[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 709-714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-182]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 6, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-4822-9]
Availability of Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust; Request
for Comments and Announcement of Public Hearing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Agency's Report
to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust, that is required by section 8002(o) of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6982(o).
The Report to Congress contains a detailed study of cement kiln dust
(CKD), which is within the scope of the exemption from hazardous waste
regulations provided by section 3001(b)(3)(A)(iii) of RCRA as codified
at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(8); this exemption is often referred to as the
Bevill Exemption. The report also presents the Agency's decision making
rationale and a series of options being considered regarding regulatory
options for cement kiln dust waste. Information submitted in public
comments and at a public hearing will be used in conjunction with the
Report to Congress to make a final determination on the regulatory
status of these wastes.
DATES: EPA will accept public comments on the Report to Congress on
Cement Kiln Dust until February 22, 1994. The Agency will hold a public
hearing on the Report to Congress on February 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the public hearing should be submitted
in writing to the Public Hearing Officer--Cement Kiln Dust, Office of
Solid Waste, Special Waste Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street (5302W), SW., Washington, DC 20460. The February
15, 1994 public hearing will be held at the Renaissance Hotel in
Washington, DC, located at 999 9th Street, NW. The hearing will begin
at 9 a.m. with registration beginning at 8:30 a.m. The hearing will end
at 5 p.m. unless concluded earlier. Oral and written statements may be
submitted at the public hearing. Persons who wish to make oral
presentations must restrict them to 15 minutes, and are requested to
provide written comments for inclusion in the record.
Copies of the full report are available for inspection and copying
at the EPA Headquarters library, at the RCRA Docket in Washington, DC,
and at all EPA Regional Office libraries. Copies of the full report can
be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (call
(703) 487-4660 or (800) 553-NTIS). Copies of the Executive Summary
(Volume I) can be obtained by calling the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810.
Those wishing to submit public comments for the record must send an
original and two copies of their comments to the following address:
RCRA Docket Information Center (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460. Please place the
docket number F-93-RCKA-FFFFF on your comments.
The RCRA docket is located in room M2616 at EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC. The docket is open from 9 to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. In order to view the docket, please
call (202) 260-9327 to make an appointment. Copies are free up to 100
pages and thereafter cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810; for
technical information contact Bill Schoenborn, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (5302W), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, at
(703) 308-8483.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
A. Background Information
RCRA section 3001(b)(3) (hereafter referred to as the Bevill
Exemption) exempts, among other things, cement kiln dust waste from
regulation under RCRA subtitle C, pending completion of a Report to
Congress and a subsequent determination of whether such regulation is
warranted. In RCRA section 8002(o), Congress directed EPA to conduct a
detailed and comprehensive study based on eight study factors
(discussed below) and submit a Report to Congress on ``the adverse
effects on human health and the environment, if any, of the disposal
and utilization of cement kiln dust waste''. RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C)
then requires that EPA determine, within six months of the date of
submission of the Report to Congress, either to promulgate regulations
for CKD under subtitle C or determine that subtitle C regulation is
unwarranted.
The Bevill Exemption was added to RCRA on October 12, 1980, as part
of the 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendment. In response to the 1980
RCRA amendments, EPA published an interim final amendment to its
hazardous waste regulations to reflect the provisions of the Bevill
Exemption (40 CFR 261.4(b)(8)). Since that time, cement kiln dust has
remained exempt from subtitle C of RCRA, meaning that this material has
never been subject to hazardous waste regulations under Federal law.
On March 8, 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed suit
against EPA for failing to complete the RTC as required by RCRA. On
June 19, 1991, EPA entered into a proposed consent decree with EDF. In
the proposed consent decree, EPA agreed to complete the Report to
Congress on Cement Kiln Dust by April 30, 1993. The proposed consent
decree was later modified to extend the deadline for issuance of the
Report to Congress to December 31, 1993.
B. Report to Congress
EPA has completed its study of CKD waste and prepared the Report to
Congress on Cement Kiln Dust. In keeping with the statutory
requirements, the report addresses the following factors (hereafter
``study factors'') required under section 8002(o) of RCRA:
(1) The source and volumes of such materials generated per year;
(2) Present disposal practices;
(3) Potential danger, if any, to human health and the environment
from the disposal of such materials;
(4) Documented cases in which danger to human health or the
environment has been proved;
(5) Alternatives to current disposal methods;
(6) The costs of such alternatives;
(7) The impact of those alternatives on the use of natural
resources; and
(8) The current and potential utilization of such materials.
