Production Wastes, 1985

Produced waters

98.2%

I

Associated wastes

/ 0.1%

‘Drilling fluids

1.7%

Including those injected for EOR

SOURCE: 53 Federal Register 25448 (July 6, 1988).

CURRENT MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES

Oil and gas exploration and production wastes can

be stored in surface impoundments to recover the oil,

injected underground, treated and applied to the

land, or discharged into waterways. In some cases,

percolation pits are used to allow wastes to seep into

the soil, although this is not standard practice in most

areas. Some recycling and source reduction options

are also possible. API (7) estimated that in 1985

about 92 percent of oil and gas wastes was injected

underground, 4 percent was discharged into waterways, and 2 percent was managed in surface

impoundments.

Technical criteria and guidance documents on oil

and gas waste management have been issued by API

and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

(IOGCC) to supplement efforts by State and Federal

agencies to improve such management (8, 44).11

Both guidance documents recognize the applicability of a hierarchy for managing oil and gas wastes,

similar to that often cited for managing other solid

and hazardous wastes: 1) source reduction; 2)

s53Federa/RegiSfer25~, July 6, 1988. Reinfection of produced waters into the formation helps to titain fluid Pmssme and to e*ce oil @

gas reeovery.

6N. ~wbm, AWCO, personal communication, Sept. 26, 1991.

~or example, EPA used estimates of reserve pit size as the basis for its calculation whereas API relied principally on survey data that it collected.

8AS0 see 53 Federal Register 25448, July 6, 1988.

%PA considered it likely that tbis estimate is low (17). Similarly, indushy analysts suggest that the amount might be in the range of 70 to 80 million

tons (N. Thurber, Amoco, personal communicatio~ Sept. 26, 1991).

l~as~onERT (25) and~ (7) &@ about~ ~ment=wo&overmd ~mpletionfl~ds, includingfl~ds ~~tostimdate the folmaticmtoproduce

additional oil; 32 percent are produced san~ tank IxXtoms, oily debris, and other production solid wastes; 15 percent are untreatable emulsions, used

solvents and degreasers, cooling water, used oils, spent iron sponge, and other production liquid wastes; and 5 percent are dehydration and sweetening

unit wastes used to remove sulildes horn the oil or gas.

11’rheIOGCC, form~in 1935 (~d formerly ~ownasthe ~terstateoil Compact Commission or IOCC), is anorgbtionof GOvemors Ofzg StSteS

that produce oil and gas. More than 99 percent of the oil and gas produced in the United States comes from member States.
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes . 71

Figure 4-3-Management Methods for Produced

Waters

Injection (EOR)

62% ~

Other

3%

NPDES discharges 

6%

~

lrlJeu[wrr \UIS

-- .

‘

-

’

- -

’ :-- ‘~’-posal)

29%

NOTE: Injection refers to underground injection; EOR refers to enhanced

oil recovery.

SOURCES: Based on American Petroleum Institute, AP/ 7985 Production

Waste Survey, Statistical Analysis and Survey Resutts, l%al

Repoti(Washington, DC: October 1987); D. Derkics, “Revised

Oil & Gas Statistics,” memorandum, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Jan. 28, 1991.

recycling and reuse; 3) treatment to reduce the

volume or toxicity of waste; and 4) disposal of

remaining wastes in ways that minimize adverse

impacts to the environment and human health.

This section describes how each of the three basic

waste types (drilling fluids, produced waters, and

associated wastes) are managed. Because some

management methods are used for more than one

waste type, the section discusses each major method

as well: surface impoundment; land application and

landfilling; underground injection; discharge to

surface waters; and source reduction and recycling.

The management of naturally occurring radioactive

material in oil and gas wastes is discussed below in

box 4-A.

In general, most non-hazardous E&P wastes are

managed and disposed of on-site, mainly through

underground injection in Class II wells. 12 EPA

concluded that many impacts can be minimized by

improving housekeeping practices and using existing technologies to address design, operational,

mixing (e.g., of associated wastes and produced

waters), closure, and remediation problems (34).

Many States restrict the types of wastes that can be

i

Photo credit: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

This Class II injection well is equipped with corrosion

inhibitors, constant pressure monitoring, automatic shutoff, and leak detection.

stored in pits at Class II well sites, and require lining

of these facilities (with either synthetic or clay liners,

depending on site-specific conditions) and, where

groundwater is present, groundwater monitoring

systems (44). In addition, pumps can be built with

features (e.g., their own containment sumps, alar m

systems, automatic shutoff valves, and continuous

pressure monitoring) that minimize releases, and

tanks can be used as an alternative to liners. These

practices generally afford more protection than

systems that allow disposal of tank bottoms, produced waters, and other wastes in unlined pits or on

the ground (34).

Management of Basic Waste Types

Produced Waters

Produced waters can be managed, with or without

treatment, via injection in underground wells, evaporation and percolation from surface impoundments,

application on roads, or discharges to surface water.

Injection can take place on-site, off-site, or in

centralized facilities. Most produced waters (about

90 percent) are reinfected underground, either in

disposal wells (29 percent) or as part of EOR

operations (62 percent) (figure 4-3).13 Reinfection

wells are regulated as part of the Underground

Injection Control program (see “Other EPA Statutory Authority” below). The remainder are dislZCkXSS II refers to ~ee @es of weus which inject fluids: 1) for enhanced recovery of oil or mtural gas; 2) for storage of hydrocarbons w~ch me

liquid at standard temperature and pressure; and 3) for storage of liquids which are brought to the surface in connectionwithmturrd gas storage operations

or conventional oil or mtural gas productio~ and which may be commingled with waste waters from gas plants which are an integral part of production

operations, unless those waste waters are classitled as a hazardous waste at the time of injection (40 CFR 144.6(b)).

1SA5 noted above (s= “waste Generation”), however, produced waters used in EOR systems are not considered solid wastes.
72 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

charged to surface waters (6 percent), under conditions specified in National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits, or are disposed of by other means such as evaporation and

percolation (3 percent). Discharges to surface waters

depend on the composition of the fluid and NPDES

permit conditions.

Drilling Fluids

Drilling fluids can be disposed of on-site (either

directly or after treatment) in reserve pits (which are

essentially surface impoundments), in the annular

space of injection wells, on land, or into surface

waters (117). The choice of on-site methods depends

on factors such as geologic formation, costs and

regulatory conditions, composition of the drilling

fluids, and type of well and surrounding conditions.

The onshore discharge of untreated drilling fluids

into surface waters is prohibited by effluent guidelines promulgated under the Clean Water Act.

However, fluids may be discharged into the Gulf of

Mexico if they pass specified bioassay tests (1 17).

Off-site management methods include disposal in

centralized pits, land application at commercial

landfarms (for adsorption or degradation by soil and

organisms), and treatment and disposal in centralized treatment facilities (117). EPA does not have

information on how frequently these off-site management methods are used.

API (6) reported that in 1985, 29 percent of

drilling fluid was evaporated, 28 percent was sent

off-site for some type of management, 13 percent

was injected underground, 12 percent was buried

on-site, 10 percent was discharged into surface

waters, 7 percent was landspread, and less than 1

percent was solidified. Drilling muds, which constituted about two-thirds of drilling fluids in 1985,

were typically disposed of by evaporation, followed

by discharge into surface water and injection in the

annular space of drilled wells (25).

Associated Wastes

Associated wastes may be stored, treated, landfarmed, landfilled, discharged under a NPDES

permit, injected into a Class II well, or recycled. In

1985, about 48 percent of associated waste was

reportedly transported off-site for centralized treatment or disposal at commercial waste management

sites; 27 percent was disposed of on-site either in

pits, by burial, or by roadspreading and landspreading; 4 percent was recycled; 1 percent was injected

underground; and 19 percent was managed by other,

unspecified methods (6).

Management Technologies and Practices

Surface Impoundments

According to EPA (114), more than 125,000 oil

and gas surface impoundments existed in 1984.

Based on EPA data from themid-1980s(119), only

2.4 percent of the surface impoundments used for oil

and gas wastes had synthetic liners, whereas another

27 percent had a natural liner of unknown composition quality. Furthermore, groundwater was monitored at only 0.1 percent, and surface water at 16

percent, of these impoundments. However, the data

do not necessarily represent current practices in

many States; moreover, not all impoundments are

located near groundwater.

Reserve pits, a type of impoundment, are used to

temporarily store drilling fluids for use in drilling

operations or to dispose of wastes. Of all materials

discharged to reserve pits, an estimated 90 percent

are drilling fluids (mostly in the form of drilling

muds and completion fluids) and cuttings (figure

4-4).

Some pits also are used for settling/skimmm g of

solids and separation of residual oil; storage of

produced waters prior to injection or off-site transport; percolation of liquids via drainage or seepage

into surrounding soil; and evaporation (in lined pits)

of produced waters into the atmosphere (44, 117).

Other “special” pits are used for such purposes as

flaring natural gas; collecting wastes from the

emptying or depressurization of wells (or vessels);

and, in emergencies, temporarily storing liquids

resulting from process upsets (44, 117). These pits,

however, may be in continuous use for many years

before being closed or may at least be present on-site

for use in emergencies. Many States now have-and

IOGCC guidelines suggest—both reporting requirements and time limits for using such “temporary”

pits, and long-term use can be a violation in those

States.

Reserve pit size is largely a function of well depth

(25); the average pit volume at depths less than 3,750

feet is about 3,600 barrels, whereas the average

volume at depths greater than 15,000 feet is more

than 65,000 barrels. Only 20 percent of reserve pits

have a capacity greater than 15,000 barrels, whereas
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes . 73

Figure 4-4-Types of Drilling Fluids Discharged to

Reserve Pits

Other drilling fluid

Mud/

cuttings

10%

other

3%

63%

SOURCES: ERT Co., Oil and Gas /ndustry Exploration and Production

Wastes, prepared for Ameriean Petroleum Institute, No.

471-01-09 (Washington, DC: July 1987); U.S. Environmental

Protection Ageney, Office of Solid Waste and Emergeney

Response, Report to Congress: hfanagement of Wastes Fmm

the Exploration, Deve/o~ent, and Produd”on of Cmde Oii,

Naturai Gas, and Geothenna/ Energy, EPA1530-SW-88-003

(Washington, DC: Deeember 1987).

44 percent have a capacity of 5,000 barrels or less

(25).

Reserve pits are usually closed after drilling

activity has been completed. After a reserve pit is

closed, solids in the pit can be spread on land or

buried on-site; liquids can be evaporated, discharged

to land or surface waters, or reinfected in underground wells.14 Although most States have established regulations for siting, operation, and closure

of pits15, the proper closure of reserve pits and the

disposition of their contents are still matters of

concern in environmentally sensitive areas such as

wetlands (25).

One potential alternative is solidification of pit

contents—adding solidifiers (e.g., commercial cement, fly ash, or lime kiln dust) to help immobilize

pollutants and minimize leaching of toxic constituents. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, among others, has conducted

some demonstration solidification projects (32).

One problem, however, is that after removal of the

free liquid fraction of pit wastes, the remaining pit

contents still contain about 30 percent water. In

addition, the use of cement kiln dust, and possibly

other solidifiers, increases the volume of solid waste

to be managed (117). Other areas of concern include

finding a better mixing method, identifying and

minimizing groundwater and leachate impacts, and

ensuring the use of the method in winter (32). EPA

was unaware of data indicating whether the use of

kiln dust adds harmful constituents to the reserve pit

wastes (117).

Landfilling and Land Application

Landfilling basically consists of placing wastes in

the ground and covering them with a layer of soil.

Currently, most landfills used for oil and gas wastes

are unlined. However, the IOGCC recommends that

a protective bottom liner or a solidification, fixation,

or encapsulation method be required when the salt or

hydrocarbon content in the wastes exceeds applicable standards, unless the site has no underlying

groundwater or is naturally protected from the risk

of contamination (44). The IOGCC considers landfilling appropriate for drilling muds and cuttings, spent

iron sponge, pipe scale with low levels of naturally

occurring radioactive material (see below), gas plant

catalysts, and molecular sieve materials.

The IOGCC also believes that roadspreading—

using tank bottom sediments, emulsions, or heavy

hydrocarbon and crude oil-contaminated soils as

part of road oil, road mix, or asphalt-is acceptable

if the waste materials are not ignitable and have a

density and metal content consistent with approved

road oils or mixes (44, 117). However, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (RCRA

Sec. 3004(1)) prohibited the use of material that is

contaminated or mixed with a hazardous waste

(other than a waste identified solely on the basis of

ignitability) for dust suppression or road treatment.

Land application, known in the industry as

landspreading or landfarming, consists of spreading

or mixing wastes into soils to promote the natural

biodegradation of organic constituents and the

dilution and attenuation of metals. Nitrogen and

other nutrients can be added to the soil to enhance

biodegradation (44). The IOGCC recommends that

the waste-soil mixture not contain more than 1

percent by weight of oil and grease; any free oil can

be removed by skimming or filtration before landspreading. Liquid wastes may also have to be

1%1 1985 tie oil and gas industry reportedly spent more than $118 million on construction of reserve pits (35 percent Of which tid tilci~~W

at a cost of $99 million), more than $187 million to close pits on-site, and $480 million to dispose of pit wastes off-site (25),

15J. SimmOnS, IOGCC, personal eommunicatioxL July 9, 1991.
74 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

neutralized and should be applied so as to avoid

pooling or runoff of the wastes.

Land application of drilling muds and cuttings has

been used for years. Some studies conclude that it is

a relatively low-cost method (which accounts for its

increasing popularity) that does not adversely affect

receiving soils (e.g., 75, 143). One of these studies

concluded that landfarming could benefit certain

sandy soils in Oklahoma by increasing their waterholding capacity and reducing fertilizer losses (75).

These studies also suggest that the technique can be

used in conjunction with cleanup and remedial

processes for saltwater or hydrocarbon spills and

pipeline breaks (75, 143).

Whether land application is appropriate for all

mud is not clear. Some muds contain substantial

quantities of oil and various additives, raising

questions about the potential adverse effects on parts

of the food chain or in areas with high water tables.

EPA (117) suggested that land application might

work best for treating organic chemicals that are

susceptible to biodegradation, if the appropriate

microorganisms are present in the soil. However, the

ability of most soils to accept chlorides and other

salts, which generally are highly soluble in water,

and maintain beneficial use is limited (117). Whether

heavy metals are attenuated by soil particles or taken

up by plants depends on many factors, including the

clay content and cation-exchange capacity. In addition, volatile organic compounds (VOCS) may

evaporate from sites (117, 143).

Underground Injection Wells

About 90 percent of produced waters from onshore oil and gas operations are disposed of in more

than 166,000 underground injection wells, for either

EOR or final disposal purposes (117, 121). When

used for disposal, produced waters are injected (via

gravity flow or pumps) into saltwater formations, the

original formation, or older (depleted) formations.

Figure 4-1 shows a typical injection well for

produced waters. Steps generally taken before

wastes are reinfected into wells include: 1) separation of free oil and grease from produced waters; 2)

storage of wastes in tanks or reserve pits; 3)

filtration; and 4) chemical treatment (e.g., coagulation, flocculation, and possibly pH adjustment)

(117).

Again, one concern regarding this method is its

potential for contaminating groundwater (117). For

example, injection wells used for disposal are often

older wells that require more maintenance (EPA

regulations require periodic testing of the mechanical integrity of injection wells; see “Other EPA

Statutory Authority” below). Well failure also can

occur because of design and construction problems,

the corrosivity of the injected fluid, and excess

injection pressure. Concerns over the adequacy of

injection well regulations are discussed below (see

“Other EPA Statutory Authority”).

Discharges to Surface Waters

Discharges to surface waters are permitted under

the NPDES program: 1) into coastal or tidally

influenced waters; 2) for agricultural and wildlife

beneficial use; and 3) for produced waters from

stripper oil wells to surface streams. Treatment to

control pH and to minimize oil and grease, total

dissolved solids, sulfates, and other pollutants often

occurs before discharge. The presence of radiation

and benzene or other organic chemicals, however, is

typically not addressed in discharge regulations.

Pollution Prevention/Waste Reduction

Pollution prevention (i.e., reducing the volume

and toxicity of wastes) and recycling are possible for

all three types of oil and gas wastes. As the prospects

for Superfund liability from past disposal practices

become apparent (see “Other EPA Statutory Authority” below), the incentives for reducing and

recycling oil and gas wastes increase (79, 117). As

with other source reduction and recycling efforts,

success depends on support from top management,

a complete inventory and characterization of the

wastestreams and chemical additives used in an

operation, and the flexibility to address site-specific

variations in formations and production activities

(44, 79). EPA discourages some types of “recycling,” specifically those involving the mixing of

hazardous wastes with non-hazardous or exempt oil

and gas wastes (117).

The greatest opportunities may involve drilling

fluids. According to an analysis by Amoco Corp.,

basic waste minimization methods can potentially

reduce the volume of drilling fluids, including

cuttings, by more than 60 percent (79). EPA

estimated that “closed-loop systems” can reduce
Chapter-4-Oil and Gas Wastes . 75

the volume of drilling fluids by as much as 90

percent. l6 The high cost of formulating drilling mud

has led to more reuse and reconditioning of spent

muds (117).17 Closed-loop systems use mechanical

solids control equipment (e.g., screen shakers, hydroclones, centrifuges) and collection equipment

(e.g., vacuum trucks, shale barges) to minimize

drilling waste muds and cuttings that require disposal and to maximize the volume of drilling fluid

returned to the drilling mud system. These systems

are increasingly being used (e.g., in California),

because of the reduction in overall drilling costs and

in the volume of waste needing disposal (79, 117,

141).18 Without proper wastewater management,

however, the volume reduction gains from using

closed-loop systems can be negated (79). In addition

to these methods, drilling wastes maybe used in the

well-plugging process, depending on site location

and conditions (117).

Reducing the toxicity of drilling fluids is also

possible. l9 EPA and API survey data indicate that

fluids in some reserve pits contain chromium, lead,

and pentachlorophenol at hazardous levels, and

oil-based fluids may contain benzene. These components, however, can potentially be reduced or

eliminated by product substitution (79). In addition,

the hydrocarbon content of drill cuttings might be

reduced by using thermal and solvent extraction

processes; these appear promising but have not yet

been used extensively or evaluated (69).

For produced waters, volume reduction efforts are

driven more by the direct costs of waste management

than by regulatory incentives or liability. Horizontal

drilling (an exploration technology designed to

increase the exposure of fractured or productive

zones to the borehole) can reduce the generation of

produced waters, but this may be related more to the

character of the producing formation than to the

technology itself.20 Reducing the toxicity of produced waters also may be possible by using less

toxic or hazardous additives during drilling and

completion or during stimulation of the well bore

(79). In some cases, wastewaters can be physically

or chemically treated and then reused in other parts

of oil and gas production processes; solid residues

can be separated during treatment and used in

cement block or asphalt manufacturing (71).

Associated wastes may contain constituents similar to those in produced waters and other wastes, but

often at higher concentrations. The toxicity of

cooling tower blowdown, for example, can be

reduced by replacing chromate corrosion inhibitors

and pentachlorophenol biocides with less hazardous

or toxic products (e.g., organic phosphonates or

bisulfites; and isothiazolin, carbamates, amines, and

glutaraldehydes, respectively) (79).21 Oil recovery

can also lead to reductions in tank and vessel

sludges, emulsions, and other wastes (79).

RISKS FROM OIL AND GAS

WASTES

In its 1987 Report to Congress and subsequent

1988 regulatory determination (see “Current RCRA

Status of Oil and Gas Wastes” below), EPA

concluded that oil and gas exploration and production wastes should remain exempt from regulation

under Subtitle C. The oil and gas industry, as

represented by the IOGCC, agrees with this and

contends that the regulatory framework needed to

prevent adverse impacts from the management of

E&P wastes already exists in State programs (44).

Some of the general public, though, is still

concerned about the environmental impacts and, in

certain areas, the possible human health impacts of

some oil and gas waste sites (e.g., 45, 63, 72). In

addition, EPA also concluded that adverse impacts

have resulted from mismanagement of oil and gas

wastes and that some improvements in waste management are necessary (34, 117).

1655 Federal Register 23355, June 7, 1991.

ITEPA alSO suggested that greater potentird for increased recycling appears possible through more efficient management of mud handling systems

(117).

18J0 Mqhy, ~oco oil CO., personal COmmUnimtiO~ J~. 14>19910

l~pAWncluded~t&.i~fl~ds ~eus~y notc~ctefistictidous w~tes. However, ~efi~actionproc~~e(EP) orToxicity hCteriStiC

(IT) tests are not considered appropriate for oily wastes, and the TC is not legally applicable to exempt oil and gas wastes (55 FederaZRegister 11835,

Mar. 29, 1990; also see ch. 5).

~. Nielso~ Utah Department of Natural Resources, review comments, Aug. 2, 1991.

ZIN. ~W&,hoco, pemonal communicatio~ Sept. 16, W91.
76 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Hazardous Characteristics and

Health Risk Assessments

Both EPA and API analyzed samples of E&P

wastes from drilling and production sites, waste

treatment facilities, and commercial waste storage

and disposal facilities. In summarizing these data,

EPA (117) concluded that chemicals such as benzene, phenanthrene, lead, and barium were present in

some samples at “levels of primary concern” (i.e.,

in amounts greater than EPA health-based limits

multiplied by 1,000). EPA also noted that chemicals

such as arsenic, fluoride, and antimony were found

in some samples at “levels of secondary concern”

(i.e., in amounts greater than health-based limits

multiplied by 100).

