Document mm4wb5NEaBoapZrMwmxobzjQZ

4 AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS FOUNDED 1897 Suite 300 1920 N Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202/861-2800 TWX 710/822-0126 Easylink: 62766020 John A. Knebel President MEMORANDUM May 3, 1989 TO: Solid Waste Subcommittee & Consultants FROM: Rod Dwyer, Senior Counsel RE: Minutes of the Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting, April 24--25, 1989, Stapleton Plaza Hotel, Denver, Colorado The meeting was called to order at 1 p.m. Monday, April 24, 1989, by Subcommittee Chairman David Crouch. A list of those in attendance is enclosed. Chairman Crouch announced that the purpose of the meeting was to analyze and prepare to respond to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) April 7 proposed rule on processing wastes. Following initial discussions of the proposed rule, those present divided into four work groups, each focusing on a separate aspect of the proposed rule. The work groups were con stituted as follows: 1. Hazard/Toxicity Criteria -- Steve Mueller*, AMAX Inc.; Krishna Parameswaran, ASARCO Incorporated; Ray Ehrhard, Big River Zinc; and Eldon Helmer, Magma Copper Company. 2. Volume Criteria -- Tom Janeck*, Zinc Corporation of America; Tony Gomez, Cyprus Minerals Company; and Gary Welch, for Phibro. 3. "Processing" Definition -- Lou Marucheau*, AMAX Inc.; Wayne Cooper, U.S. Borax & Chemical Corporation; Meade Stirland, Echo Bay Mines Inc.; Kent Lott, Monsanto Com pany; and Wade Sanders, Freeport-McMoRan Inc. 4. General Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Issues (e.q. mixture and derived from rules, applicability of Section 3004(a) and (x)) -- Gerald Schurtz*, Kennecott Corporation; Dan Vornberg, The Doe Run Company; Meade Stirland, Echo Bay Mines Inc.; Gary Welch, for Phibro; Vince Morando, Engelhard Corporation; and Terry Larson, Unocal Corporation. * denotes unofficial chairman of the group The groups worked on their issues until approximately 5 p.m., when Mr. Crouch adjourned the meeting until 8:30 a.m. the follow ing morning. At 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, April 25, Mr. Crouch called the subcommittee to order. A list of those in attendance is enclosed. Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008588 .% * The work groups continued their issue analyses, begun the day before, until 10:30 a.m., at which tine the group chair men reported, identifying issues to be addressed in AMC comments on the proposed rule. Each work group is to send to Mr. Dwyer, by Friday, April 28, an outline of the issues identified by the group. Discussions of these issues are to be further developed in preparation for a comment drafting meeting in Washington, D.C., on May 10 and 11 or May 11 and 12. Actual meeting dates will hinge on whether and when EPA representatives can meet with subcommittee representatives to discuss the proposed rule. It was decided that a smaller group, drawn from the four work groups would prepare the comments and testimony. These peo ple include Eldon Helmer, Steve Mueller, Tom Janeck, Tony Gomez and David Crouch. The subcommittee decided that AMC should tes tify at the May 23 public hearing. On the matter of preparing AMC comments on the EPA pro posed (January 26) Pollution Prevention Policy, the subcommittee noted that ASARCO Incorporated, Cyprus Minerals Company and the Lead Industries Association were preparing comments. Mr. Dwyer was instructed to base AMC comments on those other comments. With regard to possible action by EPA on amending the definition of solid waste, it is necessary to conduct a confer ence call among subcommittee members (identified at the April 4 subcommittee meeting) and John Fognani. Tom Janeck reported that his technical work group met April 20, and that he and Krishna Parameswaran would prepare and circulate "case studies" on recy cling in the minerals-processing sector -- activities that likely would be adversely affected should EPA seek and obtain Congres sional amendments granting EPA authority over recycling practices in this industry. Gary Welch offered two unsolicited proposals to assist the subcommittee in developing comments on the April 7 proposed rule on processing wastes: (l) to prepare a response to the eco nomic portion of the proposed rule, the response to focus not just on incremental costs but on "smelter margin" and the impact on that margin of the proposed rule; and (2) to serve as a tech nical writer in pulling together all technical comments for AMC's submittal on this proposed rule. The former