V-1
Chapter V. Comments on the Suggestions by the Chemical Manufacturers Association(CMA) to Revise the Mixture and Derived-from Rules
The CMA codes identify all comments that address revisions to the MDF rules submitted by theChemical Manufacturers Association (now the American Chemistry Council). Comments on theCMA suggested revisions to the MDF rules were broken down further into the following specificissue codes:CMA1General comments on CMA suggested revisions to the MDF rulesCMA2General comments on the headworks exemptionCMA3Monitoring of the actual concentration of spent solvents in wastewater CMA4Definition of headworksCMA5Allowing treated leachate from landfills (F039), derived solely from the disposalof spent solvents, eligible for the headworks exemptionCMA6General comments on exempting treated leachate from landfills and landtreatment unitsCMA7General comments on exempting aggressive biological treatment residuesCMA8General comments on exempting hazardous waste combustion residuesCMA9General comments on multisource listing for combustion residuesCMA10Mixed waste incinerators have special concerns associated with sampling, testing,and handling mixed waste combustion residuesCMA11General comments on expanding the de minimis exemption to F and K listedwastesCMA12Relationship of LDRs to CMA proposalOn the following pages, each CMA comment issue is summarized, and then followed by EPA’sresponse. A list of all the specific comments (including the comment number assigned by theEPA docket, the page, and the paragraph) that are linked to each comment issue summary is alsoincluded. The full text of these comments appear in Appendix D.
V-2
Issue Code:
CMA1: General Comments on the CMA Suggested Revisions to the MDF Rules
Comments:
WH2P-00035, 1, 3; WH2P-00002, 1, 3; WH2P-00005, 1, 2;WH2P-00020, 1, 2; WH2P-00039, 6, 1; WH2P-00021, 10, 2;WH2P-00021, 12, 1; WH2P-00005, 5, 1; WH2P-00010, 4, 6;WH2P-00012, 2, 1; WH2P-00014, 3, 2; WH2P-00014, 4, 3;WH2P-00020, 3, 1; WH2P-00021, 9, 2; WH2P-00034, 2, 4;WH2P-00022, 3, 4; WH2P-00036, 2, 1; WH2P-00035, 22, 3;WH2P-00033, 3, 4; WH2P-00033, 17, 5; WH2P-00001, 3, 1;WH2P-00010, 11, 2; WH2P-00017, 2, 1; WH2P-00022, 6, 3;WH2P-00001, 3, 4; WH2P-00035, 22, 5; WH2P-00008, 2, 1;WH2P-00021, 2, 3; WH2P-00033, 1, 3; WH2P-00050, 2, 2;WH2P-00050, 3, 1; WH2P-00050, 9, 4; WH2P-00050, 10, 5;WH2P-00050, 11, 3; and WH2P-00050, 11, 5
Comment Summary:
The Agency received comments from 17 commenters in response to the Chemical ManufacturersAssociation’s (CMA)suggested revisions to the MDF rules listed in the 1999 HWIR proposal tomodify the mixture and derived-from (MDF) rules. Of those comments, five were received fromindustry, six were from industry associations, three were from utility companies or utilitycompany associations, one was from a State Agency, one was from a Federal GovernmentAgency, and one was from a waste management association. A summary of the specific issuesraised by commenters is provided below.ASTSWMO did not support the suggested revisions to the MDF rules submitted by CMA. ETCstated that the five regulatory options submitted by CMA were not supported by an analysis of their potential health and environmental impacts. ETC believed that EPA should fully analyzethese options and provide a full proposal for public comment before proceeding.The rest of the commenters supported the type of regulatory options submitted by CMA andurged EPA to pursue those and other regulatory reforms. Several commenters believed thesuggestions made by CMA would provide meaningful relief and significantly reduceover-regulation of low risk wastes. Several commenters also noted that the suggested revisionsto the MDF rules represent a legally valid means for EPA to eliminate unnecessary regulation ina manner consistent with protecting human health and the environment. Also, the suggestionsfulfill the requirements of the consent decree and the statutory mandate Congress originallyimposed in 1992. The CMA suggestions present specific circumstances where the removal of thehazards which caused a waste to be listed are rewarded by no longer considering the waste to behazardous unless it exhibits one of the hazardous characteristics of 40 CFR Part 261.3. Whilesupporting the CMA options, Phillips Petroleum Company believed EPA should do much more by concentrating on the "source" identification of listed wastes rather than complicated schemesto provide "end of pipe" exit criteria.
Agency Response:
V-3The Agency appreciates the comments received on the CMA (now American Chemistry Council,or ACC)suggested revisions to the MDF rules The Agency plans to analyze each optionindependently to evaluate for merit and ease of implementation. The Agency plans to performsome risk screening as part of the evaluation.
of 00
Environmental Protection Agency: rtc5
18 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/26/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment