[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 223 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57747-57800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27693]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57747]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 266, 268, 271, and 302
[SWH-FRL-5327-2]
RIN 2050-AD88
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste: Petroleum Refining Process Wastes; Land Disposal
Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend the regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by listing, as hazardous wastes,
three residuals from petroleum refining processes because certain
disposal practices may present a risk to human health or the
environment. EPA is also proposing not to list as hazardous eleven
process residuals. This action proposes to add the toxic constituents
found in the wastes to the list of constituents that serves as the
bases for classifying wastes as hazardous.
This action is proposed pursuant to RCRA section 3001(b) and
section 3001(e)(2), which direct EPA to make a hazardous waste listing
determination for ``refining wastes.'' The effect of this proposed
regulation would be to subject these wastes to regulation as hazardous
wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Additionally, this action proposes to
designate the wastes proposed for listing as hazardous substances
subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), and to adjust the one-pound statutory
reportable quantities (RQs) for these substances.
In support of the Agency's regulatory reinvention efforts, this
action also proposes changes to the RCRA regulations to promote the
environmentally sound recycling of oil-bearing residuals. Specifically,
the Agency is proposing to broaden the existing exemption for certain
wastes from the definition of solid waste. These include oil-bearing
residuals from specified petroleum refining sources inserted into the
petroleum refining process, and spent caustic from liquid treating
operations when used as a feedstock. Today's proposal also would exempt
from the definition of hazardous waste mixtures of clarified slurry oil
(CSO) storage tank sediment and/or in-line filter/separation solids
with tank wastewaters, provided that the waste is discharged to the oil
recovery sewer before primary oil/water/solids separation, and ceramic
support media separated from spent hydrotreating/hydrorefining
catalysts.
Finally, EPA is proposing to apply universal treatment standards
(UTS) under the Land Disposal Restrictions program to the Petroleum
Refining Wastes proposed for listing in this rulemaking.
DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
February 20, 1996. Comments postmarked after this date will be marked
``late'' and may not be considered. Any person may request a public
hearing on this proposal by filing a request with Mr. David Bussard,
whose address appears below, by December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The official record of this rulemaking is identified by
Docket Number F-95-PRLP-FFFFF. The public must send an original and two
copies (and a voluntary copy on a computer diskette) of their comments
to: EPA RCRA Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Place the docket
number F-95-PRLP-FFFFF on your comments. Through November 13, 1995,
copies of materials relevant to this proposed rulemaking are located in
the docket at the address listed above. The Agency plans to relocate
the docket on November 14, 1995, and the docket will be physically
closed from November 14, 1995 to November 26, 1995. Special
arrangements for reviewing docket materials during this time can be
made by calling (202) 260-9327. The Agency will be issuing a separate
Federal Register notice explaining this change.
Starting November 27, 1995, the EPA RCRA Docket will be located at
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA. Comments may be delivered to that location. The docket is open from
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The public can make an appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 260-9327. Starting November 27, 1995, the new
telephone number for the docket will be (703) 603-9230. The public may
copy 100 pages from the docket at no charge; additional copies are
$0.15 per page.
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Mr. David Bussard at:
Hazardous Waste Identification Division, Office of Solid Waste (5304),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, toll-free,
at (800) 424-9346 or at (703) 920-9810. The TDD Hotline number is (800)
553-7672 (toll-free) or (703) 486-3323 in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area. For technical information on the RCRA hazardous
waste listings, contact Maximo Diaz, Jr., Office of Solid Waste (5304),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C., 20460, (202) 260-4786.