would cost approxi mately $4,000; the latter could cost $8,000. After explaining his proposals to the subcommittee, Mr. Welch left the room and the subcommittee considered his proposals. The subcommittee decided not to accept the second proposal, and to request that Mr. Welch submit a written description of the first proposal to Mr. Dwyer. Mr. Crouch directed that the written description of the "smelter margin" argument proposal be circulated to those present at the meeting for a fast decision. There being no further business to come before the sub committee, Mr. Crouch adjourned the meeting at approximately 1:30 p.m. Enclosures -2 - Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008589 H>,&. c*c>Ss* Do^^*^560 [pjc^ccl itA/q^r -`'ac - --,, . _;><*- /<?*?*? c ^, /^c fc-./J ?Ju* c1^ (Hc^x/' (jt^-p i 7-7-Cr^ 7<^o. a0x-,f^'<)`i's5 d>03^o-C?721 %6T- ^Vi^OJ. <* l^Ay^/Q ^uooPcf^ v^<rp*' - ?he/toa J^J ZX S. ?Oi?A)( fciu^jne^^ ^vhv^U c*. 1. i /2 <r <s?W X)/ ^tede. ^ P^v<s. l/ev a. | 4<V-i ^fcLvxemvfc.^ : L.CHMJ yi^ruoUc^u. ; losjtAr Paoa*&o \lrJH AAl^hd jj; //%o &ozo*r?fltJ i X*^-' / X<-o(Vi f Zimo. /1<aAv KPrftu s K. HuQ HI 6 //?c ,7^0^- 5-* ,, / : /^thi~ (/. LoH~ i Z/'A/ P{gAAAiOQ : 60UW- \J4aJC<( <$/&> ~Sca*a&7z_ \ fftwces IrW-hnk /Kef -4 AJ drd?'.St 2CA &P Pi1 <0(,jZA' )6old.F;d<ls flOininc^ . P'Z**Mhg!:5U>e-4>J /&U*j AtZc/lsdtt^ s~y $ J/5 - J.S"t - S(o I 4~ 213-2IT/ - SY/o &2--3&r~3</7, 303-231-032:2 - Scoo (^>*3/ ZJ'-061?_ (^o-z) U<tz>~ &S/& <JOf-Z36>- 8zoo > $ - s/7 - 3 3-?/ <26# ' ^7-2 3?/ 2<V - 6 ?Z - 6*0 ( v3;V - - /o<*/ v/.?- 773-22 fo 1 32-z Hz 5 3 362.-9SS--03 60 .icf--J^j-m-y21ft- r/o - zjty SOs- &7' W Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008590 DR230-008591 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order S o lid W aste S ubcom m ittee M e e tin g _____ S t a p le t o n P la z a H o t e l, D e n v e r, CO LOCATION A p r il 23-25, 1989 date i DR230-008592 Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order S o lid W aste S ubcom m ittee M e e tin g _____ S t a p le t o n P la z a H o t e l, D e n v e r, CO LOCATION ' A p r il 2 4 -2 5 , 1989 DATE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS FOUNDED 1897 Suite 300 1920 N Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202/861-2800 TWX 710/822-0126 Euylink: 62736020 John A. Knebel President MEMORANDUM April 28, 1989 TO: Attendees of April 25, 1989, Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting FROM: Rod Dwyer, Senior Counsel RE: Gary Welch's Proposal for Economic Argument in Response to EPA's Proposed Rule on Processing Wastes As discussed at the April 25 meeting of the Solid Waste Subcommittee, Gary Welch has put in writing for your considera tion his proposal to frame and economic argument, based on the "smelter margin" concept, that AMC can include in its overall comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) April 7 proposed rule on processing wastes (copy enclosed). Gary Welch estimates the work would take 40 hours at $96 per hour or $3840. This does not include any expenses, but "expenses" would not be a large sum (there should be no travel required on this project). Mr. Welch has agreed to a total cost to AMC not to exceed $4000. AMC has budgeted funds for economic analysis of mining and mineral processing regulations. The bud geted funds are adequate to cover the proposed work; i.e. there would be no need to seek additional funds for this project. Please call me (202/861-7530) by Friday, May 5, with your vote on whether or not AMC should contract with Gary Welch for the proposed work. Enclosure Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230 WELCH ASSOCIATES 173 Hilltown Village Suite 313 Chesterfield. MO 63017 Gary E. Welch President 314-227-1021 27 April 1989 Mr. Roderick T. Dwyer Senior Counsel American Mining Congress 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite Washington, DC 20036 300 Dear Rod: This letter will constitute my proposal to undertake work on behalf of the Solid Waste Subcommittee of the American Mining Congress (AMC) to develop an economic argument to support AMC's other comments on the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 7 April 1989 proposed rule "Mining Waste Exclusion Under Subtitle 0 of RCRA" (54 FR 15316). In general, the economic statement. Which I would propose to develop, would argue that EPA should take no final action on the 33 wastes it proposes to conditionally retain within the scope of the Bevill exclusion pending completion of the Regulatory Analysis required by Executive Order 12291 and that the EPA