In its 1988 rulemaking,22 EPA estimated that from

10 to 70 percent of large-volume oil and gas wastes

(i.e., drilling fluids and produced waters) and 40 to

60 percent of associated wastes (as defined in

‘‘Introduction’ above) could potentially exhibit

RCRA hazardous waste characteristics.23

EPA conducted some risk assessments for oil and

gas wastes, based on a relatively small sample data

set on waste constituent concentrations (117). In

general, it found that only negligible risks would be

expected to occur for most of the model scenarios

evaluated. However, EPA also noted that:

It did not analyze all release modes, including

releases from unlined pits;

There were realistic combinations of measured

chemical concentrations and release scenarios

that could be of substantial concern;

A few of the hundreds of chemical constituents

detected in reserve pits and produced waters

appeared to be of ‘primary concern relative to

health or environmental damage” (e.g., benzene, chlorides); and

Wide variation (five or more orders of magnitude) existed in estimated health risks across

the model scenarios, reflecting the great variation in the nature, location, and management of

oil and gas sites.

Another potential exposure pathway involves

consumption of contaminated seafood. Two studies

in Louisiana suggested that potential human health

risks exist from the bioaccumulation of radionuclides, metals, and hydrocarbons in benthic invertebrates, including edible species such as oysters (66,

78). In laboratory studies, oysters released accumulated hydrocarbons after being exposed to contaminantfree water; this may be particularly important

because oysters are usually eaten directly after

harvest and are not depurated (78). EPA (117) also

concluded that potential endangerment of human

health was associated with consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish.

Risks associated with naturally occurring radioactive materials are discussed in box 4-A.

Environmental Damages

EPA documented 62 actual or potential damage

cases resulting from the management of E&P

wastes, many of which were in violation of existing

State and Federal requirements (117). These cases

included: 1) damage to agricultural land, crops,

streams, aquatic life, and other resources from

produced water and drilling fluids (including potential contamination of aquatic and bird life in marine

ecosystems by metals and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons from discharges of these wastes); 2)

degradation of soil and groundwater from runoff and

leachate from treatment and disposal facilities,

reserve pits, and unlined disposal pits; 3) salt

damage to groundwater, agricultural land, and domestic and irrigation water caused by seepage of

native brines from improperly plugged or unplugged

abandoned wells; 4) groundwater degradation from

improper functioning of injection wells; and 5)

damage to vegetation (including potential damage to

tundra on the Alaska North Slope) from roadspreading of high-chloride drilling muds and seepage or

discharges from reserve pits.

For example, activities such as drilling, EOR

operations, and underground injection of produced

waters have been associated with migration to

nearby wells of various liquids and chemicals (e.g.,

brine, fracturing fluid, produced waters, hydrocarbons from oil or gas; ref. 117). According to the U.S.

General Accounting Office (82), EPA data indicate

23 cases of drinking water contamination associated

with Class II wells; EPA, however, noted that these

incidents occurred prior to implementation of EPA’s

~53 Federal Register 25455, Jdy 6, 1988.

23~.s ~~te ~a~mde~fore~e ~cwTC test ~a~ ~rom~gat~e However, tie TC test d~snot apply to ~emptwastes (55 FederaZRegister 11835,

Mar. 29, 1990).
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes . 77

Box 4-A—Risks and Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) is present in many industrial process residues, including

produced waters and equipment from oil and gas production, sludges from drinking water treatment, fly ash from

electricity generation, phosphogypsum from phosphate production (see ch. 2), and tailings from rare-earth and

uranium mill processing.1 The oil and gas industry has known about NORM since the 1930s (65), but concerns

increased in the mid-1980s as the extent of NORM-enhanced pipi scale, sludges, and sediments became known (68).

For the oil and gas industry, the principal constituents of concern in NORM are radium-226 (a decay product

of uranium-238), radium-228 (a decay product of thorium-232) and its daughter products radon-222 and lead-210. 2

The volume and concentration of these constituents in the material brought to the surface at a production site depend

on the concentrations of the original uranium and thorium in the formations encountered during exploration and

production, the temperatures and pressures at the production reservoir depth, the amount of water and natural gas

produced, the duration of production, and the water chemistry.

Most radium remains in the produced waters, which typically are injected in Class II underground wells back

into the original formation from which the waters were derived or into other saline formations below underground

sources of drinking water. However, some radium precipitates on the inside of oil and gas production equipment

in the form of barium/radium sulfate scales, which are difficult to remove because they are highly insoluble.3 In

addition, lead-210 also tends to precipitate on the inside of gas production equipment, primarily as a film in propane

and ethane pumps (65). Because older production fields handle more produced water than newer fields, equipment

at older fields is exposed to more water and thus tends to have higher concentrations of NORM.

The radiation exposure pathway of most concern in oil and gas operations is ingestion and inhalation by

workers during cleaning of NORM-contaminated equipment. Internal exposure to radium and radon can cause bone

and lung cancer, respectively, whereas lead-210 can attach to respirable particles and cause necrologic abnormalities

and other problems. As a result, the industry has developed procedures for cleaning equipment containing NORM

to prevent inhalation or ingestion by workers (7, 68); these include minimizing exposure by purging vessels (e.g.,

tanks) prior to entry, using respirators and other breathing gear while inside vessels, using masks while performing

grinding and chipping operations, and other industrial hygiene practices.

An API-sponsored survey of major petroleum companies operating in 20 States and 2 offshore areas (Gulf of

Mexico, California) obtained more than 36,000 measurements of NORM activity (i.e., gamma radiation) at

background levels and on contact with equipment (65).4 About 20 percent of the sites had readings above

background levels, with the highest reported measurement being 4.49 Millirems/hour. Even so, more than 95 percent

of all measurements, whether background or of equipment, were less than 0.11 millirem per hour.5 However, these

readings suggest that relatively insensitive measuring instruments were used, since normal background readings in

uncontaminated areas should be 5 to 15 microroentgens per hour. Another, preliminary field study by the Michigan

Departments of Natural Resources and Public Health found maximum readings of 3.2 microroentgens per hour, with

the highest concentrations of NORM being found in sediment from the bottom of tanks (56).

Furthermore, since the principal source of any adverse health impacts due to exposure to NORM would be due

to inhalation or ingestion of alpha radiation, not gamma dose, the relevance of the measurements in these studies

is limited. Determination of the alpha radiation dose expected from contamination of NORM would require

laboratory analyses of the types and amounts of specific radionuclides present in samples, in addition to estimates

of the internal dose received by persons handling the contaminated equipment and at risk for ingesting or inhaling

the materials. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration general industry standard for worker exposure

Ipor titx information on the management of commercial low-level radioactive waste, see ref. 96.

2Ra&um-226 and rwlium-228 have half-lives of more than 1,600 and 5,7 years, respectively. Radon-222@ a half-life of o@’ 3.8 ~YS,

whereas lead-210, one of its decay products, has a half-life of 22 years.

3“r’he ~m~ is -g t. &velop sc~e inhibitors to ~~~in the produced wat~ ~d inhibit its p~ipitition into SCde. Al~OU@

some short-term inhibitors do exist effective longer-term inhibitors have yet to be developed.

4The decay products of urauium and thorium emit alp~ kt% ~d g~ radiations; alpha and beta radiations normally do not penetrate

through vessel or pipe walls, but gamma radiation can do so and thus can be measured outside a vessel or pipe.

5~e swq did ~t ob~ _mements of NORM ~oncentratiom in @ bents, sod, or gro~wa~r-p~eterstit cotid bC

necessary if regulations are developed on design requirements for management and disposal opemtions. The API, the Department of Energy,

and the Gas Research Institute are currently studying oiltleld NORM concentrations (B. Steingraber, Mobil Exploration& Producing U.S.,

personal communicatio~ Aug. 21, 1991). Continued on next page
78 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 4-A—Risks and Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials-Continued

is for the total of external (i.e., gamma) and internal (i.e., principally alpha) radiation-a maximum permissible dose

for total body exposure of 5 reins per year (29 CFR 1910.96).6

Another health-related issue is the extent to which old equipment sent off-site for reuse or disposal results in

the exposure of nonindustry workers to NORM. Although NORM-enhanced scale can be cleaned out of pipes and

other equipment mechanically, the industry has usually found it cheaper to buy new equipment and send the old

equipment off-site for smelting, cleaning, use in other ways (e.g., fencing or cattle guards), or disposal via land

burial. 7 Most equipment with relatively low levels of radioactivity is sent to scrap yards and smelted. Past practices

also included landspreading, landfilling, disposal along with scrap tanks, and on-site shallow burial (e.g., 56),

although major petroleum companies no longer use these methods. Louisiana is the only State that presently

regulates this material (cited in ref. 56).

How to handle equipment that exhibits higher levels of NORM is more problematic. Currently, equipment

containing NORM with estimated exposure levels higher than 50 microrems per hour is stored, at least by major

petroleum companies, until disposal alternatives are approved.8 EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the

States (except for Louisiana) have not issued regulations on land-based disposal and management of NORM.

However, the industry is developing guidelines for disposal of NORM (7, 68).

Rogers and Associates (68) calculated radiation exposures via seven environmental pathways9 for 12 different

disposal methods and compared them with existing exposure limits developed for other, related radiation sources.

They concluded that many methods could be used to manage NORM without exceeding the exposure limits,

including some forms of landspreading, injection into inactive wells, burial at various sites (e.g., commercial oilfield

waste sites, licensed NORM disposal sites, low-level radioactive waste disposal sites, surface mines, salt domes),

and use of wells destined to be plugged and abandoned. Another study (57) also suggested that injecting NORM

into wells is acceptable because it would allow for disposal at levels below groundwater standardsl0 and because

it is one of the least costly alternatives. However, improperly plugged wells and correctly plugged wells that later

leak under some conditions are still of concern (see “Underground Injection Wells” in this chapter, and ref. 117).

Methods such as shallow burial in humid environments or landspreading would also require consideration of the

potential for groundwater contamination and human access.

In general, the industry feels that the relatively small volumes of NORM, especially compared with those from

mill tailings, fly ash, phosphate fertilizer tailings, and other sources, can be adequately and carefully handled under

State regulation. With the exception of Louisiana, however, no State has thus far adopted NORM regulations.

However, at least a dozen other States are considering adopting such regulations in the next few years.11 Abandoned

NORM sites (e.g., old pipe cleaning operations or defunct wrap operations that handled pipe) are just beginning

to be assessed in terms of potential exposures and risks and potential corrective actions.

6~e ~te~o~ co~~~ion on ~~tion ~otection ~Wen@ lo~er~d ifi ~de~es to a to~ of 2 rem per yew (T O’Tbole, O’IA,

personal communicatio~ Nov. 8, 1991).

7~e pe~lem fiv~men~ ReswCh F~- is ~-ntly smdyin~ the fate of Nom d~g smel@ o~rations to analyze poten~

exposures (B. Steingraber, personal communication, Aug. 21, 1991).

8B. Steingraber, personal communicatio~ Aug. 21, 1991.

g’f’he pathways were radon inhalatio~ external g~ exposure, groundwater ingestio~ surface water ingestioa dust inbalationj food

ingestio~ and skin beta exposure.

l~med on models ~s~g a ~tenon of l~mi~emtow dose from ~ routes, inclu&g rado~ to ensure Wfety.

1lB. Steingraber, review comments, OCt. 9, 1991.

Class II well regulations (see “Other EPA Statutory toring, and plugging requirements. EPA has formed

Authority” below) .24 All Class 11 wells are subject a Class II Advisory Committee to consider potential

to these regulations. Although many injection wells improvements to the program, through guidance or

now used for disposing produced waters were in regulation.

existence prior to implementation of the regulations

and did not need to be repermitted, they must still About 4 percent of drilling muds and produced

comply with construction, operating, testing, moni- waters are discharged to surface waters. Although

2’$F. Brasier, U.S. EPA, review comments, Sept. 26, 1991.
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes . 79

these discharges may meet State and Federal permit

standards, large volumes of discharges containing

low levels of certain pollutants may cause damage to

aquatic communities (117). Discharges into Gulf

Coast bays and estuaries have resulted in the

bioaccumulation of metals, hydrocarbons, and radionuclides in shellfish and other organisms. For

example, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (78) found that benthic invertebrates

(including edible species such as oysters) growing

near discharges of produced waters may accumulate

radionuclides and organic chemicals (e.g., hydrocarbons) whose potential risks to humans are discussed

above. Preliminary findings from another study in

Louisiana, funded by the Louisiana Division of the

Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, appear to

corroborate the main findings, namely, that organic

compounds and metals in produced waters can

contaminate benthic communities, depending in part

on the volume of discharges and on the hydrologic

and sedimentary features of the sites (66).

In general, most cases of environmental impacts

result from violations of existing State standards, but

some do not. In Ohio and New Mexico, for example,

oil and gas operators are allowed to dispose of

produced waters in unlined surface impoundments

in areas where there is no groundwater. Chronic,

low-level discharges of produced waters into

streams are often allowed legally under NPDES

permit conditions.

Another problem may be surface water contamination from abandoned pits. As of August 1991, for

example, Louisiana had identified 71 abandoned pits

(31 with inactive operators, 28 with no operator of

record, and 12 for which closure was in noncompliance) and 180 unclosed pits requiring remediation or

closure. 25 However, Louisiana also considers groundwater contamination from numerous plugged and

abandoned wells to be of more importance.

The Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)

contains four sites that received oil and gas E&P

wastes. Three are in Louisiana: two received oil

drilling muds, salt water, and other drilling fluids;

the third received sludges from oil field production.

The fourth site is a landfill located in New Mexico,

on Federal land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management; this site received produced water,

waste oil, spent acids, chlorinated organic solvents,

and sewage. However, these sites were not necessarily listed on the NPL because of E&P wastes. In

addition, some Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)

at the Louisiana sites have contested their designation as PRPs because of perceived statutory exclusions in CERCLA, although as of November 1991,

EPA is proceeding with initial site investigations.26

Two other issues of concern involve wetland

losses and wildlife mortality.

Wetland Losses

Degradation or loss of some wetland areas has

been linked with the physical nature of oil and gas

exploration and production activities. For example,

one study (80) estimated that canals accounted for 6

percent of total net wetland loss from 1955 to 1978.

The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (cited in ref. 36) estimated that less than 10

percent of the land lost in coastal Louisiana since

1900 can be attributed to dredging of navigational

channels and oil and gas access canals.

Wetland losses have also been associated with

discharges of E&P wastes. One review of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands concluded that a correlation

exists between large numbers of brine discharge

points and adjacent areas with rapidly deteriorating

marsh (135). At one oil field, these investigators

estimated that more than 13 million barrels of brine

had been discharged into surface waters annually,

and that roughly 30 percent of the wetlands within a

6-mile radius of the field had disappeared between

1956 and 1978. They concluded that the salinity

associated with brine discharges can accelerate

natural marsh loss rates and initiate vegetation loss

in more stable, healthy marshes. In March 1991, the

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

issued new water quality regulations on discharges

associated with oil and gas exploration and production activities (see “State Oil and Gas Programs”

below).

Wildlife Mortality

Another problem concerns birds and other wildlife that are killed after landing at oily waste pits,

whose reflection is apparently viewed as a sign of

flesh water. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(F&WS) surveyed New Mexico, Texas, and OklaXS. McC@, ~uisi~ C)fflce of conservation personal comnmnicatio~ Aug. 29, 1991.

~J. Wbustik, U.S. EPA, personal CCXIImWicatioQ Nov. 14, 1991.
80 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

homa in 1987 and estimated that about 225,000

migratory birds had been killed in eastern New

Mexico alone (109). This problem is not limited to

the Southwest. During 1990 and 1991, for example,

another study (26) found more than 600 dead

animals at 88 pits in Wyoming; two-thirds were

birds and one-third were mammals.

Several methods can be used to prevent animals

from getting into pits, including plastic flagging,

metal reflectors, strobes, complete covering with

hardware cloth, and fencing; many States require

fencing and other methods (26). The most effective

measure is probably a cover of screening or netting,

which can cost from a hundred to several thousand

dollars. Many major oil companies have invested in

such measures.

New Mexico’s Oil Conservation Division enacted

regulations in September 1989 that require screening or netting of all open pits; other States have been

slower to adopt such requirements. Under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the F&WS can impose a

$10,OOO fine for operations that result in the death of

a migratory bird. In the fall of 1988, the F&WS

suspended enforcement of this provision until October 1989, to provide industry with time to voluntarily clean up the problem (109). Although many

industries responded, particularly in New Mexico,

the F&WS felt that the situation might still be severe

in areas such as Texas. As a warning to oil pit

operators, the F&WS investigated mortality at oil

pits operated by Union Pacific Railroad, which

pleaded guilty in March 1990 to killing migratory

birds. In addition, the Texas Railroad Commission

revised its rules, effective November 1, 1991, to

require that open-top tanks that are 8 feet or more in

diameter be netted or screened.

CURRENT REGULATORY

PROGRAMS

As with other solid wastes, the management of

exploration and production wastes illustrates the

multimedia dimension inherent in waste management decisionmaking. For example, when E&P

wastes are stored in surface impoundments, some

organic chemicals may volatilize into the air and

other chemicals may seep into groundwater if the

impoundment is improperly sited and managed. In

addition, other air emissions are associated with

exploration and production activities (117).27 Similarly, some E&P wastes are discharged into surface

waters, whereas others reach groundwater via leaks

from underground injection wells.

Currently, oil and gas E&P wastes are regulated

primarily at the State level. EPA has not developed

a regulatory program under Subtitle D for these

wastes. However, the Agency does regulate underground injection of produced waters under the Safe

. . Drinking Water Act (SDWA), surface discharges of

oil and gas wastes under the Clean Water Act

(CWA), and air emissions under the Clean Air Act

(CAA). 28 In all of these statutes, States generally

have primacy in actually implementing the Federal

regulations. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) also has authority over the management of

E&P wastes on Federal lands (but not over the State

primacy programs under the Clean Air Act, Clean

Water Act, or Safe “ Drinking Water Act).

Enforcement issues ace of great concern to Federal and State authorities, because there are large

numbers,of oil and gas wells and sites, and relatively

few government inspectors (see table 4-2). However, a U.S. District Court recently returned the

frost-ever indictment under the Safe Drinking Water

Act, against a Kentucky oil and gas company and its

president for injecting fluids into an underground

drinking water source without a permit.29 EPA hopes

the case will set an example for other small

operators. Whether such targeted enforcement efforts will have a comprehensive effect remains to be

seen.

zT~ese include p~c~te ~tter and sulfur and nitrogen oxides from diesel engines that run drillhg processes; sdfur dioxide rel=sed

when hydrogen sulflde is removed from natural gas; and volatile organic compounds released from leaks in production equipment. In addition, hydrogen

sultlde produced at the wellhead in gaseous form poses occupational risks from leaks or blowouts, although it poses no danger when dissolved in crude

oil.

2SS=tion 112(n)(5) of the Clemfi&t~en~ents of 1~() q~esWA to ~s~sthe -ds to public he~th~d the environment IWUlt@ frOm

emissions of hydrogen sulfide that areassociatedwith the extraction of oil andnaturalgas resources and to submit areportto Congress containing findings

and recommendations within 24 months. The section also authorizes EPA to develop and implement a control strategy under this section and Section

111 for such emissions, based on the findings of the study.

zgUnite~State~ V. Glen ~ea~~er~ee, CR 90-00019-oIBG(M), U.S. District Cour$ Western Dktict of Kentucky, fded Nov. 5, lm.
Chapter Oil and Gas Wastes .81

Table 4-2-Oil and Gas Wells, Injection Wells, Regulatory Agencies, and Enforcement Personnel, by State

Number of

New wells Enforcement

State Gas wells Oil wells Injection wellsa

completed in 1985 Agency Positions b

Alaska . . . . . . . . . 104 1,191

9,490

55,079

57,633

25,823

21,986

29,210

99,030

20,739

210,000

15,895

12,218

472 Class II

425 EOR

47 disposal

Oil and Gas Conser- - 100 new onshore ‘

wells vation Commission;

Department of Environmental Conservation

Arkansas Oil and Gas

Commission; Department of Polliution Control and Ecology

Department of Conservation; Department of

Fish and Game

Kansas Corporation

Commission

Arkansas . . . . . . 2,492 1,211 Class II

239 EOR

972 disposal

1,055 new wells 7 and 2, respectively

California . . . . . . 1,566

Kansas . . . . . . . . 12,680

Louisiana . . . . . . 14,436

New Mexico . . . . 18,308

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . 31,343

Oklahoma . . . . . . 23,647

Pennsylvania . . . 24,050

Texas . . . . . . . . . 68,811

West Virginia . . . 32,500

Wyoming . . . . . . . 2,220

11,066 Class II

10,047 EOR

1,019 disposal

14,902 Class II

9,366 EOR

5,536 disposal

4,436 Class II

1,283 EOR

3,153 disposal

3,871 Class II

3,508 EOR

363 disposal

3,956 Class II

127 EOR

3,829 disposal

22,803 Class II

14,901 EOR

7,902 disposal

6,183 Class II

4,315 EOR

1,868 disposal

53,141 Class II

45,223 EOR

7,918 disposal

761 Class ii

687 EOR

74 disposal

5,880 Class II

3,413 new wells 31

30

32 and 36, respectively

10

66

52

34

120

15

7 and 4.5, respectively

6,025 new wells

5,447 new onshore

wells

1,747 new wells

Department of Environmental Quality; Office of Conservation

Energy and Minerals

Department

6,297 new wells Department of Natural

Resources

9,176 new wells OklahomaCorporation

Commission

4,627 new wells Department of Environmental Resources

25,721 new wells Texas Railroad Commission

1,839 new wells Department of Energy

1,735 new wells Oil and Gas Conser5,257 EOR

623 disposal

vation Commission;

Department of Environmental Quality

%Yass II = underground injection well; EOR = enhanced oil recovery wells.

boniy fie~ staff are inclucieci in totat enforcement positions.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Repotf to Congress: Management of Wastes From the

Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gasr and Geothermal Energy, EPA/530-SW-88-003 (Washington, DC: December

1987).