For technical information on the CERCLA aspects of this rule,
contact: Mr. Jack Arthur, Response Standards and Criteria Branch,
Emergency Response Division (5202G), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 603-8760.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of the preamble to this
proposed rule are listed in the following outline:
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Schedule Suit
B. Existing Petroleum Refining Listings and Other Relevant
Agency Actions
1. Listings
2. Definition of Solid Waste Exemptions
C. EPA's Hazardous Waste Listing Determination Policy
III. Today's Action
A. Summary of Today's Action
1. Summary of Listing Determinations
[[Page 57748]]
2. Summary of Definition of Solid Waste and Other Exemptions
Proposed in Today's Notice
B. Description of the Industry
C. Overview of EPA's Information Collection Activities
1. Field Investigations and Sampling
2. RCRA Sec. 3007 Survey
D. Description of the Process Residuals in Comparison With the
Consent Decree Language
E. Hazardous Oil-bearing Residuals Returned to Refinery
Processes
1. Background
2. Proposed Amendments to Address Hazardous Residuals Returned
to the Refining Process
F. Description of Health and Risk Assessments
1. Human Health Criteria and Effects
2. Risk Analysis
3. Consideration of Uncertainty in Listing Determinations
4. Peer Review
G. Waste-specific Listing Determination Rationales
1. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
2. Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) Tank Sediment and/or In-line
Filter/Separation Solids
3. Catalyst from Hydrotreating
4. Catalyst from Hydrorefining
5. Catalyst from Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
6. Spent Caustic from Liquid Treating
7. Off-specification Product and Fines from Thermal Processes
8. Catalyst and Fines from Catalytic Cracking
9. Sludge from Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation
10. Sludge from Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
11. Catalyst from Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
12. Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment
13. Catalyst from Reforming
14. Sludge from Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
H. Request for Comments on Options for Conditional Exemptions
1. Legal Basis for Conditional Exemptions
2. Improvements in Risk Assessment Methodology
3. Options for Conditional Exemptions
I. Impacts on Idled Units
J. Third Party Regeneration/Reclamation of Spent Petroleum
Catalyst
1. Exemption under Sec. 266.100(b)
2. Catalyst Support Media
3. Residuals Generated from Petroleum Catalyst Regeneration/
Reclamation
K. Headworks Exemption
IV. Waste Minimization
A. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
B. Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) Tank Sediment and/or In-line
Filter/Separation Solids
C. Catalyst from Hydrotreating
D. Catalyst from Hydrorefining
V. Applicability of the Land Disposal Restrictions Determinations
A. Request for Comment on the Agency's Approach to the
Development of BDAT Treatment Standards
B. Treatment Standards for the Newly Proposed Listed Petroleum
Refining Wastes
1. Identification of Wastes
2. Proposed Treatment Standards
3. Determination of BDAT
C. Capacity Determination for the Newly Proposed Listed
Petroleum Refining Wastes
1. Introduction
2. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
VI. Environmental Justice and Population Risk
A. Applicability of Executive Order 12898
B. Potential Effects
C. Population Risk
1. Results
VII. Compliance Dates
A. Notification
B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities
VIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
B. Effects on State Authorizations
IX. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
A. Reporting Requirements
B. Basis for RQs and Adjustments
C. Alternative Method
X. Regulatory Requirements and Economic Analysis
A. Regulatory Requirements
1. Executive Order 12866
2. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
B. Economic Impact Analysis
1. Costs of Compliance
2. Economic Impact Analysis
3. Cost Effectiveness of Individual Risk Reduction
4. Cost Effectiveness of Population Risk Reduction
5. Other Benefits Considered
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Legal Authority
Today's regulations are being proposed under the authority of
sections 2002(a) and 3001(b)(1) and (e)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), and 6921(b) and (e)(1), (commonly
referred to as RCRA), and section 102(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a).
II. Background
A. Schedule Suit
In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued the Agency, in
part, for failing to meet the statutory deadlines of section 3001(e)(2)
of RCRA (EDF v. Browner; Civ. No. 89-0598 D.D.C.). To resolve most of
the issues in the case, EDF and EPA entered into a consent decree which
was approved by the court on December 9, 1994. The consent decree sets
out an extensive series of deadlines for promulgating RCRA rules and
for completing certain studies and reports. Paragraph 1.k of the
consent decree obligates the EPA to promulgate a final listing
determination on or before October 31, 1996, for the following
petroleum refining process residuals: clarified slurry oil sludge
1 from catalytic cracking, crude storage tank sludge, catalyst
from catalytic hydrotreating, process sludge from sulfur complex and
H2S removal facilities, off-spec product and fines from thermal
processes, catalyst from catalytic reforming, unleaded storage tank
sludge, catalyst from catalytic hydrorefining, catalyst and fines from
catalytic cracking, catalyst from sulfur complex and H2S removal
facilities, spent caustic from liquid treating, catalyst from
H2SO4 alkylation, sludge from HF alkylation, and sludge from
H2SO4 alkylation. Today the EPA is proposing listing
determinations for these residuals in accordance with the consent
decree's deadline for this rulemaking proposal.