In addition, section 8002(o) directs the Agency review other Federal
and state studies and actions (e.g., regulations) to avoid duplication
of effort.
The Agency's approach in preparing the Report to Congress was to
combine certain study factors for purposes of analysis and to evaluate
these study factors in a step-wise fashion. This evaluation process,
hereafter referred to as EPA's decision rationale, is a three-step
methodology that was used in making the regulatory determinations for
Mineral Processing Special Wastes (56 FR 27305, June 13, 1991) and the
four large-volume Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric
Utilities (58 FR 42466, August 9, 1993). The decision rationale
contributed to the development of the proposed options for managing CKD
waste. EPA is soliciting comment on how the decision rationale can be
used in the Agency's decision-making process.
The resulting review and discussion of EPA's analysis is organized
into ten chapters in Volume II of the Report to Congress: Methods and
Findings. (Volume I is an Executive Summary.) The first chapter of
Volume II briefly summarizes the purpose and scope of the report,
general methods and information sources used, and EPA's decision making
methodology. The second chapter provides a brief overview of the cement
industry, including a description of CKD waste, the industry structure
and characteristics, the cement manufacturing process, the types of
production processes used, and significant process inputs (RCRA Study
Factor 1). The third chapter discusses the generation and chemical and
physical characteristics of CKD (Study Factors 1 and 3). The fourth
chapter outlines the range of CKD management methods employed at
domestic cement plants (Study Factor 2). The fifth chapter identifies
and summarizes cases of potential and documented damages to human
health and the environment (Study Factor 4). The sixth chapter includes
a discussion of EPA's risk assessment in which the Agency examined
inherent hazards posed by CKD, evaluated site-specific risk factors,
and performed quantitative transport, fate and exposure modeling (Study
Factor 3). The seventh chapter summarizes applicable federal and state
regulatory controls. The eighth chapter investigates alternative waste
management practices and potential utilization of the wastes (Study
Factors 5, 6, and 7). The ninth chapter discusses costs and impacts
under each of several regulatory and operational scenarios (Study
Factor 8). The tenth and final chapter of Volume II of the Report to
Congress summarizes and analyzes the findings of EPA's evaluation of
the above study factors and presents a series of options the Agency is
considering, based on these findings, concerning the management of
cement kiln dust.
C. Decision Rationale
After studying cement kiln dust, the Agency used the decision
rationale to evaluate the findings of the study factors, and to
formulate a series of options being considered regarding the level of
control needed for CKD. In Step 1 of the decision rationale, the Agency
first determined whether the management of CKD poses human health/
environmental problems and the potential for current practices to cause
problems in the future. In Step 2, the Agency looked at waste
management practices and existing regulations to examine the potential
for releases and exposure under current practices. In Step 3, the
Agency evaluated the costs and impacts associated with regulating this
waste under Subtitle C and, possibly, other regulatory scenarios.
The rationale for the order of questions is that cement kiln dust
should first be considered to present risk to human health or the
environment or a potential risk under plausible mismanagement scenarios
before the Agency considers it for regulation under RCRA subtitle C.
Second, before it considers regulating the waste under subtitle C, the
Agency should determine that current management practices and existing
state and Federal regulatory controls are inadequate to limit the risks
posed by a waste. Then it should consider whether subtitle C regulation
would be effective and appropriate. Finally, the special statutory
status of the waste requires that the Agency consider the impacts to
the industry that regulation under subtitle C would create in making a
decision to regulate the waste as hazardous. Therefore, the decision
rationale allows EPA to systematically narrow its focus as to whether
the waste may present significant risk of harm and whether additional
regulatory controls are necessary and desirable.
The tentative answers to the questions posed in its three-step
decision rationale are discussed below:
Step 1: Does management of CKD pose human health and environmental
problems? Might current practices cause problems in the future?
After reviewing evidence of damage to human health and the
environment, performing a risk assessment, and reviewing the results of
laboratory analyses of waste samples, EPA has concluded that risks
associated with CKD management are generally low, however, there is a
potential under certain circumstances for CKD to pose a danger to human
health and environment, and may do so in the future.