State Oil and Gas Programs and to the variety of waste management options. For

State regulation of oil and gas E&P wastes may example, the number of wells and the volume and

vary, depending on differences in climate, hydrol- types of waste generated vary dramatically from one

ogy, geology, and economics (44, 117). Additional State to another (see table 4-l). Regulations often

differences are attributable, in some locations, to the differ for wastes managed on-site and those mancomplexity of exploration and production processes aged off-site at commercial or centralized facilities.
82 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Most produced waters are injected in underground

wells, which are regulated under the Underground

Injection Control (UIC) program. Landspreading,

evaporation, and storage in pits may also be regulated by States. Since the mid-1980s, for example,

several States have enacted regulations for land

application of oil and gas wastes (75).30 Similar

options, except for underground injection, exist for

drilling fluids and low-volume associated wastes.

Most States regulate pits and, thereby, at least

indirectly regulate drilling fluids and associated

wastes; however, few States single out associated

wastes for special regulatory attention.

Discharges to surface waters generally are regulated by the States under the Clean Water Act. Given

the concern about wetland losses in Louisiana (see

“Environmental Damages” above), it is noteworthy

that the Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality issued new water quality regulations in

March 1991, on discharges and stormwater runoff

associated with oil and gas exploration and production activities (Louisiana Title 33, Part IX, ch. 7, Sec.

708). The regulations set forth general guidelines

requiring permits and spill prevention and control

plans for all discharges. They prohibit discharges of

produced waters to water bodies located in intermediate, brackish, or saline marsh areas after January 1,

1995, unless the discharge is authorized in an

approved schedule for elimination or for effluent

limitation compliance.31

All oil and gas producing States permit and

therefore identify drilling sites (44). The permits

may or may not cover waste management (whether

on- or off-site) associated with drilling, but they

usually require some financial assurance to cover

closure or remediation of a well or disposal facility;

the amounts required vary tremendously. A State’s

overall regulations, however, generally include requirements for using certain management methods,

with varying levels of detail and site-specific flexibility.32 All States have some enforcement program,

but actual enforcement mechanisms and resources

differ. As with regulatory programs for mining

wastes (see ch. 2), often two or more State agencies

are involved in regulating oil and gas wastes.

The IOGCC has issued administrative and technical criteria that it recommends States include in their

oil and gas regulatory programs.33 The criteria

emphasize that States should retain control over

implementation of the recommendations (because of

their knowledge of local management practices,

waste characteristics, climate, and hydrogeology)

and suggest that States establish and implement

site-specific performance standards and design specifications (44). The criteria cover the following:

Permitting: States should have a recordkeeping mechanism (e.g., individual permits, permits by rule, registration of facilities, or notification of certain activities) to track waste

management facilities.

Compliance evaluation: States should be capable of evaluating compliance by facilities

managing wastes. Capabilities should include a

requirement for periodic reporting by facilities

and evaluation of these reports by regulatory

agencies; inspection and surveillance procedures independent of the self-reporting requirement; procedures to process complaints reported by the public; authority to enter any

regulated site; and guidelines for investigations

in support of enforcement proceedings.

Enforcement: States should have the authority

to take enforcement actions such as giving

notice of violation and establishing a compliance schedule; restraining continued activity

by an operator; identifying emergency conditions that warrant corrective action by a State

agency; bringing suit in court for continuing

violation; issuing administrative orders or bringing suit to correct past harm to public health and

the environment; and revoking, modifying, or

suspending a permit.

~C)klalKXIM and Kansas, for example, prohibit the use of reserve pit w=tes fOr mmmerc~ ~dfarming (1 17).

31~e re~atiom ~. pro~bit diw~ges of pr~uced waters to: 1) freshwater l&es, rivers, stre~, bayous, ~dc*;~d 2) freshwater SW~pS

or marshes unless these are authorized in accordance with an approved termination schedule or under a permit allowing discharge to portions of the

Mississippi River or the Atchafalaya River. Numerical effluent limitations are set for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, oil and gas, total organic carbonj

pH, temperature, total suspended solids, chlorides, dissolved oxygeq acute and chronic toxicity, soluble radiunL and visible sheen.

szFore_ple, tie Shte of pennsylv~aadopted re@tiomin 1989 titquire ofl ~dg~ pits (~d -) to be corlstictd aCCOrdhlg tO S@lXhdS

to protect groundwater, with additional standards applicable if pits are also to be used for disposal (25 Penn.@vania Code, Sections 78.51-78.63).

Alternative practices to the use of pits, such as solidflcation, can be approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

33~e ~~t~a do not address disc~ges t. s~am waters or injection in undergroundwe~~use~eseme reguhted @ EPA or the Stik% under

the authority of the CWA or SDW& respectively.
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes ● 83

. Additional program requirements: States

should include provisions for public participation; contingency planning by operators in the

event of a waste release; financial assurance

(e.g., for closure and postclosure); waste hauler

certification; waste tracking mechanisms; the

ability to identify the location of closed disposal sites; and effective data management.

The criteria also included general recommendations

for managing wastes in pits, land application units,

and centralized and commercial facilities (44). In

most cases these criteria are presented as goals that

States should attempt to meet in establishing their

own technical standards.34

API also issued guidelines for managing solid

waste from oil and gas operations, to support EPA’s

activities and provide guidance to industry and State

regulatory agencies (8).35 API recently initiated a

training program geared to small oil and gas

operators to teach them how to implement the

guidance.

No systematic, comparative information exists,

however, on the overall quality of State oil and

gas regulations and programs. Given the great

variety in State regulations and in the level of State

implementation and enforcement, the quality of the

programs is difficult to assess without an extensive

field survey, which is beyond the scope of this

background paper. In its 1987 Report to Congress

(117), EPA recommended that it work with State

regulatory agencies to improve oil and gas programs

where necessary. The IOGCC, under a grant from

EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy, is in the

process of evaluating individual State regulatory

programs, and comparing them with IOGCC’s

criteria.36 This peer review process includes environmental, industry, and State representatives; the

first review-of Wyoming’s program-was completed in June 1991.

However, some data are available to indicate the

general problems and challenges facing State regulatory programs. A major constraint is that State

programs often do not have adequate resources to

address, for example, an estimated 1.2 million

abandoned wells; Texas and Oklahoma have many

more wells to plug than they have money to pay for

the plugging. 37 EPA’S 1987 Report to congress

(117) included information on the number of active

production and injection wells and field inspectors

in 1985 (table 4-2). The number of field enforcement

positions varied from 16 personnel for approximately 1,300 oil and gas wells in Alaska to 120

personnel for almost 300,000 wells in Texas. These

data could argue that many States need more

inspectors, although the exact number would still

vary greatly with factors such as age of wells (older

wells generate more produced water and require

more maintenance) and compliance history of the

companies involved. GAO (82) reviewed the underground injection programs of several States and

concluded that program safeguards were far from

complete or adequate. For example, the files for 41

percent of the wells with permits contained no

evidence that pressure tests had ever been performed.

Current RCRA Status of

Oil and Gas Wastes

Except for the general Subtitle D criteria (ch. 1),

RCRA does not explicitly authorize EPA to control

Subtitle D oil and gas wastes. The 1980 Bentsen

amendments to RCRA exempted certain wastes

unique to the exploration and production of oil and

gas from regulation as hazardous wastes under

Subtitle C (see table 4-3), pending further study and

a determination by EPA of the appropriate level of

regulatory action (and a subsequent act of Congress

should EPA determine that Subtitle C regulation was

warranted).

~For ~mple, the t=~~ Cntefi for com~ction of pits recommended t&t “talcs or lhms should ~ ~uir~ in ctiins~~s b~ed on ~

of fluid and sitespecflc characteristics. . . . Liners can be natural or constructed of natural or synthetic materials, provided they are installed according

to accepted engineering practices and are compatible with expected pit contents” (44).

ss~e API plms to up&k r.his lhvimnmen~Guidance Document in 1991 to address in more detail issues such m VVrtste mininkatioq guidelines

for field sampling and analysis of oil field wastes, NORM guidelines, and land disposal criteria for metals; it also plans to review the consistency of its

guidelines with the IOGCC criteria for exploration and production wastemanagement programs (142).

~J. SimmOna,IOGCC, personal communication% Wch 1991.

37GA0 (82) e-ted the nu&r of such ~el~ t. ~crme,~ause & economic downturn of the oil indm~ in the late 1980s might bve kd tO

more improperly plugged wells.
84 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Table 4-3-Examples of RCRA Exempt and

Nonexempt Oil and Gas Wastes

Exempt wastes Nonexempt wastes

Produced waters

Drilling fluids

Drill cuttings

Rigwash

Well completion fluids

Workover wastes

Gas plant dehydration wastes

Gas plant sweetening wastes

Spent filters and backwash

Packing fluids

Produced sand

Production tank bottoms

Gathering line pigging wastes

Hydrocarbon-bearing soil

Waste crude oil from primary

field sites

Unused fracturing fluids/acids

Painting wastes

Service company wastes

Refinery wastes

Used equipment lubrication oil

Used hydraulic oil

Waste solvents

Waste compressor oil

Sanitary wastes

Boiler cleaning wastes

Incinerator ash

Laboratory wastes

Transportation pipeline wastes

Pesticide wastes

Drums, insulation, and miscellaneous solids

SOURCE: M. Fitzpatrick, “Common Misconceptions About the RCRA

subtitle C Exemption for Wastes From Crude Oil and Natural

Gas Exploration, Development and Production,” in Proceedings

of the First International Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration

and Production Waste Management Practices (New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990).

On the basis of its Report to Congress (117), EPA

published its regulatory determination in July 1988.38

EPA determined that Subtitle C regulation for oil

and gas E&P wastes is not warranted and that the

Agency instead would develop a Subtitle D program

tailored to these wastes.39 EPA reasoned that operators would be freed from prescriptive Subtitle C

requirements, but that the combination of future

Subtitle D requirements, other Federal and State

regulatory requirements, and potential Superfund

liability (from mismanagement of oil and gas

wastes) would be sufficient incentives for prudent

management and would encourage waste minimization and recycling; at the same time, although EPA

hopes to promote greater national consistency in

managing these wastes, it also stated a desire to

maximize State authority. The Agency indicated that

development of a Subtitle D program would consider requirements such as engineering and operating practices to manage releases to surface water and

groundwater; procedures for closure; monitoring

that accommodates site-specific variability; and

cleanup provisions.

EPA further stated that it planed to develop “a

three-pronged approach toward filling the gaps in

existing State and Federal regulatory programs.” —

This

1.

2.

3.

approach would aim to:

improve existing Federal programs in Subtitle

D of RCRA, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe

. . Drinking Water Act;

work with States to encourage improvement

and changes in their regulation and enforcement of oil and gas wastes; and

work with Congress to determine any additional statutory authority that might be necessary.

To date, however, EPA has made little direct

progress toward the goal of establishing a Subtitle D

oil and gas program. Not surprisingly, environmental groups and the industry disagree about the

need for such a program. Environmental groups

contend that a Subtitle D program, along with

possible Subtitle C regulation for some wastes, is

necessary. The oil and gas industry believes that

most wastes can be managed adequately with

existing State and Federal programs (e.g., the UIC

program under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the

NPDES program under the Clean Water Act),

provided the programs are adequately financed and

enforced.

Other EPA Statutory Authority

EPA has additional statutory authority, other than

RCRA, to issue regulations regarding oil and gas

waste management. The most important areas are

under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water

Act, and Superfund. In addition, the Clean Air Act

regulates air emissions associated with oil and gas

activities.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act established a permitting

program for wastewater discharges-the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. EPA

grants primacy to most States to administer State

NPDES programs that are equivalent to or more

stringent than Federal requirements. NPDES perB853 Federal Register 25446, July 6, 1988.

3~Adete~~ tit Subtifle C ~e@tion ~~notw~t~~use: 1) Subtitie C is extremely COStiy and unnecessary fOr Safe management of

these wastes; 2) Congress indicated that such regulations are unwarranted where existing programs can be used to address problems; 3) Subtitle C permit

processing times are typically lengthy, which would cause dismptive delays for oil and gas operations; 4) inclusion of these wastes in Subtitle C would

severely strain existing hazardous wastemanagement capacity; 5) such regulation would disrupt and duplicate State authorities; and 6) implementation

would be impractical and inefficient.
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes ● 85

mits are required for discharges to surface waters

and to public sewer systems that lead to publicly

owned treatment works.

To date, however, most States have not issued

NPDES permits for discharges of produced waters to

coastal areas and wetlands or for discharges from

stripper wells to surface waters in general.40 As of

1990, for example, EPA’s Office of Inspector

General noted that no general permits had been

issued for discharges into coastal wetlands in

Louisiana (125). One reason for the lack of such

permits is that in the initial phases of implementing

the Clean Water Act, EPA’s Region VI concentrated

on establishing control over single major dischargers.

41 As the NPDES program matured, emphasis

shifted to controlling aggregate impacts from multiple minor dischargers, including coastal oil and gas

exploration and development facilities. On February

25, 1991, Region VI issued a final NPDES general

permit for “onshore” oil and gas production facilities, which allows for zero discharge of drilling

fluids and produced water. The Region’s final

NPDES general permit for “coastal” oil and gas

drilling activities, which also will establish a zero

discharge limitation for drilling muds and cuttings,

was expected to be published in late 1991.

EPA, GAO, and others have noted the need for

national guidelines to underlie such permitting

efforts (82, 125). Part of the problem is that EPA has

not yet promulgated effluent limitation guidelines

for discharges from the “offshore” crude oil and

natural gas industry, nor has it revised guidelines for

the “coastal” oil and gas subcategory so that they

are based on best available technology economically

achievable (BAT).42 EPA is developing guidelines

for the offshore subcategory, due to be finalized in

1992, and for the coastal subcategory, due to be

finalized in 1995. EPA also has not decided whether

or how to include stripper oil wells and marginal gas

wells in these regulations, although it is considering

this issue.43 A related issue that may also warrant

more attention concerns the impacts of nontoxic

pollutants, such as chlorides, in effluents discharged

from oil and gas operations.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act established the

Underground Injection Control program to regulate

injection wells. The statute established a special

class (Class II in EPA terminology) of injection

wells in the UIC program for oilfield-related fluids,

and stipulated that regulation of Class II wells

should not impede oil and gas production unless

necessary to prevent endangerment of underground

sources of drinking water.

The UIC program regulates only the injection of

fluids related to oil and gas production and hydrocarbon storage. These include produced waters and

other fluids used for enhanced recovery, as well as

disposal of brines.44 UIC regulations require that

injection of such fluids into Class II wells (for

disposal or for enhanced oil recovery) must take

place below all formations containing underground

sources of drinking water (117, 121). They also

require that periodic tests (at least every 5 years) be

conducted of the mechanical integrity of the wells

and that a one-quarter-mile radius around a well be

reviewed (i.e., the area of review) for potential

migration of injected fluids or brines from the site.

EPA has noted, however, that produced waters

stored in surface impoundments prior to injection

may be subject to RCRA Subtitle D regulations45

;

whether this would extend to management in storage

tanks prior to injection is unclear.

The UIC program is largely administered by the

States, with EPA approval and oversight. EPA has

granted primacy for administering the program to 25

of the 32 oil and gas producing States. EPA is

responsible for management on tribal lands.

~ceptions to this general statement exist. For stripper wells, for example, Pennsylvania issued a general permit that was scheduled to be f~

in October 1991, and Imisiana and ‘&as issue individual State water discharge permits without distinguishing between stripper and onshore wd.kl.

Forcoastalareas and wetlands, Louisiana issues individual State permits for discharges to State waters; these are not the same as NPDES permits because

Louisiana is not a “delegated” State, but they do require monitoring and include discharge limitations and some best management practices.

AlU.S. WA, ~lce of Wat=, review comments, octc 3, 1~1.

4?.~Aprom~gat~efflu~t ~~tions guide~es in 1979 fordisckges in the coastal subcategory (MFederaZRegisf@ 22~9, Apr. 133 1979); ~~e

were based on best practicable control technology currently available (BIT), which provides a less stringent level of control than BAZ

4354 Federal Register 46919, NOV. 8, 1989.

44~~uc~ Watm ~jwt~ for e~ced oil r=ovq is c~midemd t. ~ ~~lc~ly ~ycl~ ss ~ intcgr~ pm of some crude Ofi ~d mt.ulld g~

production processes and, as suc& is not a waste for purposes of regulation under RCR4 (53 Federal Register 25454, July 6, 1988).

4553 FederalRegister25454, July 6, 1988.
86 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Several concerns have been raised about the

effectiveness of injection well regulations, and EPA

continues to evaluate the UIC program (82, 121,

122). EPA’s most recent evaluation of the Class II

UIC program (122) indicated a need for: 1) further

study of risks associated with abandoned oil and gas

wells; 2) additional evaluation of State area of

review programs for existing wells, which vary

widely among States; and 3) possible changes in

Class II well construction requirements. According

to EPA (117), economic incentives for operators to

comply with requirements may be lower for disposal

wells than for EOR wells.%

CERCLA/Superfund

The Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),

passed in 1980 and commonly known as Superfund,

excludes petroleum (including crude oil) from its

liability provisions. However, oil and gas operators

are not exempt from CERCLA liability, for several

reasons.

47 First, other nonpetroleum ‘‘special

wastes” (see “Introduction” and table 4-3) from oil

and gas exploration and production activities may

still result in CERCLA liability if the waste constituents are hazardous substances as otherwise defined

by CERCLA. Second, the petroleum exclusion does

not apply to any constituents of oil and gas wastes

that are hazardous substances added to the oil (and

not normally found in petroleum at the levels added).

Third, codisposal of exempt and nonexempt wastes

can result in liability under the “mixture’ rule of

RCRA (see ch. 5). As noted above, oil field waste

disposal sites have been designated as Super-fund

sites because oil and gas wastes that are exempt from

Subtitle C, along with other wastes at some sites,

were not managed so as to avoid the release of

hazardous substances (27).

Other Federal Agency and General

Statutory Authority

Other Federal agencies also regulate certain

aspects of oil and gas waste management, and

several general Federal statutes contain provisions

that affect oil and gas operations.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires Federal agencies to assess the potential

environmental impacts of “major federal actions”

undertaken or permitted by Federal agencies. If the

assessment indicates that the environment will be

significantly affected, then a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. In

addition, the Endangered Species Act require s

Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not

jeopardize endangered or threatened species or

destroy critical habitats of endangered species.

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of

1976 (FLPMA) requires the U.S. Department of the

Interior to develop land use plans for resources on

Federal lands. With respect to regulating oil and gas

E&P wastes, the Department generally favors continuing the existing approach of working relationships among the Federal Government, States, and

industry. Within the Department, the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) is responsible for oil and

gas production and waste management on many

Federal lands, although not for the primacy programs of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or Safe

. .

Drinking Water Act. BLM manages public lands

under its jurisdiction according to the comprehensive land use guidelines established by FLPMA and

other acts. For example, BLM has issued orders that

instruct onshore operators about how to conduct

their operations in an environmentally safe manner .

4 8

The U.S. Forest Service, within the Department of

Agriculture, is responsible for administering oil and

gas activities in the National Forests. It develops

land use plans under the guidelines of the National

Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of

1974.

GAO (84) evaluated land use plans and related

environmental impact statements in four resource

areas administered by BLM and four national forests

administered by the Forest Service, on the basis of

five elements that it considered essential for assessing environmental impacts of oil and gas leasing and

development decisions.

49 It concluded that most

~For EOR wells, oil recovery depends on maintaining the pressure within the producing zone and avoiding communication between that zone and

the reservoir where wastes are injected.

47~e pre~ent for Supetidliabili~ by oil ad g= comp~es was set by Eagle.PicherI~usm”es, Inc. V. Us. Environmental Protection Agency,

83-2259, U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, 822 F.2d 132, June 30, 1987.

~BL~ review comments, Aug. 9, 1991.

49~e Claents Were oil ~dg= poten~, r~~~bly foreseeable d~elopment SW~OS, fi~~t @acts, cwtitive kIpaCtS, and lease Stip@tiOnS.
Chapter 4-Oil and Gas Wastes .87

plans and impact statements for lands with high oil

and gas potential did not contain adequate information on one or more of the five elements. GAO also

found that leases and permits had been approved

without including appropriate mitigation measures.

In written comments to GAO, BLM and the Forest

Service essentially agreed with its two major recommendations regarding the establishment of management controls to ensure that NEPA requirements are

adequately addressed and that appropriate stipulations and conditions of approval are attached to

leases and permits.

FLPMA also requires BLM and the Secretary of

the Interior to review all public land roadless areas

of 5,000 or more acres with wilderness characteristics to determine their suitability for wilderness

designation by October 21, 1991. This is significant

because it could potentially protector open up large

areas of public lands (e.g., on the North Slope of

Alaska) to potential oil and gas exploration and

production (as well as other uses). If more oil and gas

development occurs on Federal lands, the relationships among BLM, EPA, and the States will be even

more important.

The Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management

Act of 1982, which is administered by the Department of the Interior (specifically by BLM and the

Minerals Management Service) requires oil and gas

operators on Federal lands to construct and operate

wells in such a manner as to protect the environment

and conserve Federal resources.50 It also requires the

Department to establish a comprehensive system,

including inspections, for accurately determining oil

and gas royalties.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) charter is

to ensure the Nation’s energy security and, as such,

includes research on waste management. DOE’s

concerns about oil and gas operations focus on

production aspects (e.g., economic impacts of regulatory changes on the industry and on domestic

production), in line with concerns of the oil and gas

industry, rather than on environmental concerns,

which are generally of secondary importance (100).

ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

Concerns over future liability may be encouraging

oil and gas operators to improve waste management

methods, but efforts on the parts of Federal and State

agencies may still be needed in some areas. At the

same time, the sheer number of oil and gas operators

and sites and the variation in site-specific conditions

pose many challenges for any waste management

regulatory program, whether at the Federal or the

State level. Some issues and questions related to oil

and gas waste management that Congress might

address include, but are not necessarily limited to,

the following:

●

●

●

Relationships Among Federal Agencies and

Programs-Is an adequate mechanism available to ensure that EPA and Department of

Interior regulations are consistent with each

other and nonduplicative? How do Department

of Interior regulations for managing oil and gas

wastes on Federal lands compare with those of

EPA’s RCRA, UIC, and NPDES programs,

which usually are implemented by the States?

Does EPA need to better coordinate its own

programs, which are authorized by multiple

statutes (e.g., RCRA, SDWA, CWA)? Should

EPA develop a multimedia approach within a

RCRA Subtitle D oil and gas program? Are

existing CVLA regulations on discharges of oil

and gas waste to surface waters adequate,

particularly for coastal discharges of produced

waters and for discharges from stripper wells?

Relationships Among Federal and State Agencies-should the Federal government specify

requirements to be adopted by State programs?

If so, does EPA need additional oversight,

monitoring, and enforcement authority under

RCRA to support an effective State-implemented Subtitle D program for oil and gas

waste, or are existing State and Federal regulatory programs adequate? Should existing relationships among the Federal Government (including the Department of the Interior), States,

and industry be maintained and strengthened?

Can consistent environmental protection and

flexibility to address variable conditions at oil

and gas operations both be incorporated into a

Federal waste management program?

Scope of a Federal Regulatory Program—

Should EPA or another agency develop a

Federal regulatory program for the disposal of

~~ad&tio~ some OiI and gas lease agreements may impose obligations on operators for waste management tbat are dillerent from or more stringent

than State or Federal requirements.
88 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

naturally occurring radioactive material, particularly off-site? Should a Federal regulatory

program be developed for abandoned oil and

gas wells? What components should such

programs include? Should EPA regulate produced water in storage pits or tanks prior to

injection into Class II wells, whether or not the ●

water is used for enhanced oil recovery? Should

stripper wells be included in any Federal

regulatory program for E&P wastes (i.e., is the

current distinction for small quantity genera- ●

tors warranted)? Are standards needed for land

treatment and land application?

Resources for Administration and Enforcement of Programs-Are existing resources

sufficient to administer and enforce Federal and

State oil and gas waste regulatory programs? If

not, what mechanisms are available to provide

such resources? What emphasis should be

given to enforcement of such programs relative

to other Subtitle D programs and, in turn,

relative to other environmental protection programs? Should independent audits be conducted to assess how effectively various Federal and State regulations are being enforced?

Pollution Prevention/Waste Reduction—

How can pollution prevention and waste reduction efforts be encouraged, especially for drilling fluids?

Adequacy of Existing Toxicity Tests-Do

existing toxicity tests such as the Extraction

Procedure and the Toxicity Characteristic adequately determine the potential for long-term

leaching and migration of contaminants from

oil and gas wastes (i.e., is a testing scenario

based on mismanagement of wastes in municipal landfills appropriate for oil and gas wastes)?

Should any oil and gas exploration and production wastes be regulated as hazardous?
Chapter 5

Manufacturing Wastes
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

WASTE GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Effects of the New Toxicity Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Hazardous Wastes Currently Exempt From Subtitle C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

On-site, Land-based Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Other On-site Units and Off-site Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Pollution Prevention/Waste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

RISKS FROM MANUFACTURING WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Frequency of Pollution Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

CURRENT REGULATORY PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Federal Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

ISSUES/QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Boxes

Box Page

5-A. Cement Kiln Dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5-B. Recycling of Manufacturing Wastes by Smelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure

Figure Page

5-1. Land-Based Management of Subtitle D Manufacturing Wastes, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Tables

Table Page

5-1. Estimated Amounts of Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste Managed in

Land-based Units, by Industry, 1985 ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5-2. Estimated Number of Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste Management Units,

Mid-1980s *.*. *.*. **. ... .*. ..*. ..*. *.. **. .*. *.. e.*. ***. *.. .*. *do..***....**.* 97

5-3. Number of On-site Subtitle D Facilities and Percentage of Waste Handled at

Different Waste Management Facilities, by Industry, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5-4. Number (and percentage) of On-site Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste Management

Facilities With Different Design and Operating Controls, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5-5. Violations of State Standards Detected at Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste

Management Facilities in 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5-6. Estimated Number and Percentage of Permitted Surface Impoundments and

Landfills With Liners or Groundwater Monitoring for Six States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Chapter 5

Manufacturing Wastes

INTRODUCTION

Subtitle D manufacturing wastes include a wide

range of process residues—including sludges, oily

wastes, paint wastes, ashes and slags, inorganic

chemical residues, food processing residues, solvents, plastics, and off-specitfication products (119).1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

estimated that about 6.5 billion tons of such waste

was managed on-site (i.e., at the point of generation)

in 1985; this excludes waste from electric power and

generation (see ch. 3). The new Toxicity Characteristic (TC) might result in more than 800 million tons

of waste yearly being identified as hazardous, but

much of this is managed in units exempt from

Subtitle C.2 This chapter also discusses kiln dust

from cement manufacturing, a Bevill waste that is

exempt from Subtitle C pending further study and a

regulatory determination by EPA. Although EPA

does not consider these dusts to be Subtitle D

non-hazardous manufacturing waste, they are included in this chapter for convenience.

Almost 97 percent of the Subtitle D manufacturing wastes managed on-site in 1985 were managed

in surface impoundments (119). Most of the wastes

were probably wastewaters, some of which may

have been treated before disposal. As of 1984,

approximately 29 percent of surface impoundments

had Clean Water Act permits to discharge wastewater into surface water (119). EPA was unable to

estimate the amount of manufacturing wastes managed off-site.

In general, few nationwide data are available on

the design and operation-including the frequency

of different pollution controls and groundwater

monitoring-of current management units for Subtitle D manufacturing wastes. Furthermore, potential

risks to human health and the environment posed by

management of such wastes are relatively unstudied

by EPA, compared to risks associated with other

Subtitle D wastes.

Unlike the special wastes (see chs. 2 through 4),

Congress did not exempt manufacturing wastes from

regulation as hazardous. As a result, many manufacturing wastestreams are indeed listed hazardous

wastes, and others are subject to the TC test for

hazardous characteristics. However, EPA has not

developed a Subtitle D program for regulation and

management of non-hazardous manufacturing solid

wastes, other than the general landfill criteria that

were revised in 1991 (which focus on municipal

solid waste landfills). The States bear primary

responsibility for developing and implementing any

regulatory programs for these wastes.

WASTE GENERATION

Based on data in its 1987 telephone survey of

selected industrial establishments (as reported in ref.

119), EPA estimated that the manufacturing sector

produced and managed approximately 6.5 billion

tons of Subtitle D wastes in 1985 (table 5-1).3 This

estimate includes only wastes managed or disposed

of in on-site, land-based units (i.e., landfills, surface

impoundments, land application units, and waste

piles). 4 EPA did not estimate how much of the total

consisted of wastewaters. However, since the vast

majority of the wastes were initially managed in

surface impoundments (see ‘‘Current Management

Practices” below), it is likely that most were

wastewaters with small amounts of solids. EPA has

not estimated the amount of wastes disposed of

off-site or recycled ( 116), nor does it have figures on

the amount that is injected underground.

Of the wastes managed in on-site, land-based

units, the pulp and paper industry accounted for the

largest quantity-about 35 percent of the total. The

primary iron and steel and the inorganic chemicals

IWastes contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls(X&s) and some pesticide residues are also included. The Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA), for example, allows small capacitors containing less than 3 pounds of PCB dielectric to be disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. The FederaJ

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) also allows pesticide containers that have been rinsed in accordance with label instructions to be

disposed of in Subtitle Dlandfiis(119).

255 Federal Register 11855,-.29, 1990.

3~s excludes ~ e5~t~ 1 billion tom of elec~c power generation ~~tes from the CO~ combustion utility industry (See ChS. 1 ~d 3).

4Da~ we~ defived from a telephone sWey of the 17 industries befiev~ by~Ato produce more ~ 99 Permnt of w manufacturing Subtitle D

“waste. EPA asked industries to estimate the quantity of waste and the quantity of water within which it was dissolved.

305-198 - 92 - 4 : QL 3 -91–
92 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Table 5-l—Estimated Amounts of Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste Managed in Land-based Units, by Industry, 1985

Amount b

lndustrya(million tons) EPA assessment of relative levels of heavy metals or organics in wastesc

Pulp and paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,250

Primary iron and steel ............ 1,300

Inorganic chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stone, clay, glass, and

concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food and kindred products . . . . . . . .

Textile manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . .

Plastics and resins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Petroleum refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fertilizer and agricultural

chemicals ..................,..

Primary nonferrous metals . . . . . . . .

Organic chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rubber and miscellaneous

products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation equipment . . . . . . . . .

Leather and leather products . . . . . .

Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

920

622

374

254

181

169d

166

67

59

59

24

13

3

63

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,524

Moderate. Organic pollutants from wood fibers may be significant. Coal and bark ash may contain

metals. Sulfates and metals high in some pulping wastes; dioxins present from some bleaching

processes.

High. Many wastes low in pH, may release significant quantities of heavy metals.

High for organics. Some small quantity generators may dispose of hazardous wastes in on-site,

land-based facilities.

Low. Most wastes are inert, Earth-type materials. However, significant quantities of pollution control

sludges are generated, and some may contain heavy metals.

Low. Most wastes are biodegradable, although they can cause taste and odor problems.

Low. Waste descriptions indicate low organics and heavy metals, but virtually no analytical data are

available for confirmation.

High. Many wastes contain organic solvents and unreacted monomers, which are frequently toxic.

High. Wastes generally contain high levels of sulfides, ammonia, phenols, and oils; some also contain

benzo[a]pyrene and other toxic organics. Some small quantity generators may dispose of hazardous

wastes in on-site, land-based facilities.

High. Waste gypsum piles may cause local pH and metal contamination problems. Pesticide residues

may release organics and heavy metals

High. Several waste streams contain high levels of heavy metals.

High. Many waste streams contain high levels of toxic organic chemicals. Some small quantity

generators also may dispose of hazardous wastes in on-site, land-based facilities.

Low. Wastes are composed mainly of alum and lime, but may contain some heavy metals.

High. Sketchy data indicate possibly significant levels of elastomers, carbon black, plastic resins,

plasticizers, and pigments.

High. Wastewater treatment sludges, oils, and other wastes expected to have potential to release heavy

metals and organics. Some small quantity generators also may dispose of hazardous wastes in on-site,

land-based facilities.

Moderate. Wastes generally contain chromium, although usually in the trivalent state.

a~~~e$ wastes from coal combustion by utilities (see ch. 3).

bBased on telephone survey. Includes only wastes from on-site, land-based facilities; indudes weight of wa$tewater.

CBased on literature search; unclear how much wastewater is included. Quality and age of sources varied widely.

*his EPA estimate is 10 times greater than that of the American Petroleum Institute (see text).

SOURCE: Based on EPA reports cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Repofito Congress: SO/ti

Waste Disposa/in the LJnited States, VOIS. 1-2, EPA/530-SW-88-Ol 1 (Washington, DC: October 1988).

industries accounted

percent, respectively.

for an additional 20 and 14 Based on responses from refineries representing 80

percent of domestic crude refining capacity, API

estimated that 16 million wet tons of waste was

The American Petroleum Institute (API) (10) generated in 1987 and 1988. About three-fourths of

recently published data on waste generation and this was aqueous; the remainder included contamimanagement in the petroleum refining industry.5

nated soils, oily sludges, chemicals, spent catalysts,
Chapter Manufacturing Wastes ● 93

Photo credit: Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics

The Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics plant in Seadrift, Texas. In the foreground are two

Subtitle D wastewater impoundments; in the background are the plant production areas

surrounded by cooling water impoundments.

and” other substances. Note that API’s estimate is

one-tenth of EPA’s (see table 5-l); the discrepancy

may result from differences in the degree of wetness

reported, with many respondents in the API survey

reporting dewatered waste.6

OTA is unaware of more recent information on

total Subtitle D waste generation rates. The Chemical Manufacturers Association collects data on

hazardous waste generation by its member companies, but it has not obtained systematic data on

Subtitle D waste generation (14).

Effects of the New Toxicity Characteristic

Regardless of the exact amount of waste generated, recent regulatory developments regarding hazardous waste determinations will change the way in

which some manufacturing wastes are classified. In

particular, in 1990, EPA promulgated the new TC,

which expands the criteria for determining whether

a wastestream exhibits a hazardous characteristic

(i.e., toxicity) and should therefore be regulated

under Subtitle C.7 EPA estimated that approximately 800 million tons of wastewater and between

1 to 2 million tons of sludges and solids currently

managed as Subtitle D manufacturing wastes would

be characterized as hazardous under the TC. By

using the 1985 estimates of total manufacturing

waste and the estimates regarding the effect of the

TC, approximately 5.7 billion tons per year of

manufacturing wastes would theoretically be subject

to Subtitle D.

Some of the major chemical constituents included

in the new TC are benzene, chloroform, vinyl

chloride, and trichloroethylene.8 EPA estimated that

GA. ()’H~, AP1, perso@ commticatio~ Sept. 5, 1991.

755 Federal Regi$rer 11798, ~. 29, 1990; ~so s= “~dous and Solid Waste Amendments” bdOW.

S~A publi~ed a complete list in fH Federal Register 11804, ~. 29, 1990.
94 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

the industries most likely to be affected by the TC

were :

1.

2.

for wastewater-petroleum refining, organic

chemicals, synthetic rubber, and synthetic

fibers; and

for non-wastewater sludges and solidspulp and paper, synthetic fibers, organic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, petroleum refining, and

wholesale petroleum marketing.

Certain factors limit the scope of the TC.9 For

example, EPA identified three major problems in

relying on the TC to characterize treatment sludges

from petroleum refining. First, the sludges can

contain significant levels of hazardous constituents

that are not covered by the TC (e.g., benzo[a]pyrene,

chrysene). Second, EPA studies have shown that

both the Extraction Procedure (EP) and the TC tend

to underestimate the leachability of hazardous constituents from oily wastes (also see ch. 4).10 Third, an

oily matrix interferes with analytical methods for

determining what portion of chromium is present in

the hexavalent form. These limitations led EPA to

list several petroleum refining primary treatment

sludges as hazardous wastes (i.e., F037, F038, K048,

and K051).

Hazardous Wastes Currently Exempt

From Subtitle C

Determiningg a waste’s regulatory status is complex, not least because Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations contain many

exemptions and partial exemptions (e.g., depending

on whether some wastes are recycled or not).

Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

(CESQG) hazardous wastes (i.e., hazardous wastes

generated at a rate of less than 100 kilograms per

month per generator) are generally exempt from

Subtitle C regulations. Although they are not considered Subtitle D manufacturing wastes, they still can

be disposed of in Subtitle D facilities. l1 They

account for a relatively small amount of Subtitle D

wastes (120,000 tons annually), but their toxicity,

corrosivity, ignitability, or reactivity might be higher

than other Subtitle D wastes because they exhibit

one or more hazardous characteristics; some CESQG

wastes also are listed hazardous wastes. EPA (119)

estimated that most (over 75 percent) CESQG waste

consists of used lead-acid batteries and spent solvents and is codisposed with municipal solid waste.

The Domestic Sewage Exclusion in RCRA12

allows industries to discharge hazardous wastes to

municipal sewers that lead to publicly owned

treatment works (POTWs), without meeting Subtitle

C generator requirements. Because POTWs are not

designed to handle hazardous wastes, the industries

are generally required to have their discharges meet

pretreatment standards imposed by the local POTW

under the Clean Water Act (see “Clean Water Act”

below) .13 EPA (1 13) studied 47 industrial categories

and estimated that they discharged 3,200 million

gallons of process wastewater per day into municipal sewers, accounting for about 12 percent of total

POTW flow. EPA estimated that in the mid-1980s

this wastewater may have contained between 12,000

and 200,000 tons of hazardous metals and organic

chemicals (depending, respectively, on whether

pretreatment standards were fully implemented or

no pretreatment occurred). Industrial users are now

required to notify POTWs, States, and EPA Regions

about such discharges of hazardous waste (see

“Clean Water Act” below).

In addition, kiln dusts from the cement manufacturing industry are currently exempt from regulation

under Subtitle C. EPA does not consider these to be

Subtitle D non-hazardous manufacturing wastes, but

it does regulate cement kilns that burn hazardous

waste. Box 5-A provides additional information on

cement kiln dusts.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

EPA conducted two surveys of Subtitle D programs and waste management facilities in the

mid-1980s-a census of State and territorial programs in 1985 (114) and a screening survey of

9s5 Federal Register 46370, NOV. 2, 1~.

10~ ~ ~eS~~ WA develo~ ~oily ~mte ~x~tion procedure (()=) to ev~~te delis- petitions for WW@ con- more than 1 ~~Xlt

oil or grease; however, the OWEP is not used to initially determinewhether a waste should be characterized as bazardoua (50 Federal Register 48908,

Nov. 27, 1985).

ll~s@s ~efi5Wsh~fiom S@ ~ti~ ~~mtors (s-), whichpmducew~~ at am~of 100 to 1,000 MOP Per month. SQGSWWe

exempt from hrmrdous waste regulations, but the exemption ended on Sept. 22, 1987. CESQO wastes remain exempt.

1%0 CFR 261.4(a)(l).

lssome s~~s, mch ~wis~ns~ -hetit~indusqob~~~lc approv~ from the POTW to disc-e its wmteSinto IIIUldCipdSeWtXS.
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes .95

Box 5-A-Cement Kiln Dust

The 1980 Bevill-Bentsen amendments exempted cement kiln dusts from regulation as hazardous wastes under

Subtitle C, pending further study by EPA of their environmental and human health effects. EPA has not yet

addressed cement kiln dust in a Report to Congress, but it did contract for a report on the cement industry (73) and

it made a regulatory determination in 1991 on burning hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces that also

addressed cement kiln dust.1 EPA plans to finish the required Report to Congress by April 30, 1993.2

Cement is produced by combining oxides of calcium, silicon, aluminum, and iron and small amounts of other

ingredients at high temperatures in a rotary kiln or oven. In 1990,213 kilns operated at 112 plants,3 Historically,

cement manufacturers have used fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum products) and electricity (which is derived

primarily from fossil fuels) to meet their energy needs. In the last 10 years, to lower energy costs and remain

competitive, they have begun to burn certain hazardous and non-hazardous wastes (e.g., liquid organic waste

solvents and waste oils) either as primary or as supplementary fuels. Currently, waste fuels (including both

hazardous and non-hazardous) substitute for about 15 percent by Btu value of the cement industry’s fuel

requirements.4 Some companies also selectively use a portion of an appropriate hazardous waste as a feed material

for the cement itself.

Waste from cement production includes gaseous emissions and cement kiln dust. Gaseous emissions generally

consist of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, as well as smaller quantities of oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen oxides;

trace amounts of heavy metals with low boiling points and of organic pollutants may also be present. Cement kiln

dust is generally captured by air pollution controls (e.g., electrostatic precipitators) downstream of the rotary kiln

(where combustion occurs). It is composed predominantly of substances present in the feed material and products

of combustion, along with trace amounts of high-boiling point heavy metals that were not exhuasted with gaseous

emissions.

Cement kiln dust can be reused in cement kilns (“insufflation”), blended with sewage sludge for subsequent

land application, used to produce lime products for agricultural applications, or landfilled (generally on-site). SAIC

(73) estimated that approximately 160,000 tons of dust must be disposed of annually per facility, usually in on-site,

land-based units.5

Some testing of cement kiln dust has been conducted to ascertain whether or not it exhibits hazardous

characteristics.6 The Bureau of Mines tested 113 cement kiln dust samples from 102 plants in the early 1980s (37):

IM F’~~ui@#St~r 7134, Feb. 21, 1991.

Zunder the terms Of a propo@ consent decree between EPA and the Environmental Defense Fund (see Ch. 1), WA is r~hed @ issue

a Report to Congress on cement kiln dust by Apr. 30, 1993.

3U.S. EEA, review comments, October 1991.

4u.S. EPA, review comments based on Portland Cement Association plant iDfO-tiOns~ for 1990, October 1991.

5’131i5 es~te is won @ ass~tion that 98 percent of the dust is recycled back into the process as a feed IIMteiid. However, Ms

assumption may be too high by a factor of 2 to 5 (H.P. llacke~ Ho- Inc., personal communicatio~ May 24 and 31, 1991); if so, then larger

quantities would require disposal or otber management.

s~e pow Ce~nt ~s~~tion is fiiing a study on TC testing of dozens of cement kiln dust samples from facilities @ross tie

United States (1).L. Singletary, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalitio~ personal communicatio~ May 21, 1991).

Conthued on netipag~

industrial establishments in late 1985 and early 1986 wastes. The screening survey, for example, esti-

(116). The screening survey in particular was very mated that more thin

- 72,006 industrial establishlimited in scope, and EPA also considered the data ments generated Subtitle D wastes in 1985.

provided by industry in response to the survey to be

poor.