\1\ While the consent decree uses the term ``sludge'' to refer
to any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residual, the term is defined
more narrowly for RCRA Subtitle C (Sec. 260.10). Throughout today's
proposal the Agency has used the term ``sediment'' to denote solid,
semi-solid, or liquid residuals deposited from industrial process
liquids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Existing Petroleum Refining Listings and Other Relevant Agency
Actions
1. Listings
A number of wastes from petroleum refineries have been previously
listed as hazardous. The Agency notes that today's proposal does not
affect the scope of the existing hazardous waste listings (described
below) or the applicability of CERCLA to these wastes. EPA is not
soliciting comments concerning these listings and does not intend to
respond to any such comments received.
In addition, EPA-classified listed hazardous wastes are hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. CERCLA
hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along
with their reportable quantities (RQs), and include the listed
hazardous wastes from petroleum refining in Table II-1.
[[Page 57749]]
Table II-1.--List of Currently Regulated RCRA Wastes and CERCLA
Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory
Hazardous substance RQ pounds Final RQ
(kg) pounds (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K048--Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from
the petroleum refining industry.............. 1(.454) 10(4.54)
K049--Slop oil emulsion solids from the
petroleum refining industry.................. 1(.454) 10(4.54)
K050--Heat exchange bundle cleaning sludge
from the petroleum refining industry......... 1(.454) 10(4.54)
K051--API separator sludge from the petroleum
refining industry............................ 1(.454) 10(4.54)
F037--Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/
solids sludge................................ 1(.454) 1(.454)
F038--Petroleum refinery secondary
(emulsified) oil/water/solids separation
sludge....................................... 1(.454) 1(.454)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Definition of Solid Waste Exemptions
The jurisdictional boundaries of RCRA are established primarily by
the definition of solid waste, i.e., materials are subject to
regulation under RCRA only if they meet the regulatory definition of
solid waste. Secondary materials, including those EPA today is
proposing to list as hazardous, may be excluded from the definition of
solid waste and therefore from regulation under RCRA if they are
recycled in certain ways. Today's notice describes how each material is
typically managed. The notice also discusses existing regulatory
exclusions that may apply to a particular refining residual, depending
on how that residual is managed.
It is important to note that EPA is currently evaluating the
existing RCRA regulatory program, with emphasis on the need to clarify
RCRA jurisdiction, particularly as it applies to secondary materials
destined for recycling. Additionally, the Agency plans to develop a
simpler, more streamlined approach to regulating hazardous waste
recycling. One of the Agency's goals in revising the RCRA regulations
is to address outstanding jurisdictional issues that specifically
affect the petroleum refining industry. The petroleum industry poses
unique regulatory issues largely because existing exclusions from the
definition of solid waste generally do not apply to secondary materials
used to produce fuels, the primary product of the refining industry.
The current definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2 classifies
secondary materials destined for recycling as solid wastes if the
recycling is a form of waste management. Conversely, if the materials
are recycled as part of an ongoing manufacturing process, they are not
solid wastes. Accordingly, the existing rules specifically exclude
secondary materials from the definition of solid waste that are: used
directly (i.e., without reclamation) as ingredients in manufacturing
processes to make new products; used directly as effective substitutes
for commercial products; or returned directly to the original process
from which they are generated as a substitute for raw material feed
stock. These exclusions do not apply to materials that are either
contained in, or used to produce fuels, however, and therefore do not
generally apply to secondary materials recycled as part of the
petroleum refining process. Petroleum industry representatives have
long argued that oil-bearing secondary materials used as ingredients in
the petroleum refining process to make fuel should be excluded from
regulation under RCRA.
Today's proposal, which deals specifically with petroleum
residuals, gives EPA the opportunity to address some larger,
longstanding issues involving where the boundaries of RCRA should be
drawn regarding jurisdiction over the petroleum industry. Therefore, in
addition to addressing specific regulatory issues that may arise as a
result of a decision to list an individual petroleum wastestream, the
Agency is proposing more comprehensive revisions to the RCRA
regulations relating to materials that are generated by and recycled
within the petroleum industry. (See Section III.E.)
C. EPA's Hazardous Waste Listing Determination Policy
Today's listing determination proposal follows the elements of the
Agency's hazardous waste listing determination policy. That policy was
presented in the dyes and pigments listing determination proposal (59
FR 66072, December 22, 1994). Readers are referred to that notice for a
description of EPA's listing policy. Also, Section III.F.2., ``Risk
Analysis,'' contains a discussion of how elements of EPA's listing
policy were applied in today's listing determination.
III. Today's Action
A. Summary of Today's Action
1. Summary of Proposed Listing Determinations
In today's notice, EPA is proposing to add three wastes generated
during petroleum refining operations to the list of hazardous wastes in
40 CFR 261.32. A summary of the waste groupings proposed for listing
are provided below with their proposed corresponding EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers.
K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations.
K171--Spent hydrotreating catalysts from petroleum refining
operations (As discussed in III.A.2 below, this listing does not
include ceramic support media.)
K172--Spent hydrorefining catalysts from petroleum refining
operations (As discussed in III.A.2 below, this listing does not
include ceramic support media.)
EPA is proposing to list certain wastes in this rule because these
materials meet the criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing
a waste as hazardous. EPA assessed and considered the factors contained
in these criteria primarily by incorporating them as elements in a risk
assessment. Based on this assessment, EPA is proposing to list those
wastes that pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly managed.
Upon promulgation of these proposed listings, all wastes meeting
the listing descriptions would become hazardous wastes and would
require treatment, storage, or disposal at RCRA Subtitle C permitted
facilities. Residuals from the treatment, storage, or disposal of the
wastes included in this proposed listing also would be classified as
hazardous wastes pursuant to the ``derived-from'' rule (40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(I)). For example, ash or other residuals from treatment of
the listed wastes would be subject to RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
[[Page 57750]]
waste regulations. Also, 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (the ``mixture'' rule)
provides that, with certain limited exceptions, any mixture of a listed
waste and a solid waste is itself a RCRA hazardous waste.
However, when these materials are recycled as described in 40 CFR
261.2(e)(1)(iii) or 261.4(a)(8), they are not solid wastes and are not
subject to hazardous waste regulations. For example, if a material is
collected and returned in a closed-loop fashion to the same process, it
is not regulated. As discussed further in Section III.E of this notice,
the Agency is proposing some modifications to these recycling
exemptions.
This action also proposes not to list as hazardous eleven residuals
generated from petroleum refining operations:
Crude oil storage tank sediment.
Unleaded gasoline storage tank sediment.
Off-specification product and fines from thermal
processes.
Catalyst from reforming.
Catalyst from H2SO4 alkylation.
Sludge from H2SO4 alkylation.
HF alkylation sludge.
Spent caustic from liquid treating.
Catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking.
Catalyst from sulfur complex and H2S removal
facilities.
Sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal
facilities.
The Agency requests comments on the proposal not to list the above
wastes. While the agency is proposing not to list crude oil storage
tank sediment, the Agency specifically requests comment on the merits
of listing this waste. Crude oil storage tank sediment could be
finalized as a listing in response to comment. The Agency also requests
comment on the data used in this proposal, the methodology and
assumptions used in the risk assessment, the waste groupings chosen by
the Agency, and other information and analyses supporting the proposed
listings.
2. Summary of Definition of Solid Waste and Other Exemptions Proposed
in Today's Notice
While the primary purpose of today's proposal is to present the
Agency's findings with respect to the hazards posed by the 14 residuals
identified in the consent decree, the Agency also conducted a parallel
effort to analyze the applicability of the definition of solid waste to
these residuals, and to identify appropriate exemptions to the proposed
listings that reflect the Agency's investigation (i.e., the appropriate
scope of the proposed listings) and that encourage responsible
recycling activities. The proposed exemptions and scope limitations are
summarized below and discussed in detail in the following sections.
a. Hazardous Petroleum Refinery Residuals Returned to Refinery
Processes. The Agency is proposing to broaden the existing exemption in
40 CFR 261.4(a)(12) for oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum
refining sources that are inserted into the petroleum refining process.
