[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