14 However, no national data are available on

current features (e.g., design, operation, site charac- On-site, Land-based Units

teristics) of these waste management units, so the EPA (116) estimated that only 17 percent of the

two surveys provide the only national glimpse of establishments generating Subtitle D wastes in 1985

management practices for Subtitle D manufacturing (i.e., 12,000 establishments) managed these wastes

14u.s. EPA, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991.
96 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 5-A-Cement Kiln Dust-Continued

only 1 sample failed the EP test; the report did not indicate, however, whether any of the sampled kilns used

hazardous wastes. Although EPA has no evidence that cement kiln dusts are causing widespread environmental

damage, it is concerned about: 1) the industry’s growing use of hazardous wastes as fuel and the potential impact

of this on the character of the dust; and 2) potential problems from land disposal of cement kiln dust (partly because

three cement kiln dust disposal sites are on the Superfund National Priorities List).

Regulatory Framework

Cement kilns are subject to RCRA regulations regarding the storage of hazardous waste. Kilns that burn

hazardous waste are also subject to the hazardous waste combustion requirements recently promulgated by EPA

for boilers and industrial furnaces.7 According to a recent survey (77), there were 23 cement facilities in the United

States in 1990 that together burned over 0.8 million ton of hazardous waste fuels; under the new rule, as many as

45 facilities may achieve interim status, which will add to the capacity to burn hazardous waste fuels.

Under the new regulations, a cement kiln burning hazardous waste solely “as an ingredient” will not be 

subject to emissions controls. There are limits, however, on the concentrations of toxic constituents in such

‘‘ingredients,’ so the process is not completely unregulated. Also, some special restrictions apply if a waste is

burned even partially for energy recovery.8 These restrictions address minimum operating temperatures, oxygen

levels, hydrocarbon monitoring, and input of the hazardous waste directly into the kiln (rather than, for example,

into a precalciner). Cement kiln operators, however, generally oppose these energy recovery-related restrictions.

In addition, the applicability of the Bevill exclusion to cement kilns processing primarily raw materials must

also be considered.g First, to be eligible for the Bevill exclusion, at least 50 percent of the feedstock to a cement

kiln must consist of normal raw materials. Second, to determine whether the exclusion continues to apply when a

kiln burns hazardous waste, the 1991 rule promulgated a two-part test to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether

combustion of the hazardous waste would significantly affect the character of the cement kiln dust. Cement kiln

dust is considered to be significantly affected if both:

1. concentrations of toxic compounds (listed in App. VIII, 40 CFR Part 261) in the dust are significantly higher

than normal (i.e., compared with cement kiln dust from a facility where hazardous waste was not burned

as a fuel); and

2. toxic compounds are present in the dust at levels that could pose significant risks to human health.

Even if cement kiln dust remains exempt from regulation under Subtitle C after the case-by-case determination,

emissions from the facility itself are still regulated. Moreover, the facility itself becomes subject to the corrective

action provisions of RCRA Sections 3008(h) and 3004(u). These require that potential problems relating to the

mismanagement of any waste (including cement kiln dust) must be evaluated before completion of the permitting

process. The corrective action provisions do not apply, however, if the cement kiln is not burning hazardous

waste.

756 Federal Register 7134, Feb. 21, 1991.

8~A ~~mide~ ~ ~m~ t. ~ b~~ at lm~t ~~~y for ~nm~ recovely if it ~ a h~~ v~ue of 5,000 Btu (British th- ids)

or more per pound.

91XJ tis Contexg the Bevill amendment also applies to boilers b-g p-ly coal or other fossil fuels and to industrial furnaces

processing primarily ores or minerals.

on-site in land-based units (surface impoundments, percentage of waste disposed of in them in 1985

landfills, land application units, or waste piles). (based on the screening survey).ls

Furthermore, EPA estimated that about 25,000 Almost 97 percent of the wastes managed in

on-site, land-based units were active in the mid- on-site, land-based units were initially disposed of in

1980s (table 5-2). Table 5-3 shows, by industry, the surface impoundments (figure 5-l), indicating that

number of active on-site, land-based units and the most of them were probably wastewaters.lG In 1984,

15 The 1985 ~emus, ~~e tie ~cr=~g Smey, Ww not limited t. on-site tits; this may expl~ why tie census found somewhat kg~ numbers

of landfills, surface impoundments, and land application units than did the screening survey.

16Ag~, tie effwt of tie new TC on the manner in which theSe wastes We c~wte~ed is ~om.
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes .97

Photo credit: Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics

A Subtitle D wastewater impoundment at the

Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics plant

in Seadrift, Texas.

approximately 29 percent of these impoundments

had discharge permits issued under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

program (119); the permits specify conditions under

which effluent discharges into surface waters are

allowed (see “Federal Regulations” below). The

portion of all manufacturing waste that is managed

in surface impoundments with discharge permits, as

well as the volume of actual discharges to surface

waters, is unknown. Manufacturing wastes do not

appear to be injected underground in general, other

than the 1 percent indicated below for alternative

on-site practices; however, the extent of this practice

warrants additional study.

Among industrial sectors, the pulp and paper,

primary iron and steel, and inorganic chemicals

industries accounted for 70 percent by weight of the

wastes managed in surface impoundments. However, nearly half of the total number of impoundments were operated by the food and kindred

products industry and the stone, clay, glass, and

concrete industry.

About 1 percent of the total manufacturing

Subtitle D wastestream was managed in landfills, 1

percent in land application units, and 1 percent in

waste piles (figure 5-1).17 In landfills, most of the

wastes by weight were generated by the stone, clay,

Table 5-2—Estimated Number of Subtitle D

Manufacturing Waste Management Units, Mid-1980s

EPA screening

Type of Unit EPA censusasurvey b

Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,511 2,602

Land application unit . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,605 4,266

Surface impoundment . . . . . . . . . . 16,232 14,033

Waste pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/Ac5,225

TOTAL ..........0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,346 26,126

asurvey of 55 State and territorial solid waste management programs.

bsurvey of 17 industry categories contributing an estimated 99 percent of

manufacturing Subtitle D wastes; includes only on-site facilities. OTA

subtracted facilities managing electric power generating wastes, which

are covered in ch. 3.

%lot applicable.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agenq, Census otState and

TerrRoria/Subtitle DfVonhazardous W*tePrograms, EPAi530-

SW-86-039 (Washington, DC: October 1986); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, “Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D

Establishments,” unpublished draft final report, December

1987.

glass, and concrete; pulp and paper; fertilizer and

agricultural chemicals; and primary iron and steel

industries. Most of the landfills were operated by the

stone, clay, glass, and concrete; pulp and paper;

primary iron and steel; and food and kindred

products industries. The food and kindred products

industry accounted for 77 percent of the waste going

to land application units and operated 73 percent of

the units. The inorganic chemicals industry was

responsible for more than half of the waste going to

waste piles, whereas the stone, clay, glass, and

concrete industry operated almost half of the piles.

Based on 1985 data, the types of waste disposed of

in waste piles include sludges and “off-specification” products from the organic chemicals industry, and slag from the metals manufacturing industry

(119).

According to EPA’s screening survey, some

manufacturing establishments reported managing

halogenated solvents, nonhalogenated solvents, and

metals in on-site, land-based units. All of these

wastes reportedly passed EP toxicity tests and thus

were not characterized as hazardous. The effect of

the newly promulgated TC on characterizing these

wastes is unknown, but more will certainly be

classified as hazardous.18 For the petroleum refining

industry, the API (10) indicated that most aqueous

lyA~ut 55 ~rmntof ~.~b~~ent~ ~th waste piles even~y send these wmtes off-site, However, some w~t~ are probably dwayS being StOred

in the on-site piles at these establishments. This may mean that the area in which the on-site waste piles are located is a de facto pennanent waste disposal

site.

1855 Federal Register 11798, Mar. 29, 1990; also see “Federal Regulations” ~low.
98 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Table 5-3—Number-of On-site Subtitle D Facilities and Percentage of Waste Handled at Different Waste

Management Facilities, by Industry, 1985

Type of unit

Surface Land

Industry Landfill impoundment application unit Waste pile Total

Organic chemicals

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Primary iron and steel

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fertilizer and agricultural chemicals

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Plastics and resins

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inorganic chemicals

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste (Ye) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stone, clay, glass and concrete

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pulp and paper

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste (Ye) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Primary nonferrous metals

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food and kindred products

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water treatment

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Petroleum refining

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rubber and miscellaneous products

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation equipment

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected chemicals and allied products

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Textile manufacturing

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

bather and leather products

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOTALa

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

0.4

201

0.3

31

3.5

32

0.05

120

0.4

1,257

1.2

259

0.3

111

2.1

194

1.0

121

0.3

61

0.2

77

2.2

63

1.4

21

0.2

28

0.03

9

0.3

2,602

0.5

262

96.3

383

99.2

274

93.1

292

98.2

1,039

95.1

3,152

97.3

918

99.3

448

84.3

4,166

78.6

659

84.5

915

99.6

176

97.4

287

93.1

219

99.1

741

99.7

102

99.4

14,033

96.8

27

3.1

76

0.01

160

0.5

17

0.02

24

0.01

309

0.01

139

0.4

9

0.6

3,128

20

147

15

114

0.2

16

0.2

11

0.01

17

0.7

72

0.3

0

0

4,266

1.5

79

0.08

464

0.5

50

2.9

32

1.7

98

4.5

2,528

1.5

232

0.07

312

13

540

0.1

48

0.1

158

0.05

123

0.2

362

4.6

41

0.01

103

0.01

54

0.3

5,225

1.2

385

1,124

515

373

1,281

7,247

1,548

880

8,029

974

1,248

392

723

298

944

165

26,126

aTableentriesmaynotadd upto theirrespectivetotalsbecauseof rounding.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, “Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D

Establishments,” unpublished draft final report, December 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and l%e~ency

Response, Report to Congress: So/id Waste Disposal in the United States, VOIS. 1-2, EPA/530-SW-88-011 (Washington, DC: October 1988).
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes .99

Figure 5-l—Land-Based Management of Subtitle D

Manufacturing Wastes, 1985

Billions of tons

‘1

7

Data refer only to on-site management.

permits allowing wastewater discharges

I to surface waters. I

6 -

5 -

—.— ----

About ’29 percent of impoundments have

4 -

3 -

2 -

1-

. 0 - 1 1 1

Impoundments Land Waste Landfills

application piles

Management method

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, Report to Congress: So/id Waste

Disposa/ in the United States, VOIS. 1-2, EPA/530-SW-88-011

(Washington, DC: October 1988).

wastes are injected underground in wells. Management methods for nonaqueous wastes varied: 23

percent recycling; 28 percent treatment (e.g., dewatering, wastewater treatment, chemical/physical treatment, incineration); 16 percent land treatment; and

33 percent disposal (landfill, impoundment, landspread).

Other On-site Units

and Off-site Management

The other 60,000 manufacturing establishments

identified in the survey must manage their Subtitle

D wastes either off-site, or on-site via processes such

as underground well injection, recycling, incineration, or treatment in tanks. EPA estimated that

about 11 percent used on-site alternatives, 90

percent used off-site practices, and 13 percent

employed practices that were either unknown or for

which the site was unknown (the total is more than

100 percent because a given establishment can use

several practices). Of the establishments that used

on-site alternatives, 68 percent recycled, reclaimed,

or reused some waste; 25 percent used tank treatment; 7 percent used incineration; and less than 1

percent used underground injection or boilers (1 16).

EPA was unable to estimate the amounts of waste

managed on-site in these other ways.

EPA was unable to depict off-site facilities in any

detail or to estimate the quantities of waste disposed

of in them or recycled through them. Qualitatively,

however, EPA found off-site disposal to be the

predominant practice in 1985 for the following

industries: electrical machinery and components;

food and kindred products; leather and leather

tarming; machinery (except electrical); pharmaceutical preparations; and soaps, other detergents, and

polishing, cleaning, or sanitation goods (1 19). Some

of these off-site facilities are municipal landfills;

others are for manufacturing wastes only. No

national estimates exist on the amount of manufacturing solid waste disposed of at municipal solid

waste landfills.

Some manufacturing wastes are sent off-site for

disposal at commercial manufacturing waste

landfills, which often are operated by large waste

management companies. One company, for example, said that it operates special programs for these

wastes to ensure compliance with relevant Federal

and State regulations and keeps records of the wastes

managed at its facilities.l9

EPA is exploring information-gathering strategies, including statistical surveys, to address the gap

in knowledge of off-site management practices, to

update and complete its knowledge of on-site

practices, and to obtain more

that will enable it to better

development of guidelines

wastes. 20

detailed information

assess the need for

for manufacturing

Recycling

Many industries recycle some wastes on-site in

the manufacturing process or sell them for off-site

reuse (112). On-site recycling and reuse of spent

solvents and other organic compounds (which also

may be burned on-site as a fuel source) are common

in the organic chemicals, plastics, and resins industries. The primary iron and steel, primary nonferrous

metals, fabricated metals, and electronic component

industries recover most scrap metal and often sell it

to off-site scrap metal recyclers. Many organic

1%. Skerno&,Waste Management, Inc., review comments, Aug. 6, 1991.

~56 Federal Register 50978, OCt. 9, 1991.
100 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

wastes from the food industry are used in byproducts

such as animal feed or are otherwise recycled. 21

The State of Ohio estimated that 32 percent by

weight of the manufacturing wastestream generated

in that State is recycled (55). Industries reporting the

highest recycling rates included furniture and fixtures, machinery (except electrical), food and kindred products, fabricated metals, and transportation

equipment.

The rate of recycling generally depends on the

economic value of the wastes, the technical ease of

recycling, and the fear of future liability associated

with disposing of the waste (1 12). In the Ohio study,

the most common reasons given by companies for

not recycling were increased handling and transportation costs, liability concerns, the difficulty of

recycling certain waste mixtures (i.e., mixtures o f

different solid waste types or wastestreams), a n d

regulatory barriers. (See discussion of “mixture’

and “derived-from” rules in chs. 1 and 2.)

The presence of regulatory barriers that inhibit

off-site recycling of manufacturing wastes is an

important issue in the RCRA reauthorization process. Many industries and commercial recyclers

believe that regulating recycling under Subtitle C

will discourage the development of collection and

processing systems and lead to less recycling (1 1).22

They are concerned, for example, about the increased costs of meeting permitting and reporting

requirements and about the increased liabilities

likely to be associated with recycling if it or the

recyclable materials are regulated under Subtitle C.

In contrast, others consider such regulation a means

of promoting more responsible recycling (e.g., see

ref. 70 regarding used oil). Environmental groups

such as the Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) also believe that recycling of any hazardous wastes should be regulated as a treatment

activity under Subtitle C, because of potential

releases of toxic constituents to the environment,

and that recyclable wastes themselves should be

regulated as hazardous when, for example, they fail

the TC test. 23

An additional issue is how the regulatory status of

recycling facilities might affect efforts to reduce the

generation of solid wastes in the first place. In one

sense, the higher costs likely to be associated with

recycling if it were regulated under Subtitle C might

provide an incentive for companies to look for

additional means of reducing their wastes, rather

than sending them off-site for recycling. According

to industry representatives, however, recycling of

Subtitle D processing wastes and efforts to reduce

their generation already are becoming more common in some industries, % partly because of lessons

learned from-and direct linkages with-hazardous

waste prevention efforts (93). If this continues,

regulating recycling under Subtitle C might lead to

less recycling and to more recyclable wastes being

sent to treatment and disposal facilities, depending

on the costs of these various options.

The issue of recycling manufacturing wastes also

affects primary smelters in the mining industry, as

explained in box 5-B.

Pollution Prevention/Waste Reduction

Relatively little is known on a nationwide scale

about the extent and success of efforts to reduce the

generation of Subtitle D manufacturing wastes or the

use of toxic substances in processes that generate

these wastes. For example, only 10 percent of the

industrial facilities that filed Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) forms for 1988 reported attempts to

minimize TRI chemicals (reporting of such efforts

was optional, though; ref. 128). However, the extent

to which this applies to Subtitle D manufacturing

wastes in general is unknown.

As noted above, regulating the recycling of

manufacturing wastes under Subtitle C might provide some incentive for companies to explore

pollution prevention opportunities, although it could

also lead to more recyclable wastes being sent to

treatment and disposal facilities. Alternative, nonregulatory approaches such as waste audits and

technical assistance-mechanisms used with success in pollution prevention programs for hazardous

waste-might provide more positive incentives.

21~ey ~m~So ~ ~roce.Sed ~d ~~ ~ fiel sOmmS; e.g., one thermoch~c~ system devis~ by Battelle Pacflc Northwest Laboratory reportedly

can transform 1 ton of wet organic wastes (e.g., cheese whey, coffee grounds, spent brewery grains) into a fuel source with less than 20 pounds of ash

residue (20).

22A. O’H~e, API, review comments, July 26, 1991.

~L. &eer, NRDC, review comments, July 1991.

ME. ~es, Chemid wtim~e~ Association review comments, Aug. 7, 1991.
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes . 101

Box 5-B—Recycling of Manufacturing Wastes by Smelters

One issue affecting both manufacturing and mining is the regulatory status of the recovery or recycling, by

primary metal smelters, of metals contained in manufacturing residuals. Smelting, one of the last steps in the mining

process, involves using a high temperature to separate the pure, desired metal from other compounds in concentrated

ore. It can also be used to separate and recover metals from residuals such as wastewater treatment sludge and air

pollution control sludge; these are generated, for example, in electroplating processes common in the electronics,

automotive, aerospace, and other industries.l

Some primary metal smelting companies are currently recovering significant amounts of copper, zinc, and

precious metals from metal-bearing wastes. Many mining industry representatives claim that this offers several

advantages: 1) the metals are recovered and returned to commerce, rather than being landfilled, thereby conserving

nonrenewable domestic resources; 2) the volume of incoming waste material is substantially reduced; and 3) the

incoming hazardous waste material is transformed into a chemically inert slag that generally passes EPA leaching

tests. 2 However, they believe that conflicts in the interpretation of RCRA, particularly whether or not recyclable

materials should be defined as “solid wastes” and therefore be subject to RCRA, hinder full development of such

recovery activities (including on-site closed-loop and other recovery processes; ref. 11).

EPA does not generally have authority under RCRA to regulate primary manufacturing production processes

(see ch. 2). However, it does have authority to include reclamation (i.e., recovery) and residuals from such

reclamation in the scope of solid waste management under RCRA and to regulate some aspects of production under

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); it may also have authority under RCRA when hazardous wastes are

introduced into primary processes. A reclamation process is subject to Subtitle C regulation if the residuals being

treated are listed hazardous wastes (unless the process is a closed loop). Moreover, any subsequent residuals from

the reclamation process may be regulated as hazardous under the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules (see ch. 1),

whether or not the residuals exhibit hazardous waste characteristics.

The American Mining Congress (AMC) challenged inclusion of these manufacturing residuals in the definition

of solid waste. In 1987, the court agreed with the AMC and ruled that the definition of solid waste was limited to

materials that are discarded by virtue of being disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away.3 The court also ruled that

EPA had specifically exceeded its authority insofar as it classified certain in-process streams in the petroleum

refining and primary smelting industries as RCRA solid wastes. Some representatives of the mining industry

contend that EPA has ignored the ruling and that metal recycling by smelters is still unnecessarily constrained (e.g.,

30).

EPA expressed its own view on the ruling in 1988.4 The Agency stated it would amend its rules so that they

do not extend to ongoing manufacturing operations characterized by continuous extraction of material values from

an original raw material. It specifically proposed changing the rules to state that recycled oil-bearing secondary

IRWyc~ ofS*wastes generat~ from the mining and mineral processing industry itself *o OCCurS. For e~Ple,me~-q

dusts and sludges generated during the smelting of ores maybe reintroduced into smelters. Materials fkom one mining sector may be used by

other sectors (e.g., dust or sludges from zinc smelters may have high lead values recoverable in a lead smelter) (S. Crozier, Phelps Dodge Corp.,

personal communicatio~ Mar. 6, 1991).

2Mul~tioIwI Business Services, Inc., review comments, July 30, 1991.

3~~can Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 @.C. Cir. 1987).

4s3 Fe&ral@@?r520, J~. 8, 1988. Continued on next page

Some States have developed programs-which Furthermore, as many as 46 States, regardless of

vary in scope and funding-to promote pollution legislative mandate, have developed or initiated

prevention efforts for manufacturing wastes, particularly those considered hazardous or toxic. As of

1991, for example, over one dozen States had some

legislation dealing with pollution prevention; these

laws generally target hazardous waste and toxic

releases as defined by or listed under RCRA, the

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,

and various State statutes and regulations (45a).

some form of pollution prevention program (or

support for such a program). These typically consist

of activities relating to promotion (e.g., technical

assistance), regulatory integration (e.g., multimedia

permitting), or facility planning; a few provide

incentives (e.g., tax breaks, Governors’ awards) to

companies to work toward pollution prevention

(45a). While no State is known to have a program
102 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Box 5-B—Recycling of Manufacturing Wastes by Smelters-Continued

materials from petroleum refining are not solid wastes, provided there is no other element of discard or disposal.5

For recycling by the primary smelting industry, however, EPA noted that whereas some operations are ongoing

manufacturing processes, others involve sludges and byproducts that are not part of ongoing processes and contain

elements of discard. The Agency proposed to revise its rule to state that the ultimate jurisdictional testis whether

the materials are being used in an ongoing continuous manufacturing process.