If finalized, the existing exemption would be expanded to allow for
reinsertion of a broader array of residuals into more parts of the
refinery, including the coking process. The exemption would continue to
be limited to situations where inappropriate storage or accumulation
does not occur, and to processes that do not result in coke products
that exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. A detailed
discussion of this proposal is provided in Section III.E.
b. Use of Spent Caustics as Feedstocks. Section III.G.6 describes
the Agency's findings with respect to spent caustic from liquid
treating operations and its status as a solid waste when used as a
feedstock. A significant management practice for this residual is off-
site use as a feedstock in the manufacture of naphthenic or cresylic
acids. The Agency proposes an exclusion from the definition of solid
waste in Section III.G.6, clarifying that spent liquid treating
caustics from petroleum refineries and used as feedstock in the
manufacture of naphthenic and cresylic acid products are not solid
wastes.
c. Third Party Recycling of Spent Petroleum Catalysts. Section
III.J describes the Agency's rationale for proposing an exclusion from
the 40 CFR 266 Subpart H boiler and industrial furnace standards for
spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalyst recovery furnaces. Spent
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts, two of the petroleum
refining residuals proposed today for listing, are frequently
regenerated for reuse or reclaimed off-site to recover nonprecious
metals such as nickel, molybdenum, cobalt, and vanadium and other
compounds sold as products (i.e., aluminum sulfate derived from the
alumina substrate material).
d. Wastewaters. The turnaround of both crude oil storage tanks and
clarified slurry oil storage tanks may result in the generation of
process wastewaters. The scope of the Agency's listing determinations
for crude oil storage tank sediment and CSO storage tank sediment and/
or in-line filter/separation solids, as described in Section III.G.1
and 2, respectively, does not include these wastewaters. These sections
also describe the limitation of the scope of the listings to sediments
generated from tanks that are directly associated with petroleum
refining operations, reflecting the Agency's lack of data regarding the
nature of sediments generated from tankage at facilities that are not
petroleum refineries.
In section III.K., the Agency proposes to exclude from the
definition of hazardous waste mixtures of crude oil storage tank
sediment (if listed) or of CSO storage tank sediment with tank
wastewaters, provided the waste waters are discharged to the oil-
recovery sewer before primary oil/water/solids separation.
e. Catalyst Support Balls. Upon removal from catalyst beds and/or
during catalyst regeneration or reclamation, spent catalysts are
separated from the support media that is used in the catalytic reactors
to optimize mixing and flow within the reactor beds. The scope of the
Agency's listing determinations for hydrotreating and hydrorefining
catalysts, as described in Section III.J, does not include these
ceramic support media.
f. Application of Existing Exemptions to the Residuals of Concern.
Section III.G.5 describes EPA's findings with respect to spent sulfuric
acid used as a catalyst in refinery alkylation processes. The Agency
concluded that this residual is already managed in a way that is
virtually exempt from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR
261.4(a)(7).
B. Description of the Industry
Petroleum refineries are defined as ``establishments primarily
engaged in the production of gasoline, distillate fuel oils, residual
fuel oils, naphtha, liquefied refinery gases, and lubricants through
the integration of fractionation and/or straight distillation of crude
oil, re-distillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or
other processes'' (Office of Management and Budget, 1987).
The refineries use a complex combination of interdependent
operations to produce these petroleum-derived products. Depending upon
the type of crude being processed, the type of product to be produced,
and the process units present at a refinery, various combinations of
processes may be employed to effect the separation of crude fractions.
Petroleum refining operations and processes include desalting of crude,
atmospheric and vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, catalytic cracking,
thermal processing and upgrading of residual fuel oil, light
[[Page 57751]]
hydrocarbon processing, hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, alkylation,
extraction, isomerization, processing of lubricating oil, removal of
sulfur, and blending of products. Additional processes may also be
employed to produce additives or other desired products.
Today's proposal is based on the Agency's analysis of data
characterizing the industry in 1992. In 1992, 185 operating refineries
were reported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Petroleum Supply
Annual, with a total distillation capacity of 15 million barrels of
crude oil per calendar day.
C. Overview of EPA's Information Collection Activities
OSW's listing determination for the petroleum refining industry has
been underway since 1992 and can be characterized in terms of two major
avenues for information collection: field work and survey evaluation.
1. Field Investigations and Sampling
As part of the Agency's field work, engineering site visits,
familiarization sampling, and record sampling were conducted. Twenty-
five refineries were randomly selected for evaluation in the field
program. The industry was stratified into large and small refineries
and the 25 refineries were selected randomly (and proportionately) from
the two strata so that any differences in waste generation and
management practices could be observed. Engineering site visits were
conducted at each of the targeted refineries, at which time the Agency
conducted extensive discussions with the facilities and representatives
of the American Petroleum Institute (API) to certify each of the
potential sampling locations would result in samples that were
representative of normal operating conditions and typical industry
practices.
Sixty three record samples of the listing residuals of concern were
collected and analyzed. All sample volumes were obtained in duplicate
for the purpose of providing API with sample splits. Of the 63 samples
collected, 46 were split directly with API; the remaining 17 were
either split with the refinery (12 samples) or only collected as single
EPA aliquot (5 samples). Of the 46 split samples, the analytical data
for 31 were compared directly to the API data. The results of the
comparison indicated good agreement. The sampling and analysis plans
and analytical data reports that are not Confidential Business
Information (CBI) are available in the docket for this rule (see
ADDRESSES section), and provide detailed discussions regarding the
identification and collection of samples. The Listing Background
Document available in the docket provides additional information on the
Agency's field program, including a more detailed discussion of EPA's
site selection process.
EPA's approach to sample analysis is described generally in its
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP), dated October 21, 1992
(describing the familiarization phase of this investigation) and
September 22, 1993 (describing the record sampling phase of this
investigation) available in the docket of today's rule. Target analytes
were identified by compiling lists of target constituents used in
previous OSW investigations, including the petroleum refining listing
investigation conducted in the 1980s, the 1984 ``Skinner List''
(guidance issued by OSW for the characterization of wastes derived from
petroleum refinery wastewater treatment sludge), and the Delisting
Program. Additional constituents were added to reflect waste-specific
concerns such as amines from sulfur-removal residuals, and fluorides
from HF alkylation residuals. The Agency's contracted laboratory
confirmed its ability to reliably and adequately quantify the target
analytes during the analysis of six familiarization samples collected
during the engineering site visits. Upon completion of the
familiarization sample analysis effort, EPA finalized the target
analyte list and QAPjP with a list of more than 180 target
constituents. In addition, during both familiarization and record
sampling and analysis, the Agency quantified the ten most abundant
nontarget volatile and the 20 most abundant nontarget semi-volatile
organics in each sample.
The Agency believes that the samples collected and analyzed under
its field investigations are generally representative of residuals
typically generated throughout the industry. This belief is based on
(1) the extensive discussions between the Agency, the targeted
facilities and API regarding the sampling protocol and sample
representativeness; (2) the Agency's broader understanding of the
residuals and the industry's array of management practices developed
during extensive review of the industry-wide survey (described below);
and (3) the fact that the toxicants that ultimately were found through
risk assessment modeling to show significant risk and serve as the
proposed basis for listing in today's notice are all common refinery
constituents of concern (e.g., benzene, arsenic, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)) that are found in virtually all crudes and thus
reasonably are expected to be present in refinery residuals across the
Nation.
2. RCRA Section 3007 Survey
The survey effort included the development, distribution, and
assessment of an extensive industry-wide section 3007 survey. The
questionnaire covered topics such as crude oil and product information,
facility and unit process flow diagrams, process descriptions, residual
generation and management profiles, residual and contaminated soil and
debris characterization, residual management unit and media
characterization, general facility characterization (focussing on
exposure pathway characterization), source reduction efforts, and
certification.
The survey was distributed in September 1993 to all refineries
identified as active in 1992 in the DOE Petroleum Supply Annual. Of the
185 surveys distributed, completed responses were obtained for 172
refineries. The remaining refineries notified EPA that they had stopped
operations at some point in or after 1992 and thus were unable to
complete the survey.
The Agency entered the completed surveys into a relational database
known as the 1992 Petroleum Refining Database (PRDB). An exhaustive
engineering review of each facility's response was then conducted,
resulting in follow-up letters to most of the industry which sought
clarifications, corrections, and additional data where needed. The
responses to the follow-up letters were entered into the database. A
wide variety of additional quality assurance checks were run on the
data, with added emphasis on the listing residuals, to ensure that the
residuals of concern were characterized as completely and accurately as
possible. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted as necessary to
address remaining data issues. After extensive review, the Agency
believes that the data are reliable and represent the industry's
current residual generation and management practices.
D. Description of the Process Residuals in Comparison With the Consent
Decree Language
The consent decree identifies fourteen residuals for which the
Agency must make proposed listing determinations in this rulemaking.
Upon investigation of the categories identified in the consent decree,
the Agency determined that several of the categories should be split
into distinct subcategories to allow the
[[Page 57752]]
Agency to differentiate between unique residuals. For example, the
consent decree identified as one residual catalysts from sulfur complex
and H2S removal facilities. There are two major subcategories of
catalysts used in refinery sulfur removal facilities: Claus catalysts
(an alumina bauxite catalyst) and tail gas treating catalysts
(typically a cobalt/molybdenum catalyst). These wastes are inherently
different in their composition, application, and management, and thus
were assessed separately in the Agency's risk assessment.
Table III-1 identifies the residuals in the consent decree,
describes their coverage in the listing determinations proposed in
today's rulemaking, and the action proposed.
Table III-1.--Consent Degree Residuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residuals identified in the consent decree Coverage in today's rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude oil storage tank sludge.......................... Crude oil storage tank sediment.
Unleaded storage tank sludge........................... Unleaded gasoline storage tank sediment.
Clarified slurry oil sludge from catalytic cracking.... Clarified slurry oil (CSO) storage tank sediment and/or
in-line filter/separation solids.
Catalyst from catalytic hydrotreating.................. Non-precious metal hydrotreating catalysts.
Catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking............. Equilibrium catalysts and catalyst fines were evaluated
as individual subcategories based on differences in
particle sizes and management practices.
Catalyst from catalytic hydrorefining.................. Non-precious metal hydrorefining catalysts.
Catalyst from catalytic reforming...................... Includes spent catalysts and fines.
Catalyst from H2SO4 alkylation......................... Spent sulfuric acid.
Sludge from H2SO4 alkylation........................... Same.
Sludge from HF alkylation.............................. Neutralization sludges.
Off-spec product and fines from thermal processes...... Same.
Spent caustic from liquid treating..................... Same.
Process sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal Sludges from amine-based sulfur removal systems,
facilities. including turnaround sludges and filter cartridges.
Catalyst from sulfur complex and H2S removal facilities Claus catalyst, an alumina-based sulfur conversion
catalyst.
SCOT-like catalyst, a cobalt/molybdenum
tailgas treating catalyst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Hazardous Oil-Bearing Residuals Returned to Refinery Processes
EPA is today proposing to exclude from the definition of solid
waste oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum industry sources
that are inserted into the petroleum refining process (including the
petroleum coker) along with normal process streams, if these materials
are not stored in a manner involving placement on the land, or
accumulated speculatively before being so recycled, and if the
resulting coke product does not exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste.
1. Background
a. January 8, 1988 Proposal. On January 8, 1988, EPA proposed rules
to implement a decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court
regarding EPA's statutory authority to regulate recycled materials. See
53 FR 519, January 8, 1988. In its decision in American Mining Congress
v. EPA, 824 F. 2d1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (AMC I), the D.C. Circuit Court
held that EPA's rules defining the statutory term ``solid waste'' (RCRA
Section 1004(27)) exceeded the Agency's statutory authority to the
extent that the rules asserted jurisdiction over ``materials that are
recycled and reused in an ongoing manufacturing or industrial
process.'' Id. at 1186 (emphasis original). The court held that
``Because these materials have not yet become part of the waste
disposal problem,'' Id., they are not yet ``discarded'' within the
meaning of Section 1004(27) and so cannot be considered to be ``solid
wastes.''