Data collected from state files and EPA site visits identify common
CKD waste management practices, including management in exposed,
unlined piles, abandoned quarries, and landfills, that have caused, and
may continue to cause, contamination of air and nearby surface water
and ground water. Management practices such as disposal in a water-
filled quarry and management in piles adjacent to grazing and
agricultural fields or surface water bodies also pose a potential
danger to human health and the environment. In addition, risk modeling
results supports the conclusion that CKD can potentially pose risks to
human health and the environment under certain hypothetical, yet
plausible scenarios.
Step 2: Is more stringent regulation necessary or desirable?
EPA has reached no conclusions with respect to the need for more
stringent regulation. EPA's preliminary analysis of the effectiveness
of State and Federal regulations and controls suggests that additional
controls should be evaluated; for example, controls for CKD management
scenarios which potentially present high risks, if those scenarios
exist. While CKD is regulated under State and local laws, the specific
requirements for CKD vary from state to state. In many instances,
minimal controls are applied to these wastes. Also, recycling
technologies could be used as a means to improve waste management
practices.
Step 3: What would be the operational and economic consequences of
a decision to regulate CKD under subtitle C?
Operational costs of CKD regulation are largely dependent on the
management alternative selected. If CKD is managed as a hazardous waste
under RCRA subtitle C, facilities that manage their CKD through on-site
land disposal are estimated to incur significant compliance costs.
However, the financial burden of compliance, even for waste dust
generated in kilns that burn RCRA hazardous waste, may be reduced, if
facilities are able to adopt pollution prevention technologies which
recycle CKD.
The possible economic outcomes of a decision to regulate CKD under
RCRA subtitle C cover a broad spectrum. An economic analysis of
innovative pollution prevention technologies (including alkali
leaching, flue gas desulfurization, and fluid-bed dust recovery),
suggests that the potentially high compliance costs of CKD land
disposal may drive the industry toward more recycling of their CKD.
However, at this early stage of their development, it is uncertain that
these recycling technologies can be widely adopted by the industry.
Moreover, even if CKD is recycled, some facilities may incur
substantial disposal costs.
D. Regulatory Options
This section presents a series of options the Agency is considering
concerning the management of cement kiln dust waste based on the
findings of this Report. In accordance with RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C),
EPA will make a regulatory determination for cement kiln dust waste
after submitting this Report to Congress, and after holding a public
hearing, and accepting and reviewing public comments.
As stated previously, cement kiln dust waste generally presents a
low inherent toxicity, is only rarely characteristically hazardous,
and, in most cases based on risk modeling, does not present a risk to
human health and the environment. However, cement kiln dust waste may
pose a potential threat to human health and the environment considering
plausible worst case conditions under certain hypothetical management
scenarios (see Chapters 5 and 6). Major factors increasing the
potential for human health and environmental damages include proximity
to potential exposure points such as agricultural fields and surface
water bodies, as well as the concentrations of key constituents of
concern.
Based on the findings, and an initial evaluation of regulatory
options, the Agency has not decided whether to retain or remove the CKD
exemption. The Agency considered a number of options which represent a
wide range of scenarios that would subject CKD to different management
requirements and enforcement oversight. From these, the Agency has
chosen to highlight five, including three in which CKD would be managed
under subtitle C, with the intent to focus public comment from
environmental groups, industry, and other interested parties regarding
the most appropriate approach to manage CKD.
EPA notes that regulations for the management of CKD waste under
subtitle C may not be warranted or appropriate if other Agency-
administered programs are better suited to address the concerns
identified in this Report. Among the statutes that may have authority
to address the indirect foodchain risks associated with CKD are the
Clean Water Act (stormwater management regulations), the Clean Air Act
(the program defining the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (which gives the
Agency authority to issue appropriate regulations to address the risks
from hazardous chemical substances or mixtures). These alternative
authorities are being explored and a decision to pursue regulation of
CKD under one or more of these statutes may form the basis for a
decision that subtitle C regulation of CKD may be limited or even
unwarranted.
Whether or not the Agency lifts the exemption, dust suppression and
storm water management at facilities that burn hazardous waste, as well
as on-site CKD management practices at all other facilities would be
subject to current and potential future regulation under the Federal
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and where such provisions exist, all
applicable state laws and regulations. Damages at existing CKD disposal
sites also could be addressed by RCRA section 7003 and CERCLA section
104 and 106, if the site posed an imminent and substantial danger to
human health and the environment.
Option 1: Retain the CKD Exemption.