Two other major treatment options exist for these metal-bearing industrial residuals. They can be incinerated

at a hazardous waste treatment facility, with subsequent landfilling of ash residues (which may or may not test as

hazardous, depending on the specific residues), or they can be stabilized with cement and then landfilled Each

option has several drawbacks: neither recovers the metals; stabilization substantially increases the volume of the

waste; and both require final land disposal.

In February 1991, EPA issued a Rule on Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.6

A portion of the rule defers regulation of those primary metal smelters that accept hazardous metallic sludges solely

for metal recovery. EPA intends to study whether regulation of these smelters under the Clean Air Act would be

more appropriate.

In the rule, EPA also stated its intent to discourage “sham” recycling operations, in which operators seek to

remove conventional treatment operations from regulation as hazardous waste management facilities by claiming

that they actually are processing materials for recycling. EPA defined conditions to be met before such operations

would be considered eligible for deferred regulatory status: 1) hazardous waste must be burned solely to recover

metals (as opposed to burning for treatment or for energy recovery); 2) wastes must contain economically viable

amounts of recoverable metals; and 3) operators must be in the business of producing metals for public sale.

Primary metal smelters contend that their metal recovery operations represent a legitimate and environmentally

sound activity. Thus, they would like to see Congress encourage such recovery (while discouraging “sham” metal

recycling) by requiring that: 1) facilities engaged in legitimate metal recovery not be treated as waste management

facilities under RCRA; 2) secondary materials that are processed for metal recovery purposes not be defined as solid

wastes; and 3) residuals from legitimate metal recovery operations be regulated based on their actual characteristics,

not on the derived-from and mixture rules.7 Amoco (11), for example, suggested that EPA either develop a special

“recycling category” or support a new RCRA subtitle on recycling, with different regulatory treatment for

consumer recyclable materials (e.g., used oil), commercial recycling facilities, and industrial recycling activities.8

As noted in this chapter, many of these suggestions run counter to the position taken by certain environmental

groups and the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council regarding recycling of manufacturing wastes in general.

5nA Aviewed tie COW’S opinion as not tiecting any of its rules (with the exception of in-house recycling activities in IXWOlrefining) on burning of hazardous secondary materials for energy recovery or using such materials to produce fuels.

6s6 Federal Register 7134, Feb. 21, 1991.

7HOW the internat,ionalllasel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of HaiuudousWtWteS ~d ~eirDispo@~oPted

in 1989 but not yet in force, might affect such recycling is unclear. Annex IV of the convention includes recycling of hazardous waste as a form

of disposal.

*hamMegeE~contex~ mining companies believe that any secondary materials generated in the industry and reused in normal primary

production processes should not be regulated under Subtitle C (S. Crozier, Phelps Dodge Corp., personal communicatio~ Mar, 6, 1991). They

suggest, however, that EPA should ensure these materials are properly conveyed or transported to the recycling site and properly handled while

there.

specifically aimed at Subtitle D manufacturing is considering holding workshops in which States

wastes, some State programs do include activities would exchange infomation and ideas about regudevoted to Subtitle D wastes. Several States also are lating Subtitle D manufacturing wastes.25

conducting “roundtables” on pollution prevention;

these focus primarily on hazardous wastes but some Some municipalities, in attempts to ease local

include efforts to address Subtitle D wastes (141a). landfill capacity shortfalls, have actively promoted

In addition, EPA is examining several State pro- the reduction of Subtitle D manufacturing wastes by

grams to get a better perspective on their scope and passing laws and implementing cooperative efforts

~K. s~dler, U.S. EPA, personal communication NOV. 6, 1991.
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes ● 103

with industrial generators. These efforts, though, are

generally aimed only at the portion of Subtitle D

manufacturing wastes that is managed at municipal

landfills.

RISKS FROM MANUFACTURING

WASTES

Land-based waste management units in general

can release some contaminants, which may or may

not approach levels of concern for human health and

the environment. Constituents can leach from

landfills, surface impoundments, or waste piles into

nearby soil and groundwater; runoff can contaminate surface water; and volatile organic chemicals

can be released to the air. Several factors suggest that

land-based management of Subtitle D manufacturing wastes may pose some risks to human health and

the environrnent-large quantities of wastes are

generated (see above); a variety of toxic constituents

are present in them; their management relies heavily

on numerous land-based units (most of which

probably lacked pollution controls in the mid- 1980s;

see above); and some exempted hazardous wastes

are disposed of in Subtitle D waste management

units. Sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) are

linked with poor management practices in the past

for Subtitle D non-hazardous manufacturing wastes.

Even so, although problems do exist, it is difficult

to be more precise about the overall hazards posed

by these wastes. Few risk assessments have been

performed, and few data are available on specific

environmental and human health impacts resulting

from the management of Subtitle D manufacturing

wastes. It is also difficult to determine how many

Superfund sites resulted primarily from contamination by non-hazardous manufacturing wastes.26 Municipal landfills comprise about 20 percent of the

NPL, and most of them received manufacturing

waste at some time, but even in these cases it is

difficult to pinpoint exact sources of contamination

(see ref. 95).

Toxicity

A crude, qualitative idea of the level of toxicity of

Subtitle D manufacturing wastes, and how these

levels might vary among industries, is conveyed in

table 5-1. These data were compiled in 1985, from

diverse studies which varied in age and quality, for

22 industries expected to generate more than 99

percent of the Subtitle D manufacturing wastes

managed on-site. They compare estimated waste

generation with qualitative estimates of the levels

of heavy metals or organic chemicals in the wastes.

EPA estimated that wastes contained relatively high

levels of heavy metals and organic chemicals in 12

industries, relatively moderate levels in 4 industries,

and low levels in 6 industries.

This information was compiled by EPA prior to

promulgation of the new TC (see “Effects of the

New Toxicity Characteristic” above). Some manufacturing wastes now handled at Subtitle D landfills

and surface impoundments would probably be

classified as hazardous by using the new TC.27 The

extent to which this would change relative amounts

and toxicity levels is unkown.

EPA’s screening survey (116) found that 16

percent of CESQGs managed their hazardous wastes

in on-site surface impoundments, waste piles,

landfills, and land application units.

Some reviewers suggested that the TRI might

provide information on where some of the potentially greatest risks from manufacturing solid wastes

might be found.28 EPA conducted a preliminary

analysis of the TRI database, in the belief that the

data might give some hint of where some of the

potentially greatest risks from manufacturing solid

26Atuy sites, Vev fit~e is ~o~about~e origin orcharacterof wastes presen~ partly because such sites frequently con~w~tes generatedbefom

RCRA was passed. Furthermore, whether a waste found at a Superfund site currently exhibits a hazardous characteristic may not be sufficient information

to deterrnine ifit exhibited that characteristic when generated. Hence, although information on specific cases of conlamination caused by known Subtitle

Dnon-hazardous manufacturing waste generators is attainable, EPA suggests that the aggregate number of sites on the SuperfundNPLresultingp rimarily

from non-hazardous manufacturing waste conlamination is probably indeterminable (U.S. EPA, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991).

z~~e TC ~ewi~notapplyto thespeci~wastes tbat arecurrently exempt from Subtitle C re@tiOn (i.e., mining and some mineral processing wastes,

oil and gas exploration and production wastes, and cement kiln dust), unless EPA determines on a case-by-case basis that some of these wastes warrant

such regulation (55 Federal Register 11835, MaI. 29, 1990). If such a determina tion is made, EPA would then make a separate determina tion concerning

the applicability of the TC to the wastes.

28 Tifle ~(tie Emergenq Pagad com~~ R&ht-to.how At) of tie 1986 Supebd Amendments ~d Reauthorization Act r~llkeS

certain companies manufacturing or processing certain amounts of 302 individual toxic chemicals and 20 categories of chemical compounds to fide an

annual TRI report with EPA and the appropriate State agency. Companies with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 to 39, having 10 or

more employees, are required to report. The tbresholdfor reporting in 1988 was 25 tons; the threshold in subsequent years is 12.5 tons. Companies using

10 tons or mo~ of a chemical annually (as of 1988; 5 tons or more subsequently) also are required to report.

305-198 - 92 - 5 : QL 3
104 ● Managing Industrial Solid WastesFrom Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Table 5-4-Number (and percentage) of On-site Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste

Management Facilities With Different Design and Operating Controls, 1985

Type of waste management facility

Land

Surface application

Design and operating controls Landfill impoundment unit

Synthetic liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45(1 %)

Natural liners, including slurry walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 (ll%)

Leachate collection systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 (3%)

Leak detection systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown

Runon/runoff controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,150 (33%)

Overtopping controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Methane controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 (3%)

Ban on certain Subtitle D waste types

(e.g., bulk liquid) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 (34%)

Discharge permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown

Waste application rate limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Restrictions on growing food chain crops . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

756 (5%) N/A

2,818 (17%) N/A

Unknown N/A

896 (65%) N/A

Unknown 3,837 (69%)

3,672 (23%) N/A

N/A N/A

2,685 (17%) 3,633 (65%)

4,738 (29%) Unknown

N/A 4,085 (73%)

N/A 2,395 (43%

NOTE: WA= not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Ageney, Census of Sfate and T&dtorkd SubtMe D Nonhazardous Waste

Programs, EPA/530-SW-S6-039 (Washington, DC: Octokr 1986).

wastes might be found.29 EPA believes that TRI

provides a sense for the intrinsic hazard of wastes,

but because the data are reported in pounds of

chemicals released, not as concentrations of chemicals in wastestreams, they are not directly comparable to data on the quantities of wastes produced by

manufacturing facilities. EPA views this information as a starting point for future studies, not as a

definitive indicator of risk; it therefore does not

intend to release this information to the public.30

Frequency of Pollution Controls

According to data in EPA (119), the presence of

pollution controls and monitoring at management

facilities for manufacturing waste was minimal in

the mid-1980s, in part because they often were not

required prior to that time. Some States have adopted

liner and leachate requirements for Subtitle D units

since then, but OTA is unaware of aggregate data on

the presence of controls at facilities for manufacturing waste that have been constructed or retrofitted

since that time.31

Design and operating controls such as liners and

emissions controls were rare in the mid-1980s,

especially at landfills and surface impoundments

(table 5-4). Because 97 percent of Subtitle D

manufacturing wastes which were disposed on-site

were disposed of in surface impoundments, and

because wastes generally are in mobile form, the

deficiency of controls at impoundments seems

particularly significant, especially if the same situation exists today. In the mid- 1980s, only 4.7 percent

had synthetic liners, 17.4 percent had natural liners

such as existing clay, 5.5 percent had leak detection

systems, 23 percent had overtopping controls, and

17 percent had any restrictions on receipt of liquids.

No information was available on the fkequency of

leachate collection systems or runon/runoff controls

at the impoundments. Designs for waste piles

occasionally included runon/runoff controls, but

liner systems were generally not used (119).

Available information on the frequency of monitoring and violations at these facilities showed that

very few Subtitle D landfills, surface impoundments, and land application units were monitoring

potential or actual releases to the environment as of

1984 (table 5-5). Of the facilities that were conducting monitoring, many were violating State standards. Because more than one violation may have

been detected at a single facility, the actual percentage of facilities with monitoring that also experienced a violation may be lower than indicated in

table 5-5.

~.S. EPA, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991.

~.S.EPA review comments, Nov. 8, 1991.

slc~ 1 diwms= ~ ~=ent -ey (33) ofs~~ rqfiements for ~e~ at non.-dousindus~wm~ l~df’i’is; the survey &@ however, do not

disdnguish between landfiis that accept only manufacturing wastes and those that accept a broader range of non-hazardous solid wastes.
Table 5-&Violations of State Standards Detected at Subtitle D Manufacturing Waste Management Facilities in 1984

Landfills Surface impoundments Land application units

Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of

facilities facilities facilities

with

Facilities

with with

Percentage monitoring Facilities Percentage monitoring Facilities Percentage

with

monitoring

of total Violations also with with of total Violations also with with of total Volations also with

Medium of concern monitoring facilities detected violation a monitoring facilities detected violationsa monitoring facilities detected violation@

Groundwater . . . . . . . . . 626 18 111 1,396 416 30 592 11 45

Surface water . . . . . . . . 230 7 50 ;! 3,151 1: 279 9 137

Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

2 60 :

2 18 23 73 Lees than 1 145 100 31 bee than 1 10 32

Methane (subsurface

gas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2 8 13

Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 4 N/A N/A

Total active

facilities . . . . . . . . 3,511 16,232 5,605

NOTE: WA= not applicable.

a-use more than one violation may have ~urred at the same facility, this is the maximum percentage of faalities with monitoring that may have had a violation.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Reporf fo Congress: So/id Waste Disposa/in fhe United Sfates, VOIS. 1-2, EPAE30-SW-88-01 1

(Washington, DC: October 1988).
106 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

In 1990, the General Accounting Office (83)

interviewed State regulatory officials about nonhazardous waste facilities in six States (Alabama,

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington). Officials in all six States were concerned

about groundwater contamination at these facilities

for several reasons. First, the same facilities had

been responsible for groundwater contamination in

the past. Second, some unpermitted facilities did not

have proper controls. Finally, the States lacked

resources to complete all required inspections.

Based on data supplied by California and New

Jersey, GAO reported that groundwater contamination had been detected at 68 (61 percent) of 112

manufacturing waste management facilities that

monitored groundwater in these two States. At 32

facilities (29 percent of the total), the known or

suspected source of contamination was a Subtitle D

non-hazardous industrial landfill, surface impoundment, or construction/demolition debris landfill.32

State officials believed that 18 of these 32 facilities

posed a “moderate” to “great” threat to groundwater.

Some Subtitle D non-hazardous manufacturing

waste is managed at on-site facilities that are also

Subtitle C treatment, storage, or disposal facilities

(TSDFs). All Subtitle D management units located

at Subtitle C TSDFs are subject to RCRA Subpart S

corrective action requirements, even if the units

receive only Subtitle D wastes. These wastes may

pose lower risks than wastes that are otherwise

regulated. ICF (40) estimated that 780 million tons

of wastes included in EPA’s manufacturing waste

telephone survey were managed at facilities with

TSDF status.

CURRENT REGULATORY

PATHWAYS

Subtitle D manufacturing wastes are primarily

controlled at the State level, under programs developed by each State. EPA believes that much more

information on waste types and characteristics,

management facility design, exposure routes, and

State regulation must be obtained before a Federal

Subtitle D program for manufacturing wastes can be

developed.33

State Programs

In many States, relatively few regulatory requirements exist beyond those contained in the Federal

Subtitle D landfill criteria, which are applied in most

instances to municipal landfills (see ch. 1). Several

States, however, have promulgated more comprehensive regulations.34 As of 1991, for example,

Pennsylvania was finalizing extensive amendments

to its regulations for “residual” wastes (i.e., nonhazardous solid waste from industrial, mining, and

agricultural operations) .35 The amended regulations

set forth requirements for permits, permit review

procedures, bonding and insurance, civil penalties

and enforcement, and beneficial use; they also

require generators to prepare a source reduction

strategy. In addition, they establish standards for the

design, construction, and operation of impoundments that store or dispose of residual waste.

In GAO’s study (83), all six States varied in their

requirements for permits, liners, and groundwater

monitoring for manufacturing waste facilities. Five

of the States also exempt some categories of

facilities from permit requirements. For example,

Alabama exempts all industrial surface impoundments established before 1979 (when the State

instituted a permit requirement) unless they are

associated with wastewater treatment plants that

discharge to surface water. Texas exempts all on-site

landfills and on-site surface impoundments that are

not apart of a wastewater treatment plant. According

to EPA (as cited in the GAO study), facilities

exempted from permits could threaten groundwater

because they may handle harmful substances but not

be required to have environmental controls.

Furthermore, permitted facilities in the States

varied greatly in the percentage of facilities having

liners and groundwater monitoring controls (see

qzAt tie othm f~iliti~s with detectable groundwater con~“ tiom either different sources (e.g., a hazardous waste management unit underground

storage tardq or adjacent facility) were known or suspected, or the source of contamma“ tion was urdmown.

3353 Federal Register 33327, Aug. 30, 1988.

~1~ (41) Prep=ed a s~dy for API ~d cm on tie s~~ of S@te Subtitle D re~atory progr~ for ~~@uI@ WmteS; dle shldy attCIUpk tO

evaluate the quality of current programs and their level of implementation and enforcement. OTA did not receive this document in time to summarh

its findings or to discuss it with representatives from environmental groups, EPA and other interested parties.

3S~ese ~W~tiomWme proposed ~der tie S@te’s Solid Wrote wgementAt.-gwastesfrom 11011-COd Slllke mining activities and oil

and gas residual wastes are regulated under different State statutes.
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes . 107

table 5-6). All six States require liners and groundwater monitoring at some permitted facilities. However, the requirements for particular units are

determined on a site-specific basis.36 In addition, the

States varied in the type of material required for

liners. Not all permitted facilities had required

controls in place, because States either have not fully

implemented requirements or have exempted older

facilities.

No systematic summmary is available on the overall

efficacy and enforcement of current State regulations. As of 1985, according to EPA’s State census,

more than half of all industrial surface impoundments, 84 percent of land application units, and

almost 20 percent of industrial landfills were being

inspected by State agencies once every 2 years or

less frequently in the mid-1980s (119).

Federal Regulations

In theory, waste management facilities for nonhazardous manufacturing wastes are regulated under

Subtitle D of RCRA. However, the only extant major

Federal regulations are the criteria for solid waste

disposal facilities, which have been applied primarily to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and

which were revised in 1991 (see below and ch. 1).

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

(HSWA) attempted to rectify this situation (see

below), and other Federal statutes such as the Clean

Water Act and Clean Air Act also regulate some

aspects of manufacturing wastes.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

HSWA included several provisions that greatly

affect the design and operation of Subtitle D waste

management units, as well as those manufacturing

wastes that are to be regulated under Subtitle C

rather than Subtitle D.

First, HSWA required EPA to revise the Subtitle

D criteria for facilities that may receive hazardous

waste from households and small quantity generators, by March 31, 1988. EPA focused initially on

MSW landfills and issued new criteria for them in

October 1991.37 While MSW landfills represent

only a small portion of Subtitle D waste management facilities, they probably receive the bulk of

household hazardous waste and CESQG waste. EPA

plans to explore information-gathering strategies to

learn more about facilities that handle Subtitle D

manufacturing wastes to determine if revised criteria

are necessary for these facilities.38

Although some States (e.g., California, New

York, Pennsylvania) have revised their Subtitle D

programs, including aspects applicable to manufacturing waste, other States probably will not amend

their regulations unless EPA issues new criteria for

Subtitle D waste management facilities. Because

only one-third to one-half of the landfills and

one-half of the surface impoundments used for

Subtitle D manufacturing waste in the mid-1980s

had permits (based on data in ref. 119), it seems

important that EPA evaluate the extent of risks

associated with such facilities and whether new

criteria are needed for them.

Second, HSWA directed EPA to promulgate

additional characteristics to replace the EP toxicity

characteristic. EPA issued regulations on a new

Toxicity Characteristic in 1990, under court order.39

The TC covers 39 substances, including 25 organic

chemicals. On a case-by-case basis, this characteristic effectively removes some wastes from Subtitle D

regulation and includes them in the Subtitle C

universe. This could affect about 800 million tons of

wastewater and 1 to 2 million tons of sludges and

solids, except that many of these are managed in

units exempt from Subtitle C (see “Waste Generation” above). However, environmental groups believe that the TC inadequately predicts the toxicity

of the 39 substances, does not cover enough

substances, and does not address exposure pathways

such as ingestion and inhalation (e.g., see ref. 76). In

contrast, industry groups believe that in some

instances the model upon which the TC testis based

(i.e., continuous waste input to a municipal landfill)

overestimates the risks posed by disposing of many

wastestreams.40 Whether the TC satisfies the HSWA

36Application on~ ~ite.~pec~lc b~~i~my~ ~~~~id~red ~ppropfiate by some, depen~g, for ex~ple, on exposme of h~ and other species to

releases from given sites.

3~sG Federal Register 50978, Oct. 9, 1991.

3856 Federal Register 50978, Oct. 9, 1991.

3955 Federal Register 11798, w. 29, 1990.

4A. O’H~e, API, review comments, July 26, 1991.
Table 5-6-Estimated Number and Percentage of Permitted Surface Impoundments and Landfills With Liners or

Groundwater Monitoring for Six States

Surface impoundment Landfills

Liners Monitoring Liners Monitoring

State Requirement Number Percentage Requirement Number Percentage Requirement Number Percentage Requirement Number Percentage

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alla

500 83 Site specific 30 Site specific 7 9 Site specific 13 16

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All’ 674 50 Certain 674 50 All b b All 10 5od

Categories

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . Site specific 109 38c Site specific 144 50 Site specific 11 10 All 98 90

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site specific 10 11 Site specific 12 Site specific 5 Site specific 33 58

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site specific 350 50 Site specific 1 1 20 Certain : 57 Certain 2 29

categories categories

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . All b b Allld d d All b b All d d

NOTE: Based on data submitted by six States in telephone interviews with the U.S. General Accounting Office.

aThe liner r~uirement applies to all units built after the requirement was established. As a result, less than 100 percent of all permitted units have liners.

bThe State was implementing this control at all units at the time of the phone interviews. As a result, the number of permitted units with liners is not available.

cEstimate based on 1980 data.

he State was implementing this control at all units at the time of the phone interviews. As a result, the percentage of units with groundwater monitoring was less than 100, or data were not

available.

e~e groun~ater monitoring requirement aWli~ to all units that were built after the equipment was established. AS a result, less than 100 percent of all Permitted units have 9roundwater

monitoring.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Nonhazardous Wate: Environmental Safeguards for hxfustrkd Facilities Need To Be Developed, GAO/RCED-90-92 (Washington, DC:

April 1990).
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes . 109

mandate is the subject of continuing litigation by the

Environmental Defense Fund.41

Because the TC will identify additional wastes as

hazardous, Subtitle D surface impoundments that

continue to accept wastes newly classified as hazardous either must be retrofitted (in most instances

by March 29, 1994) to meet certain minimum

technological standards under Subtitle C or must

cease operation.

42 In effect, EPA expected this to

cause many surface impoundments to be closed and

many aqueous hazardous wastes to be treated or

stored in tanks rather than impoundments.

Third, HSWA (Sec. 3004 of RCRA) restricted the

land disposal of hazardous wastes according to

prescribed deadlines and required EPA to set levels

or methods of treatment for hazardous wastes by

each of the deadlines.43 The treatment standards

were to be based on performance of the best

demonstrated available treatment (BDAT) to treat

the waste.44A listed hazardous waste, even if treated

to BDAT levels, cannot be disposed of in a Subtitle

D facility unless it has been delisted (see derivedfrom rule in 40 CFR 261.3). Only characteristic

hazardous wastes from which the characteristic has

been removed may be disposed of at Subtitle D

facilities (40 CFR 268.9). However, EPA has not yet

issued treatment standards for wastes exhibiting the

TC, even though RCRA (Sec. 3004(g)(4)) required

the Agency to make a determination on land disposal

restrictions and treatment standards for all TC

wastes within 6 months of the March 29, 1990

rulemaking.

Fourth, HSWA mandated that EPA determine, in

most cases by February 8, 1986, whether or not to

list 24 additional wastes as hazardous. The Agency

has not made determinations yet for 17 of the

wastestreams and, as a result, was sued by the

Environmental Defense Fund to comply with the

HSWA mandate.45 The two litigants recently proposed a consent decree that establishes a schedule

for making these determinations. (See ch. 1 for more

information on the consent decree.) When made, the

determinations will likely expand the universe of

wastes managed under Subtitle C.

Finally, HSWA directed EPA to review the

domestic sewage exemption (see following section).

Clean Water Act

Although surface impoundments themselves are

regulated under RCRA, discharges of wastewater

from impoundments (or directly from manufacturing processes, for that matter) into surface waters are

regulated under the Clean Water Act. This act

established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is implemented

primarily by the States. Dischargers must receive a

NPDES permit that specifies conditions under

which discharges are allowed. (See ch. 2 for

additional details.) In general, permit writers base

conditions on various Federal and State guidelines,

including EPA’s effluent limitations guidelines,

which themselves are usually based on best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

OTA is unaware of aggregate nationwide information on the range of conditions contained in permits

for discharges from surface impoundments.

RCRA’s Domestic Sewage Exclusion also allows

industries to discharge hazardous wastes into sewers

41Enviro~ntaJ&$ense Fundv. U.S. EPA et al., U.S. District Court for D.C., Civ. No. 89-0598. A consent decree proposed k Jwe 1991 addres=

many of EDF’s claims (see ch. 1), but not the claim that EPA has not adequately met HSWA’S mandate to promulgate regulations ident@ing additional

characteristics of hazardous waste; the court has been has been fully briefed on this latter claim and a decision is pending (K. Flor@ EDF, personal

cxxmnunicatio~ Oct. 1, 1991).

4255 Federal Register 11835, Mar. 29, 1990. HSWA allows hazardous wastes to be stored or treated in SUrffiCe impO_entStit met@*

minimum tedmologicd requirements under Subtitle C. For already permitted landfills snd impoundments, owners/operators of new units or extensions

of existing units must install two or more liners and a leachate collection system. For interim status facilities, ownas/operators must install liners and

a Ieachate collection system or equivalent protection.

4355 Federa/Register 22520, June 1, 1990. The land disposal restrictions are rtX@~~eSS WA de~-s “to a reasonable &groo of -r,

tbat there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit. . . for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.” The schedule, based

onaranking of listed wastes that considas intrinsic hazard and volume, was designed to ensure that prohibitions and treatment standards axepmmulgated

fist for high-volume hazardous wastes with high intrinsic hazards. It required EPA to make these determinations for at least one-third of all listed

hazardous wastes by Aug. 8, 1988; at least two-tbirds by June 8, 1989; and all remahing listed hazardous wastes and all characteristic hazardous wastes

by h’ftty 8, 1990.

~~ey co~d be in t& fo~ of Wrfo~e standards (e.g., maximum concentration of a constituent allowed in the waste) or specified technologies.

Inits fdnde onlanddisposal restrictions (51 FederaZRegister 40572, Nov. 7, 1986), EPA promulgated anapproachto establishing treatment standards

based entirely on technology-based standards expressed as BDAC

45~s ~t~so ficlud~~ec~mentioned a~ver%m~g~e ~q~qof & TC (EnVirOn~nta/Defe~eFu~vo U.S. EnvironntentaZProtection

Agency et aZ., U.S. District Court for D.C., Civ. No. 89-0598).
110 ● Managing Industrial Solid WastesFrom Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

that lead to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).

The Clean Water Act regulates discharges from

POTWs and also established a ‘‘pretreatment’

program for industrial discharges into sewers. As a

result, some industrial wastewaters are ‘pretreated’

prior to their discharge into sewers, in accordance

with Federal pretreatment regulations and limits

developed by local POTWs. However, POTWs

generally are not designed to handle metals and

certain organic chemicals. Pretreatment programs

also had not been widely implemented as of 1987

(81, 92), although EPA has attempted to rectify this

situation. In 1990, for example, EPA issued a rule

that substantially strengthened legal control over all

non-domestic sources.46 It also required industrial

users (with certain exemptions for generators of less

than 15 kilograms of hazardous waste per month) to

notify the POTW, State, and EPA Region of any

discharge into the POTW of a substance which, if

otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous solid

waste. 47 In 1989, however, the Natural Resources

Defense Council filed suit contesting EPA’s failure

to promulgate pretreatment and effluent standards in

a timely fashion, and the results of this suit are still

pending. 48

Neither NPDES nor the pretreatment program

directly addresses groundwater. Most Subtitle D

surface impoundments and landfills were unlined as

of the mid- 1980s, and contamination of groundwater

has been documented

Controls” above).

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act

(see “Frequency-of Pollution

Amendments of 1990 require

EPA to propose standards for emissions from

incineration units handling commercial or manufacturing waste, within 3 years of enactment. Primary

or secondary smelters that combust waste materials

for the purpose of recovering metals are not included

among these units.

ISSUES/QUESTIONS

Development of a Federal Subtitle D regulatory

program for manufacturing wastes is generally

further behind than similar programs for exempted

special wastes. EPA believes it is necessary to

understand Subtitle D manufacturing wastes in

greater detail and to assess their relative risks before

developing new regulatory efforts. However, many

groups have expressed interest in an interim program

for Subtitle D manufacturing wastes, to help bridge

the gap until (and if) a final Subtitle D program is

developed. 49 Under the auspices of The Keystone

Center, representatives of these diverse interests

have been meeting to develop consensus agreements

on requirements for an interim program that would

be as self-implementing as possible.50 The group is

attempting to reach agreements on notification of

manufacturing solid waste activity; waste characterization, minimization, and tracking; site characterization and environmental assessments; release notification and corrective action; closure; State implementation of legal authority for interim measures;

and funding for State enforcement of such measures.

EPA is participating in the discussions, but the

Agency is concerned that it might not have sufficient

information or resources to define or implement

some of these interim requirements.51 Thus the

Agency questions whether such a program should be

mandated at this time.

Some issues and questions related to manufacturing waste management that Congress might address

include, but are not necessarily limited to, the

following:

● Relationships Among Federal and State Agencies-what degree of primacy does Congress

wish States to have in managing Subtitle D

manufacturing wastes? Should EPA develop a

State-implemented regulatory program with

Federal oversight and enforcement or should it

~55 Federal Register 30105, JulY 24, 1990.

ATThiS is a one.~e no~lcation re@remen~ as long as the discharge does not change subsmmy.

48The -csu~ EpA ~ 1989 for f~we “to prom~gate a comprehensive set of effluent s~~ds ~d syste~tic~y to revise ~d S@engthen itS

existing standards’ under the Clean Water Act and for failure “to promulgate the pretreatment standards called for by the Domestic Sewage Study”

under RCRA (NaturaZResourcesDefense Council, Inc., et al., v. U.S. EnvironmentaZProtecti”onAgency, U.S. District Court for the District of Cohunbiz

Civ. No. 89-2980 (RCL)).

49~s would be sfim~ a sense t. tie interim progr~ developed for _dous wastes after RCRA W8S pWSdh 1976.

~To Me~ey, The Keystone Centm, ~view ~~ents, Aug.8, 1991. Represent~ ~tmests include a v~ety of indus~ sectors (e.g., chernicrd,

petroleum, pulp and paper, commercial waste management), State and Federal regulatory agency representatives, mtional environmental groups, and

congressional staff.

51u.s. EPA, review comments, Aug. 22, 1991.
Chapter 5-Manufacturing Wastes ● 111

●

●

restrict its role to developing voluntary guidelines and providing technical and financial

support for individual State programs? Does

EPA need additional oversight and enforcement authority under RCRA to support effective State programs? In addition, should relationships between RCRA and the Clean Water

Act—which, for example, regulate different

aspects of surface impoundments-be better

clarified and coordinated?

Interim Regulatory Program-Should EPA

be directed to establish interim requirements

for Subtitle D manufacturing wastes or to

gather additional information before developing any program?

Pollution Prevention/Waste Reduction—

Should EPA’s pollution prevention program,

which focuses primarily on reducing the generation of hazardous wastes, include more efforts

to address the generation of non-hazardous

manufacturing wastes and to reduce the use of

toxics in general? Should non-hazardous manufacturing wastes destined for land-based disposal be subject to treatment regulations (e.g.,

similar to BDAT for hazardous wastes) to

encourage pollution prevention? Should additional chemicals or even wastestreams be

included in the TRI? Should the Domestic

Sewage Exemption be continued?

●

●

●

Recycling-Should facilities that recycle hazardous residuals from manufacturing processes, and the residuals themselves, be regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D, exempted,

or otherwise regulated? How should recycling

of non-hazardous wastes be regulated?

Adequacy of Existing Toxicity Tests-Is the

TC an appropriate means of determining the

potential for long-term migration of the full

spectrum of contaminants of concern from

waste management facilities? Should additional characteristics be promulgated to ensure

that Subtitle D wastes are of less concern than

Subtitle C wastes? If so, what characteristics?

Resources for Administration and Enforcement of Programs-Are resources sufficient

to administer and enforce Federal and State

manufacturing waste regulatory programs? If

not, what mechanisms are available to provide

such resources? What emphasis should be

given to enforcement of these programs relative

to other Subtitle D programs and, in turn,

relative to other environmental protection programs? Should independent audits be conducted to assess how effectively various Federal and State regulations are being enforced?
References
References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Adler, R., and Landman, J., “Problems With

Regulation of Industrial Non-hazardous Waste

Under the Clean Water Act,’ presentation at OTA

Workshop on Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste,

Washington, DC, Mar. 8, 1990.

American Broadcasting Co., “The New Gold

Rush,” 20/20 film, ABC-TV, aired June 23,1990.

American Mining Congress, “Comments of the

American Mining Congress on Strawman 11 Recommendations for a Regulatory Program for

Mining Waste and Materials Under Subtitle D of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,”

Washington, DC, Sept. 11, 1990.

American Mining Congress, “Comments of the

American Mining Congress on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Report to Congress on

Special Wastes From Mineral Processing (Docket

No. F-90-RMPA-FFFFF)," Washington, DC, Oct.

19, 1990.

American Mining Congress, “Stormwater Suit

Filed by AMC, Group Permit Sought,” NC

Journal 77(4):3, April 1991.

American Petroleum Institute, API 1985 Production Waste Survey, Statistical Analysis and Survey

Results, Find Report (Washington, DC: October

1987).

American Petroleum Institute, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Oil and Gas

Production Operations (Washington, DC: 1988).

American Petroleum Institute, APl Environmental

Guidance Document: Onshore Solid Waste Management in Exploration and Production Operations (Washington, DC: Jan. 15, 1989).

American Petroleum Institute, 1990 Petroleum

Industry Statistics (Washington, DC: 1990).

American Petroleum Institute, The Generation and

Management of Wastes and Secondary Materials

in the Petroleum Refining Industry: 1987-1988,

API Publication 4530 (Washington, DC: February

1991).

Amoco Corp., “Comments of the Amoco Corporation on ‘Waste Minimization Incentives’, 55

Federal Register 40881, October 5, 1990,” Chicago, IL, Jan. 18, 1991.

Buc & Associates, Inc., “Location of Mines and

Factors Affecting Exposure,” draft report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Solid Waste, June 30, 1986.

Chemical Manufacturers Association, “Petition

for Rulemaking for a de minimis Exclusion to the

Mixture Rule, Derived From Rule and Contaminated Media Rule/Interpretation,” Washington,

DC, 1989.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Chemical Manufacturers Association, “CMA’s

Concepts for a Workable RCRA Subtitle D

System,” briefing to House Subcommittee on

Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC, May 28, 1991.

Conservation Foundation, State of the Environment: A View Toward the Nineties (Washington,

DC: 1987).

Debus, K. H., “Mining With Microbes,” Technology Review 93(6):50-57, Aug./Sept. 1990.

Derkics, D., “Revised Oil & Gas Statistics,”

memorandum, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC, Jan. 28, 1991.

Dernbach, J., ‘‘Industrial Waste: Saving the Worst

for Last?,’ Environmental Law Reporter: News &

Analysis 20:10283-10294, 1990.

DeVries, F. W., and Jones, A. E., “Some Recent

Considerations on the Environmental Impact of

Cyanide From Precious Metal Leaching,” in A.E.

Torma and I.H. Gundiler (eds.), Precious and Rare

Metal Technologies, Proceedings of a Symposium

on Precious and Rare Metals, Albuquerque, NM,

Apr. 6-8, 1988 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1989), pp.

333-341.

Dougherty, E., “Waste Minimization: Reduce

Wastes and Reap the Benefits,” R&D Magazine,

April:62-68, 1990.

Electric Power Research Institute, “Preliminary

Environmental Performance Assessment Results

Obtained From Second Ash Pond Comanagement

Site,” Lund and Water Qualify News 5(3):8-9,

November 1990.

Environmental Law Institute, “Assistance Agreement Proposal, Regulation of Mining Waste: A

Research Program,” Washington, DC, 1991.

Environmental Mining Network, “Environmental

Mining Network Response to Strawman II Recommendations for a Regulatory Program for Mining

Waste and Materials Under RCRA Subtitle D, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid

Waste,” prepared by Coordinating Committee of

the Environmental Mining Network, Jan. 31,1991.

Environment Canada, Proceedings, Gold Mining

Effluent Treatment Seminars (Ottawa: 1989).

ERT Co., Oil and Gas Industry Exploration and

Production Wastes, prepared for American Petroleum Institute, Document No. 471-01-09 (Washington, DC: July 1987).

Esmoil, B.J., ‘Wildlife Mortality Associated With

Oil Pits in Wyoming,” M.S. Thesis, University of

Wyoming, Laramie, WY, May 1991.

Fitzpatrick, M., “Common Misconceptions About

the RCRA Subtitle C Exemption for Wastes From

Crude Oil and Natural Gas Exploration, Develop-

–115-
116 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

ment and Production,” in Proceedings of the First

International Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste Management Practices

(New Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 169-178.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,

‘ ‘Chapter 17-673, Phosphogypsum Management,”

draft regulations, Tallahassee, FL, Feb. 21, 1991.

Florini, K., Denisen, R., and Rathbun, P., “EPA’s

Delisting Program for Hazardous Wastes: Current

Limitations and Future Directions,” Environmental Law Reporter 19:10558-10568, 1989.

Fognani, J.D., “Is Minerals Recycling Under

RCRA a ‘Mission Impossible?’ “ AMC Journal

77(4):13,16, April 1991.

Fortuna, R., and Lennett, D., Hazardous Waste

Regulation: The New Era-An Analysis and Guide

to RCRA and the 1984 Amendments (New York

NY: McGraw Hill, 1987).

Grimme, S.J., and Erb, J.E., ‘‘Solidification of

Residual Waste Pits as an Alternative Disposal

Practice in Pennsylvania,” in Proceedings of the

First International Symposium on Oil and Gas

Exploration and Production Waste Management

Practices (New Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 873-

881.

Gruber, W., and Rigatuso, G., “Landfill Liner

Requirements, A State-by-State Summary of Subtitle D Criteria,” El Digest, February 1991, pp.

12-19.

Hall, R., “Environmental Consequences of Mismanagement of Wastes From Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production,” in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Oil

and Gas Exploration and Production Waste Management Practices (New Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990),

pp. 387-400.

Hallock, R.J., Elimination of Migratory Bird

Mortality at Gold and Silver Mines Using Cyanide

Extraction (Reno, NV: U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Region I, Reno Field Station, March

1990).

Halvorsen, J.V., O’Keefe, W.F., and Lawrence,

G.H., Letter From Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Petroleum Institute,

and American Gas Association to William K.

Reilly, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Aug. 28,1990.

Haynes, B. W., and Kramer, G.W., Characterization of U.S. Cement Kiln Dust, Information Circular 8885 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1982).

Heaton, G., Repetto R., and Sobin, R., Transforming Technology: An Agenda for Environmentally

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

45a.

46.

47.

48.

49.

500

Sustainable Growth in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, April 1991).

Hughes, J., “Statement of James Hughes, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, United States Department of the Interior,

Before the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural

Resources, Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs, United States House of Representatives,

on Regulation of Non-Coal Mining Wastes,’ June

19, 1990.

ICF, Inc., “Subtitle D/Subtitle C Co-Location

Analysis, by Waste Volume,” memorandum to M.

Cox and R. Benioff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fairfax, VA, Feb. 17, 1989.

ICF, Inc., “Study of State Subtitle D Regulatory

Program Status,” prepared for American Petroleum Institute and Chemical Manufacturers Association, Fairfax, VA, September 1991.

IMS, Inc., Environmental Handbook for Cyanide

Leaching Projects, prepared under contract to

Radian Corp. for the National Park Service,

Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Denver,

CO, 1986.

Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Mineral

Resources Committee, Non-Coal Mineral Resources Questionnaire & Report (Herndon, VA:

May 1990).

Interstate Oil Compact Commission, EPA/IOCC

Study of State Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste (Oklahoma City, OK:

December 1990).

Kelly, S., “Waste Oil Pits May Have Killed

500,000 Migratory Birds in ‘89,” The Washington

Post, April 6, 1990, p. A17.

Kerr & Associates, Inc., Trends in State Pollution

Prevention and Waste Minimization Programs,

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Solid Waste (Reston, VA: 1991).

Kovacs, W., “Legislation and Involved Agencies,” Solid Waste Handbook (New York NY:

John Wiley & Sons, 1986).

Kovacs, W., “The Coming Era of Conservation

and Industrial Utilization of Recyclable Materials,” Ecology Law Quarterly 15:537-625, 1988.

Landy, M., Roberts, M., and Thomas, S., The

Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the

Wrong Questions (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 1990).

Larson, D., Executive Director, Western Interstate

Energy Board, memorandum to R. Dwyer, American Mining Congress, Jan. 15, 1991.

Lennett, D., National Audubon Society, testimony

at hearings before the House Subcommittee on

Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Jan. 24,

1990.
References ● 117

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

Lennett, D., and Greer, L., “State Regulation of

Hazardous Waste,” Ecology Law Quarterly 12(2):

189-194, 1985.

Maest, A., “An Environmentalist’s View: The

Challenge of Pollution Prevention in the HardRockMining Industry,” paper presented at American Mining Congress annual convention (New

Orleans, LA: Sept. 25, 1990).

Mangone, N., “The Other Federal PRPs: Liability

for Mining Wastes Under CERCLA and RCRA,”

Virginia Environmental Law Journal 10;87-107,

fall 1990.

McGill, S.L., and Comba, P.G., “A Review of

Existing Cyanide Destruction Practices,” in Nevada Mining Association, Nevada Department of

Minerals, and Nevada Department of Wildlife,

Proceedings of the Nevada Wildlife/Mining Workshop (Reno, NV: Mar. 27-29, 1990), pp. 172-185.

Metcalf and Eddy, “Ohio Industrial Solid Waste:

A Report on Generator Rates, Recycling, and

Saving Resources,” prepared for Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH, February 1990.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and

Department of Public Health, “Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) at Michigan

Oil and Gas Field Sites: Preliminary Survey

Results,” Lansing, MI: April 1991.

Miller, H.T., and Bruce, E.D., “Pathway Exposure

Analysis and the Identification of Waste Disposal

Options for Petroleum Production Wastes Containing Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials,” in Proceedings of the First International

Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Waste Management Practices (New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 731-744.

National Academy of Sciences, Tracking Toxic

Substances at Industrial Facilities: Engineering

Mass Balance vs. Materials Accounting (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990).

National Advisory Council for Environmental

Policy and Technology, Permitting and Compliance Policy: Barriers to U.S. Environmental

Technology Innovation, Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee, EPA 101/N-91/001 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1991).

National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and Mineral Policy Center, “Comments of the National Audubon Society, the

Environmental Defense Fund and the Mineral

Policy Center on the Environmental Protection

Agency’s Report to Congress on Special Wastes

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

from Mineral Processing,” Washington, DC, Oct.

19,1990.

