EPA Stakeholder Meetings on Hazardous Waste Derived Fertilizers

November 12-13, 1998

November 12-13, 1998

On November 12 and 13, 1998 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a series of three meetings with stakeholder groups (industry, public interest groups and concerned citizens, and state regulatory agencies) to discuss a new initiative aimed at revising the current EPA regulations that apply to recycling of hazardous wastes to manufacture fertilizers. The meetings were held at the Old Federal Building in downtown Seattle, Washington, and were facilitated by Ms. Viccy Salazar of EPA’s Region 10 Office of Waste and Chemicals Management..

The same format was followed for each of the meetings. After introductions and welcoming remarks from a representative of EPA Region 10's Office of Waste and Chemical Management, Mr. Dave Fagan of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste offered an overview of EPA’s ongoing fertilizer studies, and background information on the new rulemaking initiative for hazardous waste derived fertilizers. A summary of these background remarks, which were essentially identical for each of the three meetings, is presented in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is a list of the participants in each meeting. Following the background remarks, each participant was asked to identify his/her main concerns and perspectives with regard to current and future regulations for hazardous waste derived fertilizers. Follow-on discussions focused on the issues that were most commonly voiced by the participants. The following is a summary of the discussions in each meeting.
========================================================================
Meeting with Industry Stakeholders - 8:30 am to 12:30 pm, November 12, 1998

Main discussion points:
Need for consistency in fertilizer regulations. Many of the participants expressed a strong interest in having national consistency with regard to fertilizer regulations, particularly those dealing with contaminant standards and labeling requirements. Inconsistent state standards would be unproductive, burdensome for industry, logistically challenging, and will ultimately mean higher prices for end purchasers of fertilizers, according to several commenters.
EPA representatives noted that since the regulatory amendments being developed by EPA will only address a small subset of fertilizers, the issue of national consistency is likely to be a larger issue that ultimately will have to be dealt with by the States and the Association of American Plant Food Control Officals (AAPFCO). Participants nevertheless expressed the desire that the RCRA regulations should foster consistency wherever possible. It was also noted that RCRA requirements are not always interpreted consistently from state to state, and that this regulatory effort should at least attempt to promote more uniform regulation under RCRA of hazardous waste derived fertilizers by the states.
One participant expressed support for allowing fertilizer standards to vary somewhat from state to state, and noted that Washington’s fertilizer standards (which are based on the Canadian standards) will specify application rates developed specifically for Washington agriculture. Most other participants commented that the benefits of such state-to-state variability are outweighed by the need for consistency of regulations.
Need for new standards for contaminants in hazardous waste derived fertilizers. None of the participants expressed support for continuing to apply the RCRA land disposal treatment standards to fertilizers that are made from hazardous wastes. At least one participant noted that the current standards are measured by a leachate test that was developed by EPA to simulate how contaminants migrate from municipal landfills, and that such a test had little relevance to fate and transport of contaminants in an agricultural setting.
As an alternative to the current standards, a number of participants suggested that EPA should develop a new set of risk-based standards for fertilizers, analogous to those developed by EPA for land applied biosolids. EPA representatives reiterated that EPA has no such plans, and is therefore interested in exploring alternatives, such as replacing the current RCRA standards with (for example) Canada’s standards or the §503 biosolids standards. Other options could be to develop new contaminant limits based on some kind of non-degradation or "background" standard, or based on best available technology for removing contaminants.
One participant expressed a strong preference for using the §503 biosolids standards for fertilizers, arguing that they have the advantage of having been developed by EPA from a scientifically peer-reviewed risk assessment. Little support for using the Canadian standards was expressed, with several participants noting that they are not risk-based and therefore may have questionable scientific validity. One participant voiced the concern that if EPA were to adopt the Canadian standards for hazardous waste derived fertilizers, state fertilizer regulators may find it more difficult to adopt alternative (e.g., §503) standards.
Some participants argued that the Canadian standards are not stringent enough, arguing that if adopted industry would have no incentive to reduce contaminant levels, since virtually all zinc fertilizers now marketed in the United States can meet the Canadian standards. These participants further mentioned that they produce zinc sulfate monohydrate products with very low contaminant levels, and their companies would thus advocate setting more stringent standards, perhaps based on some type of technical specification for zinc sulfate. The participants who advocated this approach (which they characterized as "remove the hazard" standards) also noted that it would avoid the complexities of the Canadian and §503 standards, in that such standards would not require making assumptions for fertilizer application rates or time frames.
Participants expressed little support for the idea of deferring RCRA standards in states that have promulgated comprehensive fertilizer regulations (in effect, a state’s standards would become the RCRA standards in that state). Most felt that this approach would conflict with the need for national consistency. Some support was expressed, however, for the option of eliminating RCRA fertilizer product standards altogether, in favor of state fertilizer regulations.
Responsibility for compliance with RCRA standards, It was the consensus of the group that compliance with RCRA standards should be the responsibility of the fertilizer manufacturer, rather than the end users of fertilizer products (e.g., farmers and applicators). An EPA representative explained that under the current RCRA regulations, the treatment standards apply to what is actually applied to the land, rather than the manufactured product. It was thus acknowledged that, at least in theory, those who apply RCRA-regulated fertilizer products could bear some responsibility for complying with the RCRA standards.
Requirements for management of hazardous wastes prior to recycling. A number of participants expressed concern that the current RCRA "use constituting disposal" regulations have created unnecessary disincentives to legitimate recycling of hazardous wastes in fertilizer manufacture. The main disincentives that were cited were the requirement for RCRA storage permits (e.g., for manufacturers who receive hazardous secondary materials from off-site), and the requirement to manifest shipments of such materials. It was noted that generators of some hazardous secondary materials such as brass fume dust often refuse to ship such materials under RCRA manifests. Several participants also questioned the environmental basis for regulating these materials as hazardous wastes if they are made into fertilizer, whereas if the same materials are used to make some other type of product (such as animal feed) they are not regulated.
A number participants expressed the view that RCRA should regulate only the end products that are made from recycled hazardous wastes, and that RCRA requirements should not apply to hazardous fertilizer feedstocks prior to recycling. It was suggested that such an approach would be consistent with how RCRA regulates other types of hazardous waste recycling practices. It was also noted that handling of these feedstock materials is subject to regulation under OSHA and Clean Air Act authorities. An EPA representative noted that the Agency has had experience with environmental damage cases resulting from mismanagement of these types of materials by fertilizer manufacturers, which would support the view that some management controls for these materials may be necessary. At least one participant also observed that some companies have obtained RCRA permits, and that granting relief from such requirements could raise fairness issues for those companies.
There was little enthusiasm among the participants for the option of a conditional exemption for hazardous fertilizer feedstocks. Under this approach, RCRA hazardous waste regulations would not apply to such materials, on the condition that they be managed safely according to certain prescribed practices (e.g., indoor storage, etc.). Several participants commented that this approach, though preferable to the current system, would perpetuate the stigma of using such materials to make fertilizer, and the incentive for generators to sell these materials for non-fertilizer recycling would remain.
Exemption from treatment standards for K061-derived fertilizers. There was general consensus among the participants that fertilizers made from K061 should be subject to the same standards as other hazardous waste derived fertilizers. At least one participant further stated that K061 is not a good feedstock for making fertilizers, since much of the zinc in K061 is insoluble and thus less available to crops.
Use of industrial Acoproducts@ to manufacture fertilizers. Several participants stated that they manufacture fertilizer using acids generated from other industrial processes (such as mineral smelting), and that such acids should be considered "coproducts" rather than wastes. An EPA representative confirmed that this is consistent with EPA’s current policy.

Other Comments:
Participants did not express any support for maintaining the current Bevill exemption for mining wastes that are used to make fertilizer.
One participant expressed concern that EPA intends to publish its fertilizer characterization report prior to having available additional data on fertilizer contaminants that are being generated by The Fertilizer Institute.
Several participants expressed concern regarding the length of time the EPA anticipates will be required to issue these regulations in final form.
========================================================================================
Meeting with Public Interest Group Stakeholders - 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm, November 12, 1998

Main discussion points:
General concern regarding use of industrial wastes to make fertilizers. Most of the participants expressed the general view that fertilizers have become a convenient Adumping ground for industrial wastes, and that controls on this form of recycling are far too lax. One participant noted also that fertilizers made from K061contain significant levels of insoluble zinc, which may not be beneficial as plant nutrient. Some of the participants were willing to agree, however, that in some cases the use of industrial wastes to make fertilizer can be environmentally safe.
EPA’s preliminary conclusions as to the environmental problems posed by waste-derived fertilizers are questionable and are based on inadequate information. Most, if not all of the participants in this meeting voiced strong concerns regarding EPA’s preliminary conclusions on the issue of waste-derived fertilizers, as articulated in the EPA representative’s background remarks (see Attachment 1). The participants’ belief is that EPA is likely to be underestimating the magnitude of the problems associated with contaminants in fertilizers made from recycled industrial wastes. They also expressed concern that the Agency may be proceeding with this rulemaking using faulty analyses and inadequate information. In this regard, the participants identified a number of specific questions and concerns, including:

1. EPA does not appear to fully appreciate the types of environmental threats that people (and particularly children) in rural agricultural areas are often exposed to, such as incidental exposure to pesticides in residential settings, windblown contaminants from farm fields and other sources such as agricultural chemical facilities, heavy metals in soils from historic pesticide use, and high levels of contaminants in indoor dusts. Worker exposures to pesticide and fertilizer chemicals are also of concern. In addition, several participants suggested that farmers may often over apply fertilizers, as indicated by evidence of elevated nitrate levels in water bodies in some areas. The participants argued that these background conditions in farming areas argue for especially stringent standards on contaminants in fertilizer products.

2. EPA does not have enough information on the types of industrial wastes that are being used to make fertilizers. Specifically, EPA should further assess the use of waste acids, radioactive wastes, and other high-volume chemicals such as urea and ammonia that were identified in the Environmental Working Group’s recent report as wastes that are being used on farmlands. The participants voiced a general concern that only the dirtiest of acids that are produced as byproducts or coproducts of other industrial processes are being used to make fertilizers.
EPA’s fertilizer studies are deficient in a number of other areas, such as:

Lack of sufficient data on organic contaminants, such as dioxins
Lack of data on certain heavy metals such as vanadium
Only risks from individual fertilizer products are being assessed; cumulative risks from multiple fertilizer usage (e.g., NPK and zinc fertilizers) should be assessed.
Risks are being assessed only for individual pathways, and do not consider additivity effects (e.g., fertilizer exposure risks combined with risks from occupational and indoor exposures).

In the absence of more complete studies and analyses, EPA should take a very conservative approach to regulating recycling of industrial wastes to make fertilizers.

Several participants suggested that EPA should undertake a number of specific short-term regulatory actions, while working on longer-term studies to address the deficiencies that they identified. Such near-term actions should include:

Ban the use of high risk hazardous wastes that are currently being used to make fertilizer. Such wastes would include any that contain dioxins (K061 was cited as an example of such a waste).
Set standards for hazardous waste derived fertilizers (including those marketed for consumer use) based on a no degradation goal. It was suggested that national background concentration levels could be used to establish these standards.
Require labeling of fertilizers that identify the concentration levels of all contaminants in the product, whether the product was made from recycled industrial wastes, and what the wastes were. The participants suggested that less stringent (e.g., meets applicable standards) labeling requirements would not satisfy the consumer’s right to know principle.
Establish detailed reporting requirements for generators and manufacturers who engage in recycling of hazardous wastes in general, and in particular, recycling for fertilizers. Such reporting requirements would help to control sham recycling by industry.
Eliminate the current (Bevill) exemption for hazardous mining wastes that are used to make fertilizers.

One participant also suggested that EPA should combine these regulatory actions with broader efforts that would encourage industry to reduce the levels of contaminants in their waste streams. At least one participant also expressed the view that EPA should regulate all industrial wastes that are used in fertilizer manufacture, rather than only hazardous wastes.

In response to these suggestions, EPA representatives noted that there may be questions as to the Agency’s legal authority under RCRA to require labeling of fertilizer products, or to regulate non-hazardous industrial wastes used to make fertilizer.

EPA should not adopt the Canadian or §503 biosolids standards for hazardous waste derived fertilizers. As noted above, the participants expressed a strong preference for standards (i.e., maximum allowable contaminant concentrations) based on a no degradation or background concept. The consensus of the participants was that the Canadian fertilizer standards are not sufficiently protective, and the §503 standards would be even less so. Of primary concern to the participants was the fact that the Canadian standards allow for some increase in the levels of metals in agricultural soils over time due to fertilizer applications, and that this is inconsistent with their preference for a zero degradation standard. Another concern is that the Canadian standards are based on yearly application of fertilizers over a 45-year period, which they considered to be an arbitrary time frame that may understate the long term effects of fertilizer use. Other concerns voiced were potential enforcement problems (e.g., manufacturers might simply be able to change suggested application rates to meet the standards), and the fact that the standards do not account for yearly applications of more than one type of fertilizer.

The participants did not believe that the fertilizer risk assessment recently developed by the State of California should be used by EPA to set standards, since that study addressed a limited number of metal contaminants and a limited number of products, and used a 10^-5standard for lifetime excess cancer risk (rather than a 10^-6 standard).