Since CKD exhibits low inherent toxicity and poses minimal risk
when evaluating the various exposure pathways using average or best
case conditions, it may be appropriate to retain the exemption for
cement kiln dust waste, that is, maintain the status quo. Under this
option, CKD management would continue to be regulated by the States, if
at all.
Option 2: Retain the CKD Exemption, but enter into discussions with
the industry, in which they voluntarily implement dust recycling
technologies, reduce waste, and monitor and control certain off-site
uses.
Since certain management scenarios may present risks when assuming
plausible worst case conditions and pollution prevention alternatives
may be promising in certain instances, the Agency could enter into
discussions with the cement manufacturing industry to urge it to
implement selected waste minimization/pollution prevention technologies
or implement, more environmentally protective management practices,
including controlling certain off-site uses.
For example, some of the potential higher risk situations that have
been identified in the hypothetical scenarios relate to on-site CKD
management and derive from CKD releases from waste piles or other
points via wind-blown dust or storm water runoff or a combination of
the two. These contaminant release situations may be controllable (and
at some facilities are currently being controlled) at relatively low
cost by careful location of the waste pile and active use of
conventional dust suppression and storm water management practices. The
Agency would hold discussions with the industry to encourage them to
voluntarily agree to implement these practices.
An exception to the above conclusion would appear to be the 15
percent or so of cement plants where CKD waste is managed in areas of
karst topography or other areas characterized by flow in fractured or
cavernous bedrock, where leachate may directly percolate to groundwater
with little or no attenuation. For some of these facilities, the
groundwater pathway may become of increased concern, depending on other
site specific considerations. Again, EPA would discuss with the
industry opportunities to either use appropriate liners or relocate the
CKD management unit.
About 20 percent of current net CKD generation is used off-site for
a wide variety of purposes, most of which according to the Agency's
risk assessment do not pose human health or other risks. However, the
use of raw CKD containing higher measured levels of certain metals and/
or dioxins as a direct substitute for lime on agricultural fields and
gardens can concentrate toxic constituents in crops and animal products
at levels of concern for human health. This use of CKD, though not
widely practiced at present, is otherwise not currently controlled, and
may warrant further consideration by the Agency.
The Agency, under this option, could also develop guidance for
States regarding site management, off-site uses, and pollution
prevention and waste minimization technologies. This guidance would
assist States in reducing the potential risks posed by mismanagement of
CKD and recommend implementation of technologies that would promote
recycling of CKD.
Under this option, CKD management would not be controlled by the
provisions of RCRA subtitle C. However, since the exemption for CKD
remains in place, CKD generated in kilns that burn hazardous waste
would still be subject to the two-part test for residuals under 40 CFR
266.112. If CKD does not pass the two-part test, it would be treated to
standards for land disposal (40 CFR 268.43) and disposed in a subtitle
C facility. Damages at existing CKD disposal sites would still be
addressed by RCRA section 7003 and CERCLA sections 104 and 106, if the
site posed an imminent and substantial danger to human health and the
environment.
Option 3: Remove the CKD Exemption but delay implementation for
some period of time (e.g., two years), that would allow industry time
to employ pollution prevention options.
While CKD may not present risks when evaluating the various
exposure pathways using average or best case conditions, CKD may pose a
potential danger to human health and the environment if managed in
certain ways under a limited set of exposure pathways assuming
plausible worst case conditions. Also, damages to the environment
resulting from poor CKD management practices have been recorded and are
continuing to occur at some facilities. For these reasons, removing the
Bevill exemption (codified at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(8)) may be appropriate.
Accordingly, provisions of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule (40
CFR 266.112) would no longer apply to hazardous waste-derived CKD.
Under this option, on-site CKD management practices at those
facilities with dust that exhibited any of the RCRA hazardous waste
characteristics, or CKD derived from the burning of listed hazardous
wastes (see 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) would be affected by the provisions
of RCRA subtitle C. CKD disposal piles which are inactive on or before
the effective date of the Final Rule would be unaffected by the
provisions of subtitle C, unless subsequently managed.
By delaying lifting the exemption for some period of time (e.g.,
two years after the Regulatory Determination), industry would be
provided an opportunity to implement pollution prevention alternatives
and thus, manage the hazardous waste management costs they would incur.
During this interim period between submittal of the Report to Congress
and the effective date of the Final Rule, the CKD exemption would still
be in effect. The Agency believes that many of the affected facilities
would utilize the time to adopt pollution prevention technologies which
would reduce, if not eliminate the amount of hazardous CKD they
generate or stop burning hazardous waste.