analysis should focus, not on the $100 million criterion but, rather, on "(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with forign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets." By way of background, smelters purchase concentrates under contracts which typically read (for lead) as follows: "pay for ninety percent of the contained metal at Metals Week average price minus $X per ton treatment cost." The $X per ton is the so called "smelter margin" from which the smelter operator must cover all costs (labor, energy, materials, environmental, etc.). As one can see, under purchase terms such as outlined above, smeiter operators benefit little from upward base metal price movements - a point which AMC has not exploited in any prior ' submission to EPA. By comparing potential Subtitle C costs to smelter margins and not to commodity prices, as EPA is prone to do, a much more dramatic cost impact can be demonstrated. I believe we can make a strong case that the defacto regulation of processing wastes, C'-xliH pj UrvrorHrM ic \A/nc+4b * !lr*t/->r\/ Arplv/cii; * ODD Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order - rr--. -> DR230-008594 Mr. KodericK T. lawyer 27 April lyfcy which occurs because EPA does not continue to exclude all smelter wastes, would significantly impact the ability of domestic producers to compete "in domestic and export markets" which the President, in the Executive Order, and Congress, in the 8002 study requirements of RCRA, were particularly concerned about. The argument would be developed from the standpoint that EPA, in consultation with the Bureau of Mines, has both the time (until ib January 1990; and the information necessary to complete the required analysis. As a minimum, the presentation may start EPA to properly think about smelter economics as it approaches the Second Report to Congress. To undertake development of the suggested argument 1 would need, in addition to accurate AMC member company identification of wastes which will (on the effective date of the exclusion rulemaking) potentially be subject to RCRA Subtitle C management standards, copies of economic studies previously submitted by AMC, a copy of the draft Second Report to Congress and, most importantly, copies of representative smelter concentrate purchase contract terms for at least the main processing industry sectors. Contract terms would, of course, be held in strictest confidence and only general language extracted for the write-up. I would estimate a total of forty professional hours would be required to secure copies of concentrate purchase agreements, identify materials potentially subject to RCRA Subtitle C requirements (including volume and management alternatives), review and synthesize prior statements and prepare the proposed write-up (estimated to be six to ten pages in length). My billing rate for professional services is $96.00 per hour. Only time actually spent would be billed and out-of-pockets would be billed at cost. />2*y Assuming the work could be authorized by 12 April, I would anticipate having a first draft statement in your hands no later than 21 Ajpirrl 1989. Please*call if you have any questions. I look forward to the opportunity to be of service to AMC's member companies. Best regards. Very Truly Yours, 1 gw/gw Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008595 I AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS POUNDED 1897 Suite 300 1920 N Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202/861-2800 TWX 710/822-0126 Easylink: 62756020 John A. Knebel President MEMORANDUM April 28, 1989 TO: Attendees of April 25, 1989, Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting FROM: Rod Dwyer, Senior Counsel RE: Gary Welch's Proposal for Economic Argument in Response to EPA's Proposed Rule on Processing Wastes As discussed at the April 25 meeting of the Solid Waste Subcommittee, Gary Welch has put in writing for your considera tion his proposal to frame and economic argument, based on the "smelter margin" concept, that AMC can include in its overall comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) April 7 proposed rule on processing wastes (copy enclosed). Gary Welch estimates the work would take 40 hours at $96 per hour or $3840. This does not include any expenses, but "expenses" would not be a large sum (there should be no travel required on this project). Mr. Welch has agreed to a total cost to AMC not to exceed $4000. AMC has budgeted funds for economic analysis of mining and mineral processing regulations. The bud geted funds are adequate