Current RCRA regulations on management of hazardous wastes prior to recycling for fertilizer should be maintained. The consensus of the participants was that the current use constituting disposal regulations that require hazardous fertilizer ingredients to be managed as hazardous wastes should be maintained.

=============================================================================================
Meeting with State Regulatory Agency Stakeholders - 9:00 am to 1:00 pm, November 13, 1998

Main discussion points:
Need for nationally consistent, risk-based standards. Most of the participants expressed support for EPA fertilizer standards that are nationally consistent and risk-based, though there was some diversity of opinion with regard to how those objectives should be achieved. A number of participants observed that the states are looking to EPA for leadership in this area, since it is very difficult for states to develop defensible standards on their own, and a lack of federal standards could lead to a counterproductive regulatory patchwork for fertilizers.
On the issue of consistency, there were some expressions of concern that EPA’s decision to address only limited subset of fertilizers (i.e., those made from hazardous wastes) might create inconsistencies between how the two types of fertilizers are regulated. Other representatives expressed support for EPA’s deferring to the States in developing comprehensive regulations for fertilizers. A related concern was that EPA’s revised RCRA regulations should be compatible with state fertilizer regulations that have already been enacted (such as those in Washington and Texas).
A participant who is a member of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) observed that national consistency in fertilizer regulation is a primary goal of that organization, and that AAPFCO recently adopted a resolution to adopt the Canadian fertilizer standards on an interim basis, as part of its model legislation for state agriculture agencies. The participant stressed, however, that this was an interim move, and that AAPFCO’s ultimate goal is to adopt scientifically defensible risk-based standards for fertilizers. The same participant also stated that if EPA does not develop such standards, AAPFCO may adopt standards based on a risk assessment developed by an organization other than EPA (e.g., the California risk assessment, or one developed by industry).
The option of not setting new standards under RCRA, and allowing State fertilizer standards (such as Washington’s) to become the standards for hazardous waste derived fertilizers received no support. One participant stated that the states are "not willing to catch a punt with their hands tied behind their backs". Another participant suggested that EPA should consider developing guidance for the states on risk based standards, if the agency is unable to develop regulatory standards. An EPA representative responded that developing such guidance would still require a full risk assessment, which would be technically very complex and is a resource commitment that the agency is not prepared to support at this time.
Little support was expressed for the option of using the §503 biosolids standards for fertilizers. There was some interest in the option of RCRA standards based on a background or non-degradation goal.
Several participants stressed the need for standards that are expressed in simple terms, and for which compliance can be determined using straightforward tests. One approach that was suggested would be to express the standard as a ratio of plant nutrient levels to contaminant levels (e.g., no more than x grams of lead per kilogram of zinc). Such ratios could be developed based on natural soil background levels (consistent with at non-degradation standard), or ratios found in "clean" fertilizer products (i.e., a technology-based approach).
Use of Canadian standards for RCRA. The option of adopting the Canadian standards for hazardous waste derived fertilizers was discussed at some length. Some of the participants noted that the Canadian standards are not risk-based, and thus may not be defensible scientifically. Others responded that the Canadian standards are in essence based on a "no significant degradation" standard, which as a matter of public policy may be just as defensible as a risk-based standard. It was noted by an EPA representative that the RCRA program prescribes different types of standards, some of which are based on risk assessment and some which are not.
Several participants noted that adopting the Canadian standards for RCRA purposes could have some disadvantages, such as:

The Canadian standards are based on application rates, and since zinc fertilizers (which account for the great majority of hazardous waste derived fertilizers) are applied at relatively low rates, they can comply with the standards even though they may contain high levels of metal contaminants compared to other types of fertilizers. Thus, adopting the Canadian standards would not push manufacturers of zinc fertilizers to make cleaner products. In fact, some participants expressed the concern that adopting the Canadian standards could create opportunities for "sham recycling", since it could be economically attractive for industry (at least in theory) to add hazardous waste contaminants to fertilizers up to the regulatory limits.

One participant noted that the State of Washington has tested a number of fertilizers using the RCRA TCLP test, and their data indicate that some fertilizers exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic, even though they comply with the Canadian standards. The same participant expressed the view that if the Canadian standards were to become RCRA standards, hazardous waste derived fertilizers should still be required to test non-hazardous if they are to be considered products, rather than wastes.

Several participants noted that the Canadian standards are sensitive to application rates, and that this could cause enforcement problems (for example, a manufacturer could simply change the recommended application rate for a product as a means of complying with a standard). Another downside is that since actual application rates for fertilizers vary from region to region and crop to crop, states may choose to adopt different application rates in their regulations, which leads to more regulatory inconsistency.

The Canadian standards specify limits for only a limited number of metal contaminants, as one participant observed, and if EPA were to adopt the Canadian standards for RCRA it would need to examine carefully the need to develop limits for other metals or organic contaminants.

At least one participant observed that the Canadian standards are based on fertilizer contaminant loadings over a 45-year time period. It was suggested that this time frame lacked a scientific basis, and may not be conservative enough.
Labeling. There was general support among the participants for informative, nationally consistent labeling requirements. No consensus was reached, however, as to the specific types of information that should be required on such labels, or whether EPA should require labels specifically for hazardous waste derived fertilizers. It was noted that AAPFCO is developing requirements for labeling of fertilizer ingredients, but that information on contaminant levels in the products would not be required.

It was noted that Washington State labeling requirements will also not require information on contaminant concentrations, but that such information will be posted on an internet web site, as a means of facilitating public access to that information. It was suggested that if this mechanism is proves successful, EPA should consider using the internet for similar RCRA purposes.
Exemptions for K061 and mining wastes. The consensus of the participants was that the current RCRA exemptions for fertilizers made from K061 and mining wastes should be eliminated. One participant believed that the use of mining wastes to make fertilizers may be relatively common, and that a number of fertilizers that appear to have relatively high concentrations of heavy metals may be derived from mining waste of some kind.
Management requirements for hazardous wastes prior to recycling in fertilizer. The participants expressed little enthusiasm for the idea of relaxing regulatory controls on hazardous waste fertilizer feedstocks prior to recycling. General sentiment was expressed for increased accountability of industries that are engaged in this practice, rather than less. One participant stated that AAPFCO also supports continued controls on "upstream" materials management.
Several participants voiced support for more reporting requirements on manufacturers and waste generators that are engaged in hazardous waste fertilizer recycling, including information on sources, amounts, and composition of incoming and outgoing materials.

Other Comments:
Several participants suggested that although more information should be gathered as to the types of wastes that are being used to manufacture fertilizers, EPA should not suspend its regulatory efforts until that information becomes available. Those participants further suggested that regulatory efforts should focus on what is in the end product, rather than the feedstock. One participant noted that this has been the approach taken by the State of Washington.
Several participants suggested that EPA should provide funding for further state investigations of fertilizer contents and waste recycling practices.
One participant stated that EPA needs to sensitive to the economic effects of regulations for fertilizers, especially on farmers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 1

Background Remarks - Dave Fagan, EPA Office of Solid Waste
EPA has begun work on a set of amendments to the current regulations that apply to recycling of hazardous wastes in the manufacture of fertilizers. The current regulations were originally promulgated in the mid-1980s, under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . These stakeholder meetings are an opportunity for the Agency to gather information and get a better understanding early in the regulatory process with regard to the issues, interests and potential impacts that may result from changing the way these recycling practices are regulated. The meetings may also be useful to the stakeholders in getting a better understanding of EPA’s preliminary findings with regard to contaminants in fertilizers, and the types of regulatory changes being contemplated by the Agency.
In 1997 EPA began an effort to examine whether contaminants in fertilizers might be causing unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, largely in response to reports in the media which suggested that fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes could be causing harm to human health, crops, and farmland.
Agency has been assembling and synthesizing available data on fertilizer contaminants, application rates and regulations in the United States and other countries. A report which presents the results of these investigations is expected to be available by the end of this year.
In addition, EPA has begun to look at the risks associated with contaminants in fertilizers. This effort is based on a risk assessment that EPA has prepared for a different regulatory proposal on agricultural use of cement kiln dust (CKD), which is sometimes used as an agricultural liming agent. The CKD risk assessment has been peer-reviewed, and the methods and models used in that assessment are being refined for the fertilizer study. This study of fertilizer contaminant risks is not a comprehensive risk assessment such as would be used to develop risk-based standards (analogous to the risk assessment that was done in support of the 503 standards for land-applied sewage sludge)Bsuch risk assessments typically are multi-year, multimillion dollar efforts. The risk study that EPA is completing is intended to be a "bounding" assessment based on conservative assumptions and models, which should enable the Agency to assess the "protectiveness" of standards (such as the 503 standards and the Canadian fertilizer standards) that might be appropriate for hazardous waste derived fertilizers.
EPA’s study of fertilizer risks should be complete in early 1999. Final decisions have not yet been made as to how and when the results of the study will be made publicly available.
Although EPA’s studies aren’t yet finalized, and we recognize that we do not have complete information on all aspects of this issue, we begun to form some preliminary conclusions with regard to fertilizer contaminants, including the following:

Based on the information that we have reviewed so far, it appears that the dimension of the "problem" of contaminants in fertilizers is relatively small. The great majority of fertilizers do not appear to present significant human health or environmental risks. There are, however, a few products that (based on conservative assumptions) contain heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and arsenic, at levels of potential concern. These include some phosphate fertilizers, as well as wood ash, certain liming agents, and at least one iron fertilizer made from mining waste. With regard to organic contaminants such as dioxins, data are very limited, and since EPA’s dioxin reassessment is still a work in progress, we have not yet reached any clear conclusion with regard to potential risks from dioxins in fertilizers.

The great majority of fertilizer products marketed in the United States meet the §503 standards, as well as the Canadian standards for heavy metals (the Canadian standards are somewhat more stringent than the §503 standards). Further, EPA’s "bounding" analysis of fertilizer risks indicates that the Canadian fertilizer standards are generally protective of human health and the environment. The Agency has some significant reservations with regard to the "protectiveness" of using the §503 standards for inorganic fertilizers.

While historically state agriculture agencies have focused primarily on regulating the plant nutrients in fertilizers, rather than contaminants, this is changing. Washington and Texas are the first states to adopt regulations on fertilizer contaminants, and the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) recently amended its model fertilizer legislation to adopt the Canadian standards on an interim basis. EPA supports such state efforts to regulate fertilizer contaminants, as a means of ensuring that the limited number of products that may be problematic are controlled.

EPA does not believe, based on the information we have reviewed to date, that there is a clear need for comprehensive federal regulations for fertilizer contaminants, which would have to be developed under authorities of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Agency therefore has no plans at this time to develop such regulations.

Most fertilizers that are made from recycled industrial hazardous wastes are zinc micronutrient fertilizers. Zinc fertilizers represent a relatively small segment of the overall fertilizer market (five percent or less); they can be made from hazardous wastes as well as a variety of other industrial secondary materials, in addition to mined ore concentrates. We are aware that other types of fertilizers may potentially be made from recycled hazardous wastes, but have very limited data on such practicesBwe hope to gain more information on such fertilizers through this regulatory process.

Part of EPA’s fertilizer assessment work has been an examination of the current RCRA regulations that apply to recycling of hazardous wastes to make fertilizers. For reasons explained in more detail below, the Agency has decided that several aspects of the current regulations should be revised. These regulatory revisions are the focus of this stakeholder meeting.
One of the primary objectives of the RCRA program is to encourage legitimate recycling of hazardous wastes, while maintaining appropriate regulatory controls to ensure that such practices are protective of human health and the environment. In the case of fertilizers, current RCRA requirements address two major environmental concerns: (a) how hazardous waste secondary materials are managed prior to recycling, and (b) controls on contaminants in the fertilizer products made from such materials. RCRA generally does not regulate the actual units or processes that are used in recycling. The following is a summary of the current regulatory framework for hazardous waste derived fertilizers:

RCRA regulations currently require that (with one exception) fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes have to meet the applicable "land disposal restrictions" treatment standards (these "LDR" treatment standards have been developed by EPA for essentially all hazardous wastes that are land disposed). These standards are generally technology-based. The one exception allowed under current regulations is for fertilizers made from electric arc furnace dust (RCRA waste code K061) Bin 1988 EPA exempted such fertilizers from having to meet the LDR standards.

Management of hazardous secondary materials prior to recycling for fertilizers is subject to the "use constituting disposal" (UCD) provision of RCRA (40 CFR 266.20). This provision in essence requires that hazardous waste secondary materials must be managed as hazardous wastes prior to being recycled. Thus, for example, shipments of such materials are subject to manifest requirements, and storage of the materials (e.g., by the fertilizer manufacturer) will generally require a RCRA permit.

Certain types of wastes are specifically exempted in the RCRA statute from being regulated as hazardous waste, including mining wastes, unless EPA establishes through rulemaking that such wastes should be regulated as hazardous wastes. Thus, fertilizers made from such exempt wastes are not subject to RCRA standards, even if the wastes (or the fertilizer) were to exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.
An EPA workgroup has been established to develop revised RCRA regulations for hazardous waste derived fertilizers. The workgroup has been charged with the following:

Re-examine the current standards for contaminants in hazardous waste derived fertilizers, and if warranted promulgate alternative standards that are more appropriate for fertilizers and that are protective of human health and the environment. Note that EPA has no plans to conduct a full risk assessment for this rulemaking, and thus we do not anticipate developing new risk-based standards specifically for fertilizer (i.e., analogous to the §503 standards for land applied biosolids).

Re-examine the current exemptions for K061-derived fertilizers and fertilizers made from exempt mining wastes, and determine whether the exemptions should be maintained, modified or eliminated.

Re-examine the current UCD regulatory provision as it applies specifically to hazardous waste derived fertilizers, with the intent of removing unnecessary regulatory disincentives to legitimate recycling.
The process for developing these new regulations:

Over the next six to nine months the Workgroup will continue to gather information and examine regulatory options. Additional outreach/stakeholder meetings may be arranged if necessary.

We expect to submit a proposal for review by the Office of Management and Budget next fall, and publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by January, 2000. This will be followed by a two or three month comment period.

Final rule is expected to be published approximately one year after the proposal.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT 2

November 1998 Fertilizer Meeting

Interest Group	Name	Organization	Mailing Address	Phone Number	e mail address
Environmental	Laurie Valeriano	WaToxics Coalition		206 632-1545 x14	lvaleriano@watoxics.org
Environmental	Erika Schreder	WaToxics Coalition		206 632-1545 x19	eschreder@watoxics.org
Environmental	Jon Stier	Wash PIRG		206 523-8985	jonstier@mindspring.com
Environmental	Patricia Martin			509 787-4275	martin@nwi.net
Environmental	Greg Wingard	Waste Action Project		206 622-7803	gwingard@earthlink.net
Industry	Renee Pinel	CA Fertilizer Association		916 441-1584	renee@ca.fertilizer.org
Industry	Dick Camp	Bay Zinc		509 248-4911	rjcamp@bayzinc.com
Industry	Bill Hall	IMC Global		941 428-7161	w/_hall@imc-agrico.com
Industry	Larry Culleen	Arnold & Porter		202 942-5477	cullela@aporter.com
Industry	Allan Whitney	American MicroTrace		757 399-4386	avjw@aol.com
Government	Ali Kashani	WA Dept. of Agriculture		360 902-2028	akashani@agr.wa.gov
Government	Caroline Ahearn	EPA-HQ-OCEA/RRD		202 564-4012	ahearn.caroline@epa.gov
Government	Mitch Kidwell	EPA-HQ-OSW		703 308-8644	kidwell.mitch@epa.gov
Journalist	Duff Wilson			425 722-1484	duff@duff.seanet.com
Lawyer	Roger Kluck	Kluck Law Offices		206 405-4373	envirolaw@accessone.com
Industry	Frank J. Warnke	Advocates, Inc. (Scotts)	P. O. Box 4430 Tumwater, WA 98501	360 705 3464
Industry	Mike Barry	Sims Ag Products		419 462-1094
Industry	Bruce Bzura	Old Bridge Chemicals		732 727-2225
Industry	Susan Gieser	Old Bridge Chemicals		732 727-2225
Industry	George Obeldobel	Big River Zinc		618 279-6240
Industry	Owen Anderson	Stoller Enterprises, Inc.		713 461-1493 x17	oanderson@keylate.com
Industry	Carl Schauble	Frit Industries		334 744-2515	schauble@snowhill.com
Industry	John Salmonson	Monterey Chem Co.		209 499-2100	jsalmons@montereychemical.com
Industry	Scott McKinnie	Far West Fertilizer		509 838-6653	scottm@farwestfert.com
Industry	Dirk Lohry	Nutra-Flo Plant Food	P. O. Box 2334 Sioux City, IA 51106	712 277 2011
Industry	Tim Stemwedel	Mineral King		209 582-9228	cofi@organicag.com
Industry	Tom Rush	Tom Rush Farms	P. O. Box 4304 Pasco, WA 99302	509 546-2176
Government	Mary Wahl	ODEQ		503 229-5072	wahl.mary.g@deq.state.or.us
Government	Anne Price	ODEQ		503 229-6585	price.anne@deq.state.or.us
Government	Deborah Bahs	WA Dept. Of Agriculture		360 902 2080	dbahs@agr.wa.gov
Government	Dennis Bowhay	WDOE		509 454-7866	dbow461@eyc.wa.gov
Industry	Michael Deiker	American MicroTrace		800 364 7817	mdeiker@tetratech.com
Industry	Martin Hight	Chemical & Pigment Co		925 689 2030	chempig@worldnet.att.net
Industry	Sanford R. Simon	Pursell Industries, Inc.		256 249-6848	ssimon@pursell.com
Industry	Steve Artus	VAE Energy Operations		925 244-1100	steve.artus@vaecorp.com
Industry	Don Smallwood	CoZinCo Sales, Inc.		303 969-9414	zinspot@juno.com
Government	Dick Hetherington	EPA-Region 10		206 553-1941	hetherington.dick@epa.gov
Industry	Ali Alavi	Horsehead		724 773-2212	aalavi@usaor.net
Industry	Bill Perry	Cameron Chemical	118 Hibben Road Chesapeake, VA 23320	757 547-5420
Industry	Bill Schimming	PCS Phosphate Co., Inc.		919 881-2754	bschimming@pcsphosphate.com
Industry	Jim Skillen	The Fertilizer Institute		202 608-5910	jskillen@tfi.org
Industry	Chris Leason	McKenna & Cuneo, LLP (Counsel to TFI)		202 496-7102	chris_leason@mckennacuneo.com
Industry	Ozzie Morris	Cargill Fertilizer		813 671-6158	ozzie_morris@cargill.com
Industry	Matt Smith	Agrium V.S., Inc.		303 804-4405	msmith@agrium.com
Industry	Jodi Gearon	ERC		425 222-6502	erc@accessone.com
Government	Alec McBride	EPA-HQ-OSW		703 308-0466	mcbride.alexander@epa.gov
Government	Stephen Mauch	CA Dept. of Food & Ag.		916 654-0792	smauch@cdfa.ca.gov
Government	James Baker	Idaho Dept. of Ag.		208 332-8608	jbaker@agri.state.id.us
Government	Janet Fults	Oregon Dept. of Ag.		503 986-4652	jfults@oda.state.or.us
Government	Christopher Simms	LA DEQ/HWD		225 765-2471	chris_s@deq.state.la.us
Government	Roseann Kachadoorian	OR Dept. of Ag.		503 986-4651	rkachado@oda.state.or.us
Government	Denise Laflamme	WA Dept. of Health		360 236-3174	dml0303@doh.wa.gov
Government	Jim O. White	WA Dept. of Health		360 236-3181	jow0303@doh.wa.gov
Government	Duncan Gilroy	OR Health Division		503 731-4015	duncan.j.gilroy@state.or.us
Education	David Terry	University of Kentucky		606 257-2668	dterry@ca.uk.edu
Government	Carol Jolly	Gov. Locke’s Policy Office		360 902-0639	carol.jolly@ofm.wa.gov
Government	Lorie Hewitt	WA Dept. of Ecology		360 352-0201	lhewitt461@ecy.gov
Government	Chris Chapman	WA Dept. of Ecology		360 407-7160	ccha461@ecy.gov
Government	Anne Price	OR Dept. of EQ		503 229-6585	price.anne@deq.state.or.us
Government	Jamey Johnson	Arkansas State Plant Board		501 225-1598	johnsonjeaspb.state.ar.us
Education	Alan R. Hanks	Indiana State Chemist		765 494-1492	hanksa@isco.purdue.edu
Education	David S. Howle	Clemson University Dept. of Fert & Seed Cert.		864 646-2140	dhowle@clemson.edu
Environmental	Chris Peot	E & A Environmental		425 485-3219	eaenvsea@aol.com
Government	Ken Kadlec	Congress Jim McDermott		206 553-7170	ken.kadlec@mail.house.gov
Government	Chipper Hervieux	WA Dept. of Ecology		360 407-6756	pher461@ecy.wa.gov
Government	Sherri Lehman	EPA-California - Toxic Substance Control	400 P Street, 4th Flr Sacramento, CA 95812	916 327-4509
Government	Dave Fagan	US EPA Office of Solid Waste	Mail Code 5301W Washington, DC 20460	703 308-0603	fagan.david@epa. gov
Government	David Bartus	US EPA Region 10, Off. of Waste & Chem. Mgmt.		206 553-2804	bartus.dave@epa.gov
Government	Viccy Salazar	US EPA Region 10, Off. of Waste & Chem. Mgmt.		206 553-1060	salazar.viccy@epa.gov
Government	Mike Bussell	US EPA Region 10, Off. of Waste & Chem. Mgmt.		206 553-4198	bussell.mike@epa.gov
Government	Caroline Ahearn	US EPA Off. of Enf. & Compliance Assurance, HQ		202 564-4012	ahearn.caroline@epa.gov

EPA Stakeholder Meetings on Hazardous Waste Derived Fertilizers

Local Navigation