Once the exemption is removed, CKD generated from cement
manufacturing facilities that burn RCRA hazardous wastes would be RCRA
hazardous waste under the derived-from rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
The goal of avoiding subtitle C compliance costs would provide an
incentive for each facility to look for pollution prevention
alternatives to recycle their CKD and reduce the amount of hazardous
waste generated. The Agency is requesting additional information on the
viability of the CKD recycling options discussed in the RTC and any
other available pollution prevention or recycling option not considered
in the Report.
Those facilities that do not burn hazardous waste would not
generally be affected by removing the exemption unless they generated
characteristic RCRA hazardous waste. The Agency expects the number of
non-hazardous waste burning facilities affected by this option would be
small, since CKD rarely exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
These facilities would have an incentive to control their cement
manufacturing process to avoid generating characteristic CKD.
Option 4: Remove the CKD Exemption, and rely on existing hazardous
waste rules to control cement kiln dust.
This option is similar to Option 3, except the exemption would be
removed in accordance with RCRA section 3010(b). (Under subtitle C of
RCRA, wastes brought under regulatory control have up to six months
from the Regulatory Determination before they become subject to
hazardous waste control.) Thus, CKD that is hazardous waste-derived or
exhibits a RCRA hazardous characteristic would be made subject to the
provisions of RCRA subtitle C. Otherwise, this option is the same as
Option 3.
Option 5: Promulgate Regulatory Standards for the Management of CKD
Waste.
As previously stated, the Agency's analysis of the risks associated
with cement kiln dust suggest that by merely lifting the exemption at
40 CFR 264.1(b)(8), certain pathways of potential concern under the
hypothetical scenarios may not be adequately addressed under Options 3
and 4, should EPA decide that subtitle C regulation is warranted for
CKD in the first instance. Specifically, EPA's risk assessment
indicates indirect foodchain risks are of potential concern from
releases of CKD from disposal piles to nearby surface waters and crop
lands and from the direct application of CKD to croplands as a soil
amendment assuming reasonable worst-case conditions. The Agency
acknowledges, as discussed in detail in Chapter 6, that these modelled
risks, while plausible, are of probably minimal incidence.
As described above, the likely regulatory result under Options 3
and 4 would be to make CKD generated by a kiln that burns listed
hazardous wastes itself a hazardous waste under the derived-from rule
(40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). The indirect foodchain risks potentially
identified in this Report, however, are not associated only with CKD
generated by hazardous waste burning kilns. As a result, EPA is also
considering regulatory mechanisms that would specifically address these
risks, including promulgating regulatory standards under subtitle C for
the management of CKD waste that would provide adequate protection
against these risks.
RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C) provides that EPA shall within six
months of the RTC ``determine to promulgate regulations under this
subchapter * * * or determine that such regulations are unwarranted.''
The statute does not describe the type of regulation that EPA should
consider promulgating (if any), other than that such regulation be
under subtitle C of RCRA. For example, RCRA does not expressly direct
EPA to determine whether to list CKD as hazardous, as required for
other wastes under the mandates in RCRA section 3001(c). Furthermore,
RCRA section 2002(a) gives the Administrator the broad authority to
``prescribe * * * such regulations as are necessary to carry out his
functions under this chapter.'' The Agency believes it has the
authority where appropriate to promulgate Federally-enforceable
regulatory standards under subtitle C for the management of CKD. EPA
could explore mechanisms for imposing regulatory standards for CKD,
e.g., under grant of rulemaking authority under section 3001(b)(3)(C).
Alternatively, EPA could consider conditioning the CKD exemption from
the definition of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4(b)(8)) on compliance
with appropriate management standards.
EPA could promulgate minimally burdensome management standards for
cement kiln dust that would adequately control the indirect foodchain
risks, such as: (1) Requiring that dust piles be kept covered to
control fugitive emissions and institute surface water runoff and
erosion controls; (2) maintaining groundwater protection, perhaps by
requiring that CKD piles be maintained on a non-earthen base or by
requiring a liner; and (3) establishing risk-based concentration
thresholds for all constituents of concern (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
arsenic, cadmium, and lead) for CKD used as a direct soil amendment.
Additional or alternative standards may be appropriate, and EPA
welcomes comments and suggestions on this aspect of its options.