to cover the proposed work; i.e. there would be no need to seek additional funds for this project. Please call me (202/861-7530) by Friday, May 5, with your vote on whether or not AMC should contract with Gary Welch for the proposed work. Enclosure Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008596 i / WELCH ASSOCIATES 173 Hilltown Villoge Suite 313 Chesterfield. MO 63017 Gary E. Welch Resident 314-227-1021 27 April 1989 Mr. Roderick T. Dwyer Senior Counsel American Mining Congress 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Rod: This letter will constitute my proposal to undertake work on behalf of the Solid Waste Subcommittee of the American Mining Congress (AMC) to develop an economic argument to support AMC's other comments on the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 7 April 1989 proposed rule "Mining Waste Exclusion Under Subtitle C of RCRA" (54 FR 15316). In general, the economic statement, which I would propose to develop, would argue that EPA should take no final action on the 33 wastes it proposes to conditionally retain within the scope of the flevill exclusion pending completion of the Regulatory Analysis required by Executive Order 12291 and that the EPA analysis should focus, not on the $100 million criterion but, rather, on "(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with forign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets." By way of background, smelters purchase concentrates under contracts which typically read (for lead) as follows: "pay for ninety percent of the contained metal at Metals Week average price minus $X per ton treatment cost." The $X per ton is the so called "smelter margin" from which the smelter operator must cover all costs (labor, energy, materials, environmental, etc.). As one can see, under purchase terms such as outlined above, smeiter operators benefit little from upward base metal price movements - a point which AMC has not exploited in any prior submission to EPA. By comparing potential Subtitle C costs to smelter margins and not to commodity prices, as EPA is prone to do, a much more dramatic cost impact can be demonstrated. I believe we can make a strong case that the defacto regulation of processing wastes, Solid & Hazardous Waste Regulatory Analysis PRP Services Environmental Assessments Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008597 i Mr. Roderick f. Dwyer 27 April 1989 . which occurs because EPA does not continue to exclude all smelter wastes, would significantly impact the ability of domestic producers to compete "in domestic and export markets" which the President, in the Executive Order, and Congress, in the 8002 study requirements of RCRA, were particularly concerned about. The argument would be developed from the standpoint that EPA, in consultation with the Bureau of Mines, has both the time (until lb January 1990; and the information necessary to complete the required analysis. As a minimum, the presentation may start EPA to properly think about smelter economics as it approaches the Second Report to Congress. To undertake development of the suggested argument I would need, in addition to accurate AMC member company identification of wastes which will (on the effective date of the exclusion rulemaking) potentially be subject to RCRA Subtitle C management standards, copies of economic studies previously submitted by AMC, a copy of the draft Second Report to Congress and, most importantly, copies of representative smelter concentrate purchase contract terms for at least the main processing industry sectors. Contract terms would, of course, be held in strictest confidence and only general language extracted for the write-up. I would estimate a total of forty professional hours would be required to secure copies of concentrate purchase agreements, identify materials potentially subject to RCRA Subtitle C requirements (including volume and management alternatives), review and synthesize prior statements and prepare the proposed write-up (estimated to be six to ten pages in length). My billing rate for professional services is $96.00 per hour. Only time actually spent would be billed and out-of-pockets would be billed at cost. Assuming the work could be authorized by 12 , I would anticipate having a first draft statement in your hands no later than 21 Ajoirrl 1989. ffau F'lease/call if you have any questions. I look forward to the opportunity to be of service to AMC's member companies. Best regards, Very Truly Yours gw/gw Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order DR230-008598