National Research Council, Committee to Evaluate the Hazardous Materials Management Program

of the Bureau of Land Management, ‘Statement of

Task,” Washington, DC, Dec. 30, 1988.

Nevada Mining Association, Nevada Department

of Minerals, and Nevada Department of Wildlife,

“Appendix B, Nevada Regulations and Associated Materials,” in Proceedings of the Nevada

Wildlife/Mining Workshop (Reno, NV: Mar. 27-

29, 1990).

O’Byrne, J., “License To Pollute: Hazardous

Waste in Oil Country,” The Times-Picayune

(Louisiana), series of articles, Oct. 15-18,1989.

O’Neal, D.C., Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, letter to L.J. Wilcher, Assistant Administrator

for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, Aug. 1, 1991.

Otto, G.H., A National Survey on Naturally

Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Petroleum Producing and Gas Processing Facilities,

submitted to the American Petroleum Institute

(Houston, TX: University of Houston, July 1,

1989).

Rabalais, N., Means, J., and Boesch, D., “Fate and

Effects of Produced Water Discharges in Coastal

Environments, “ in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration

and Production Waste Management Practices

(New Orleans: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 503-514.

Radian Corp., Environmental Performance Assessment: Management and Co-Management of

Coal Combustion By-products and Low-Volume

Wastes at the L-Site Ash Pond, Final Report

EN-7545, prepared for Electric Power Research

Institute Environment Division (Austin, TX: October 1991).

Rogers and Associates Engineering Corp., Management and Disposal Alternatives for NORM

Wastes in Oil Production and Gas Plant Equipment, prepared for American Petroleum Institute

(Salt Lake City, UT: May 1990).

Ruddy, D., and Ruggiero, D., “An Overview of

Treatment Technologies for Reduction of Hydrocarbon Levels in Drill Cuttings Wastes,’ in

Proceedings of the First International Symposium

on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste

Management Practices (New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1-13,

1990), pp. 717-729.

Safety-Kleen Corp., “The Environmental Hazards

of Unsafe Used Oil Recycling,” Elgin, IL, 1990.
118 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

71. Schmidt, E., and Jaeger, S., “PRS Treatment and

Reuse of Oilfield Wastewaters,’ in Proceedings of

the First International Symposium on Oil and Gas

Exploration and Production Waste Management

Practices (New Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 795-

807.

72. Schneider, K., “Radiation Danger Found in Oil

Fields Across the Nation,” New York Times, Dec.

3, 1990, p. Al and B6.

73. Science Applications International Corp., “Summary of Industrial Processes, Products, Wastes

Generated and Regulation of the Cement Kiln

Industry, draft document prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid

Waste, McLean, VA, Dec. 14, 1990.

74. Science Applications International Corp., “Mining Waste NPL Site Summary Report, Silver Bow

Creek/Butte Area Site, Butte, Montana,” draft

document prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, McLean,

VA, Mar. 21, 1991.

75. Shirazi, G.A., “Land Farming of Drilling Muds in

Conjunction with Pit-Site Reclamation: A Case

History,” in Proceedings of the First International

Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Waste Management Practices (New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 553-564.

76. Silbergeld, E., ‘‘Comments on ‘The Importance of

the Technical Characteristics of Hazardous Materials in Considering Environmental Risk,’ “ Risk

Analysis 11(1):33-34, 1991.

77. Smith, J., “Cement Kilns 1991,” El Digest,

August 1991, pp. 20-32.

78. St. Pe, K., Means, J., et al., “An Assessment of

Produced Water Impacts to Low-Energy, Brackish

Water Systems in Southeast Louisiana: A Project

summary, “ in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Waste Management Practices (New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 31-42.

79. Thurber, N.E., “Waste Minimization in E&P

Operations,” in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Waste Management Practices (New

Orleans: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 1039-1052.

80. Turner, R.E., and Cahoon, D.R. (MIs,), Causes of

Wetland Loss in the Coastal Central Gulf of

Mexico, Volume I: Executive Summary (New

Orleans, LA: Minerals Management Service, January 1988).

81. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Improved Monitoring and Enforcement Needed for

Toxic Pollutants Entering Sewers,” GAO/RCED89-101, Washington, DC, April 1989.

82. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Drinking Water Standards Are Not Preventing Contamination From Injected Oil and Gas Wastes,”

GAO/RCED-89-97, Washington, DC, July 1989.

83. U. S. Congress, General Accounting Office, ’’Nonhazardous Waste: Environmental Safeguards for Industrial Facilities Need To Be Developed,” GAO/

RCED-90-92, Washington, DC, April 1990.

84. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Federal Land Management: Better Oil and Gas Information Needed to Support Land Use Decisions,”

GAO/RCED-90-71, Washington, DC, June 27,

1990.

85. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Public Land Management: Attention to Wildlife Is

Limited,” GAO/RCED-91-64, Washington, DC,

March 1991.

86. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Environmental Protection: Meeting Public Expectations With Limited Resources,” GAO/RCED-91-

97, Washington, DC, June 18, 1991.

87. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Mineral Resources: Increased Attention Being Given

to Cyanide Operations,” GAO/RCED-91-145,

Washington, DC, June 20, 1991.

88. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies and Management Strategies for

Hazardous Waste Control, OTA-M-196 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

March 1983).

89. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Managing the Nation’s Commercial High-Level

Radioactive Waste, OTA-O-171 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1985).

90. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Superfund Strategy, OTA-ITE-252 (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, April

1985).

91. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, OTA-ITE317 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, September 1986).

92. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1987).

93. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

From Pollution to Prevention, OTA-ITE-347 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

June 1987).

94. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Issues in Medical Waste Management, OTA-BP-O49 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, October 1988).
References .119

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

1020

1030

104,

105,

106.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Facing Americans Trash: What Next for Municipal

Solid Waste?, OTA-O-424 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste, OTA-O426 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, November 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Finding the Rx for Managing Medical Wastes,

OTA-O-459 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, September 1990).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Changing by Degrees: Steps To Reduce Greenhouse Gases, OTA-O-482 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1991).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990,

110th ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, January 1990).

U.S. Department of Energy, Letter from W.H.

Moore, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy, to the

Honorable Buddy Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, Aug. 8, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Comments in Response to

the Environmental Protection Agency Strawman II

Recommendations for a Regulatory Program for

Mining Waste and Materials Under Subtitle D of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,”

Washington, DC, Sept. 11, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, “Comments in

Response to the Environmental Protection Agency

Report to Congress on Special Wastes From

Mineral Processing Released July 1990,” Washington, DC, Oct. 19, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Cyanide Management Policy for

Activities Authorized Under 43 CFR 3802/3809,”

Instruction Memorandum No. 90-566, Washington, DC, Aug. 6, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Modification of the Bonding Policy for Plans of Operation Authorized by 43 CFR

3809,” Instruction Memorandum No. 90-582,

Washington, DC, Aug. 14, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Cyanide Management Policy for

Activities Authorized Under 43 CFR 3802/3809,”

Instruction Memorandum No. 90-566, Change 1,

Washington, DC, Nov. 1, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

Minerals Yearbook, Vol. 1, Metals and Minerals

(Washington, DC: 1988).

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, “Toxicology and Hazard to Wildlife of

Cyanide Effluents From precious Metal Mining,”

Study Plan No. 30027.03, Laurel, MD, Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, “Research Needs for Sodium Cyanide

(CAS 143-33-9), A Response to the Interagency

Testing Committee Regarding Toxicity of Sodium

Cyanide to Migratory Birds and Selected Terrestrial Wildlife Species,” Letter from D.L. Travyer

to Y.P. Hellyer, Laurel, MD, Patuxent Wildlife

Research Center, July 16, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, “Union Pacific Railroad Pleads Guilty to

Oil Pit Violations,” news release, Albuquerque,

NM, Mar. 29, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

. . Drinking Water, S1 Assessment National Report,

EPA 570/9-84-002 (Washington, DC: 1983).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Report to

Congress: Wastes From the Extraction and Benefication of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden From Uranium Mining and Oil

Shale, EPA/530-SW-85-033 (Washington, DC:

December 1985).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of Data on Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste

Disposal Practices,’ Washington, DC, December

1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes

to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPll/530-SW86-004 (Washington, DC: February 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Census of

State and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous

Waste Programs, EPA/53O-SW-86-O39 (Washington, DC: October 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Policy, Planning and Information and Office of

Solid Waste, “States Report and Memorandum on

an Alternative Waste Classification Scheme,”

Washington, DC: June 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, “Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D Establishments,’ unpublished draft final report, Washington, DC, December 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Report to

Congress: Management of Wastes From the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude

Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy, EPA/530-

SW-88-003 (Washington, DC: December 1987).
120 . Managing Industrial Solid WastesFromManufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress: Wastes From the Combustion of Coal

by Electric Utility Power Plants, EPA/530-SW-88-

002 (Washington, DC: February 1988).

119. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Report to

Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United

States, vols. 1-2, EPA/530-SW-88-011 (Washington, DC: October 1988).

120. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985 National Biennial Report of Hazarjous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA, EPA/530-SW-89-

O33A (Washington, DC: March 1989).

121. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

. . Drinking Water, Mid-Course Evaluation of the

Class II Underground Injection Control Program:

Final Report of the Mid-Course Evaluation Workshop (Washington, DC: Aug. 22, 1989).

122. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offfice of

. . Drinking Water, internal memorandum in response to GAO Report, “Drinking Water: Safeguards Are Not Preventing Contamination From

Injected Oil and Gas Wastes,” Washington, DC,

Oct. 10, 1989.

123. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Estimated Quantities (MT/Year) That Exhibit the TC

for Each Wastestream Using RGL 100-5,” unpublished data, Washington, DC, Nov. 16,1989.

124. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, “Strawman II Recommendations for

a Regulatory Program for Mining Wastes and

Materials Under Subtitle D of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act,” staff working

document, Washington, DC, May 21, 1990.

125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

the Inspector General, memorandum on “Special

Review Report: ERA Is Not Adequately Controlling the Negative Impacts of Oil and Gas Activities

on Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands,” Report Number ElHWG9-13-9024-0400018, Washington,

DC, June 14, 1990.

126. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United

States: 1990 Update, EPA/530-SW-90-042, Washington, DC, June 1990.

127. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress on Special Wastes From Mineral Processing, EPA/530-SW-90-070C, Washington, DC,

July 1990.

128. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Toxics in the

Community, National and Local Perspectives, The

1988 Toxics Release Inventory National Report,

EPA 560/4-90-017 (Washington, DC: Sept. 1990).

129. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science

Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities

and Strategies for EnvironmentalProtection, SABEC-90-021 (Washington, DC: September 1990).

130. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution

Prevention Strategy (Washington, DC: January

1991).

131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticides and Toxic Substances memorandum,

“RM1 Meeting for Consumer Products/Indoor Air

Cluster and Sodium Cyanide,” Washington, DC,

Feb. 13, 1991.

132. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987 National Bienniel RCRA Hazardous Waste Report,

EPA/530-SW-91-061 (Washington, DC: July

1991).

133. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National

Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities

in 1986, Hazardous Waste Management in RCRA

TSDR Units, EPA/530-SW-91-060 (Washington,

DC: July 1991).

133a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National

Pretreatment Program: Report to Congress, EPA/

505/2-91/001 (Washington, DC: July 1991).

134. Utility Solid Waste Activities Group et al., Comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

Report to Congress, “Wastes From the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants”

(Washington, DC: May 16, 1988).

135. Vi Sickle, V., and Groat, C. G., “Oil Field Brines:

Another Problem for Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands,” in Proceedings of the First International

Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Waste Management Practices (New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 659-675.

136. Vi-m Zyl, D. (editor), Cyanide and the Environment, Proceedings of a Conference, Tucson, AZ,

Dec. 11-14, 1984, 2 volumes (Fort Collins, CO:

Colorado State University, Department of Civil

Engineering, 1985).

137. Watson, H.L., and Hughes, J.M., U.S. Department

of the Interior, Office of The Secretary, “Letter to

D.R. Clay, Assistant Administrator for the Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,” Washington,

DC, June 28, 1990.

138. Western Governors’ Association, Mine Waste

Task Force, “State Non-Coal Mine Waste Regulatory Programs, Results of a Multi-State Survey,”

Denver, CO, Sept. 30, 1990.

139. Western Governors’ Association, Mine Waste

Task Force, comments on “Strawman II Recommendations for a Regulatory Program for Mining
References . 121

140,

141,

141a.

Waste and Materials Under Subtitle D of RCRA,” 142.

Denver, CO, Oct. 16, 1990.

Western Interstate Energy Board, Inactive and

Abandoned Noncoal Mines, A Scoping Study,

Volume 1, prepared for the Western Governors’

Association Mine Waste Task Force (Denver, CO:

August 1991).

Williams, M., and Cannon, J., “Rethinking the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for the 143.

1990s,” Environmental Law Reporter 21:10063-

10075, February 1991.

Waste Reduction Institute for Training and Applications Research, Inc., “National Roundtable of

State Pollution Prevention Programs, Proceedings,

Spring 1991 Roundtable Meeting” (Washington,

DC: Apr. 1-2, 1991).

Yates, H., “Onshore Solid Waste Management in

Exploration and Production Operations,” in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on

Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste

Management Practices (New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1-13,

1990), pp. 703-713.

Zimmerman, P., and Robert, J., “Landfarming oil

Based Drill Cuttings, " in Proceedings of the First

International Symposium on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste Management Practices

(New Orleans, LA: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Sept. 1-13, 1990), pp. 565-576.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Acronyms

AMC —American Mining Congress

API —American Petroleum Institute

BAT —best available technology economically

achievable

BDAT —best demonstrated available technology

BLM —Bureau of Land Management

BOM —Bureau of Mines

BPT —best practicable control technology currently

available

CERCLA-Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

CESQG -Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity

Generator

--Code of Federal Regulations

CMA -Chemical Manufacturers Association

CWA -Clean Water Act

DOI —U.S. Department of the Interior

E&B -extraction and beneficiation

E&P -exploration and production

EDF —Environmental Defense Fund

EOR -enhanced oil recovery

EP —Extraction Procedure

EPA —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI —Electric Power Research Institute

F&WS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FGD —flue gas desulfurization

FLPMA —Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GAO -General Accounting Office

HSWA —Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

IMCC —Interstate Mining Compact Commission

IOGCC —Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

MSW —municipal solid waste

NAAQS —National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA —National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP —National Emission Standard for Hazardous

Air Pollutants

NORM —naturally occurring radioactive material

NPDES —National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

NPL —National Priorities List

NRDC —Natural Resources Defense Council

OSHA -Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

OWEP -oily waste extraction procedure

PCB —polychlorinated biphenyl

POTW —publicly owned treatment work

RCRA —Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SARA —Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act

SDWA —Safe Drinking Water Act

SIC —Standard Industrial Classification

SMCRA -Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act

SP -Synthetic Precipitation

TC —Toxicity Characteristic

—Toxics Release Inventory

TSCA —Toxic Substances Control Act

UIC —Underground Injection Control

USDA —U.S. Department of Agriculture

USWAG —Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

VOCc —volatile organic compound

WGA —Western Governors’ Association

–125–
Appendix B

Federal Statutes and Public Law (P.L.) Numbers

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act-P.L. 99-519

Clean Air Act-P.L. 95-95

Clean Air Act Amendment-P.L. 101-549

Clean Water Act-P.L. 95-217

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act-P.L. 96-510

Endangered Species Act-P.L. 93-205

Federal Advisory Committee Act—P.L. 92-463

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—

P.L. 92-516

Federal Land Policy and Management Act-P.L. 94-579

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act—P.L.

97-451

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act—P.L. 93-378

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments-P.L. 98-616

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act—Ch. 593,

49 Stat. 666

Medical Waste Tracking Act—P.L. 100-582

Migratory Bird Treaty Act-P.L. 86-732

Mine Safety and Health Act-P.L. 95-164

Mining Law of 1872

National Environmental Policy Act-P.L. 91-190

National Forest Management Act-P.L. 94-588

National Park System Mining Activity Act—P.L. 94-429

Occupational Safety and Health Act-P.L. 91-596

Pollution Prevention Act-P.L. 101-508

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-P.L. 94-580

Resource Recovery Act-P.L. 91-512

Safe Drinking Water Act—P.L. 93-523

Solid Waste Disposal Act-P.L. 89-272

Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments-P.L. 96-482

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act—P.L.

99499

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act-P.L.

95-87

Toxic Substances Control Act—P.L. 94-469

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978—

P.L. 95-604

–126-
Appendix C

Contributors and Reviewers

Robert Adler

Natural Resources Defense Council

Alan Corson

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Kenneth Alkema

Western Governors’ Association

John Craynon

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Keith Cronin

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Harvey Alter

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

S. Crozier

Phelps Dodge Corp.

R. Andrews

Boulder Innovative Technologies

Glen Davis

Texas Water Commission

T. Ary

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Fred Bantz

Mine Land Reclamation

Richard Denisen

Environmental Defense Fund

Dan Derkics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Steven Barringer

Holland & Hart

John Dembach

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

James Berlow

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Pragna Nh Bhakta

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Frederick W. DeVries

Chem-Mining Consulting, Ltd.

Barbara Bond

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Paul Didier

Wisconsin Bureau of Solid Waste Management

Francoise Brasier

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Debbie Dobkowski

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Michael Burns

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rod Dwyer

American Mining Congress

David Bussard

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Scott Ellinger

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Kerry Callahan

ASTSWMO

Glenn Enrick

American Barrick Resources Corp.

Don Clay

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Brent Esmoil

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dave Cling

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Susan Ferguson

Texas Water Commission

Stephen Cochran

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Michael Fitzpatrick

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Al Collins

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Karen Florini

Environmental Defense Fund

c. Conklin

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Walter Fluharty

International Chemical Workers Union

Richard Fortuna

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council

Greg Conrad

Interstate Mining Compact

–127–
128 . Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oi land Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

D. Fries

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

J. King

Nevada Department of Wildlife

K. Ladwig

Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

Shiva Garg

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jessica Landman

Natural Resources Defense Council

Martha Gibbons

LAIDLAW, Inc.

T. Larsen

Cyprus Miami Mining

Linda Greer

Natural Resources Defense Council

Douglas Larson

Western Interstate Energy Board

William Gruber

Environmental Information Ltd.

Angela Leith

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Harry P. Hackett

Holnam Inc..

David J. Lennett, Contractor

Attorney

Robert Hall

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Clare Lindsay

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Susan McIntosh Harrod

Mineral Policy Center

Jim Lounsbury

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John R. Hayworth

BFI/CECOS International

Sylvia Lowrance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Yvette Hellyer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ann Maest

Consultant

Cathy Helm

U.S. General Accounting Office

Eric H. Males

chemical Manufacturers Association

Charles Henny

Pacific Northwest Research Station

C. Markson

California Department of Health Services

Allen Hershkowitz

Natural Resources Defense Council

S. McCarty

Louisiana Office of Consevation

Elwood F. Hill

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Chris McKinnon

Western Governors’ Association

Philip Hocker

Mineral Policy Center

Robert McQuivey

Nevada Department of Wildlife

Steve Hoffmann

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Timothy J. Mealey

The Keystone Center

William Humphrey

Western Regional Council

Vern Meinz

Washington Department of Ecology

Frances Irwin

The Conservation Foundation

Mark R. Meredith

Multinational Business Services, Inc.

Kelly Johnson

Holland & Hart

Gene Mitchell

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Robert D. Judy

Cyprus Copper Co.

Nancy Moore

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Michael Kelley

Ohio Department of Development

Pat Moore

U.S. General Accounting Office

Dorothy A. Kellogg

Chemical Manufacturers Association
Appendix Contributors and Reviewers .129

Richard Mullineaux

The Keystone Center

Ishwar Muraka

Electric Power Research Institute

Julie Murphy

Amoco Corp.

Mike Nechvatal

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Dianne Nielson

Utah Department of Natural Resources

John J. Novak

Edison Electric Institute

Thomas O’Farrell

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Andy O’Hare

American Petroleum Institute

Tara O’Toole

Office of Technology Assessment

Joseph Peterpaul

Rohm and Haas

Mike Petruska

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Florence Poillon

Editor

Gwen de Poix

Science Applications International Corp.

Dennis Poulsen

California Steel Industries, Inc.

Sheila Prindiville

National Solid Waste Management Association

Mark Ralston

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Reese

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

German Reyes

Office of Technology Assessment

Jenifer Robison

Office of Technology Assessment

James Roewer

Edison Electric Institute

Lawrence Rosengrant

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ken Sandier

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Scarberry

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bill Schoenborn

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jeff Shick

Ohio Department of Development

Phil Shriver

Western Governors’ Association

Jerry Simmons

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

D. Singletary

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition

Ed Skaemolis

Waste Management Inc.

Jeffrey Smith

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Smythe

National Research Council

A.A. Sokolowski

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

James M. Souby

Western Governors’ Association

Lakshmi Sridharan

Wisconsin Bureau of Solid Waste Management

Robert Stanier

California Steel Industries, Inc.

Buck Steingraber

Mobil Exploration & Producing U. S., Inc.

Jon Stone

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Martha Tableman

The Keystone Center

James Taft

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Melinda Taylor

National Audubon Society

Neal Thurber

Amoco Corp.

Robert Tonetti

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Chris Warshaw

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition

Harlan Watson

U.S. Department of the Interior
130 ● Managing Industrial Solid Wastes From Manufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas Production, and Utility Coal Combustion

Bruce Weddle Karen Woodhouse

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Health Services

Debbie Welles Russ Wyer

Western Governors’ Association U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

LaJuana Wilcher Jeff Zimmerman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Baker and Botts

Marcia Williams

Browning-Ferris Industries