Of the five options being considered by the Agency, Options 3, 4
and 5 would provide more control through implementation of the
provisions of subtitle C. The principal difference between Options 3
and 4 is the timing of the implementation of the regulatory controls.
Option 3 provides industry additional time to implement waste
minimization/pollution prevention options and more protective CKD
management standards. Option 4 would bring CKD under subtitle C
regulatory control more quickly. Removing the exemption also would
impose regulatory equity between CKD generated from kilns that burn
RCRA hazardous waste and residues from other incinerators that burn
RCRA hazardous waste that do not have such an exemption. Option 5 would
provide management standards to control all CKD, and would be targeted
to specifically address only those risks of potential concern.
The Agency did not evaluate the risk from the land application of
agricultural lime, so it cannot determine whether there is an increase
in incremental risk when CKD is substituted. In any event, CKD-sewage
sludge derived fertilizers and soil amendments are considered safe for
such uses as fertilizer and pose minimal risk because these final
products are required to be tested to assure they comply with all
provisions of 40 CFR part 503, which are fully protective of human
health and the environment. It should be noted that if the exemption is
removed, fertilizer that is derived from CKD generated from a kiln that
burns listed hazardous waste is itself a hazardous waste under the
derived-from rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)); the extent of regulation,
however, is limited (see 40 CFR 266.20(b)).
In addition, it should also be noted that under current rules, if
CKD is recycled, the resulting clinker is not automatically subject to
the provisions of subtitle C. By removing the exemption, however,
clinker may be affected by the derived-from rule (40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(i)) if the kiln burns listed hazardous waste, thereby
becoming a hazardous waste. The Agency has not yet fully analyzed
available data on trace constituents in clinker. Based on our
understanding of current data, however, the Agency does not believe
that clinker produced from kilns that burn listed hazardous waste
generally poses a hazard to human health and the environment. The
Agency is, therefore, considering crafting appropriate regulatory
language for clinker. The Agency, however, is interested in receiving
comment on this issue.
E. Public Comment
The Agency encourages all interested parties to obtain a copy of
the Report to Congress and provide comments or further information that
might be necessary to the Agency on the data, analysis, and findings
contained in the Report to Congress, and on the types of specific
requirements that might be necessary under RCRA subtitle C or D for
this waste. In addition to receiving input from the various
stakeholders regarding the appropriateness of each of the five
regulatory options presented for the management of CKD, the Agency is
interested in receiving additional information and/or comment on the
following:
CKD sampling data (analytical results, including
conditions of sampling, fuels burned at time of sampling, types of
samples collected and analytical methods used).
Documented cases of damage to human health and the
environment traceable to CKD disposal, including notices of violation,
administrative orders, and scientific studies.
How the burning of RCRA hazardous wastes, non-hazardous
wastes (such as tires and non-hazardous used oils), and fossil fuels
affect the quantity and chemistry of generated CKD, as well as the
partitioning of toxic metals, chlorides, and alkalis between stack
gases, CKD, and clinker.
The Agency's consideration of drafting appropriate
regulatory language for clinker acknowledging that, based on the
Agency's preliminary assessment, clinker produced from kilns that burn
hazardous waste generally poses no hazard to human health or the
environment.
The extent to which activities such as farming (including
the recreational gardening of vegetables) and fishing occur around
these facilities.
Any concerns related to the location of cement
manufacturing facilities with respect to environmental justice matters
(i.e., the fair treatment of people of all cultures, incomes, and
educational levels with respect to protection from environmental
hazards).
The viability of implementing the CKD recycling options
discussed in the RTC and any other available pollution prevention or
recycling option not considered in the Report.
How pollution prevention technologies, including flue gas
desulfurization, fluid-bed dust recovery, and alkali leaching affect
the quantity and chemistry of air emissions, as well as the
partitioning of toxic metals, chlorides, and alkalis between CKD and
clinker.
Additional or alternative management standards from those
presented in the Report (e.g., covers for dust piles, runoff controls,
groundwater protection, and the establishment of risk-based thresholds
for all constituents of concern), that might be appropriate for control
of indirect foodchain risks.
Public comments and other documents related to the Report to
Congress will be available for inspection at the docket, together with
information obtained at the public hearing.
Following publication of this report, the Agency will consider
public comments received during a 45-day public comment period in
accordance with RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(c). After evaluating and
responding to public comments, the Agency will make a regulatory
determination on the status of this waste.
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-182 Filed 1-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