In its January 1988 proposal, EPA responded to the AMC I decision
specifically as it applied to petroleum refining industry operations.
The Agency proposed to exclude from the regulatory definition of solid
waste oil bearing petroleum residuals that are returned for further
refining ``as part of one continuous and ongoing process.'' (53 FR 525,
January 8, 1988.) More specifically, EPA proposed to exclude oil-
bearing residues from the refining process when those residues are
generated on-site and reinserted on-site into the petroleum refining
process (including the coker), provided that the residues were not
speculatively accumulated or stored in a manner involving land
placement.
Subsequent decisions have established that the decision in AMC I is
relatively narrow. In particular, courts have rejected the argument
that ``potential reuse of a material prevents the Agency from
classifying it as 'discarded'.'' American Mining Congress v. EPA, 907
F. 2d 1179, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (AMC II). The proper test as to when,
as a matter of law, the Agency is foreclosed from classifying a
material as a solid waste is when a material is ``destined for
immediate reuse in another phase of the industry's ongoing production
process'' and that ``have not yet become part of the waste disposal
problem.'' Id. at 1186. EPA retains considerable discretion in
ascertaining how to apply this standard. For example, secondary
materials generated by one industry and sent to another industry for
reclamation could be classified as solid wastes (although EPA retains
discretion as to whether to make that determination). (American
Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 726, 740-41 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Ilco v.
EPA, 996 F. 2d 1126 (11th Cir. (1993); Owen Electric Steel v. Browner,
37 F. 3d 146 (4th Cir. 1994)). So can secondary materials generated on-
site, stored in wastewater treatment impoundments, and reclaimed within
the process which generated them. AMC II. EPA also must normally
justify determinations that a secondary material being recycled is not
a solid waste by showing how the determination is consistent with
RCRA's objective to ``establish a cradle-to-grave regulatory structure
for the safe handling of hazardous wastes.'' API, 906 F. 2d at 741.
b. July 28, 1994 Final Recovered Oil Rule. On July 28, 1994, EPA
finalized parts of the January 8, 1988 proposal pertaining to petroleum
refining industry operations. The proposal was based on the Court's
decision in AMC I. As noted, however, post-AMC I decisions make clear
that the statute
[[Page 57753]]
affords EPA great latitude to set the jurisdictional parameters of
RCRA. As a consequence, the final exclusion is more narrow than the one
proposed: it excludes a more limited set of materials, and imposes
greater restrictions on where the materials can be inserted within the
petroleum refining process.
In its January 1988 proposal, EPA did not distinguish between
recovered oil and oil-bearing hazardous sludges, nor did it distinguish
between the petroleum coker and other petroleum process units in
defining the scope of the proposed petroleum refining exclusion. In
contrast, in the July 28, 1994 rule, EPA limited the exclusion to
recovered oil from petroleum refining, exploration and production that
are inserted into the petroleum refining process prior to distillation
and catalytic cracking. Also, the final exclusion thus does not apply
to recovered oil reinserted into the petroleum coker.
(Sec. 261.4(a)(12)).
(1) Definition of Recovered Oil. Recovered oil, as defined in
Sec. 261.4(a)(12), includes materials that are primarily oil and that
are recovered from any phase of petroleum exploration, refining,
production, and transportation. As explained in the July 28, 1994 rule,
EPA limited the exclusion to recovered oil because recovered oil is
equivalent to the raw materials normally used in the petroleum refining
process in its composition and management.
The exclusion does not apply to hazardous oil-bearing sludges. EPA
reasoned that these materials are typically unlike raw materials
normally used in the petroleum refining process (i.e., crude oil).
First, oil-bearing sludges are not normally composed primarily of oil.
Additionally, the units in which they are managed (e.g., API
separators, DAF units, land treatment units and surface impoundments)
are not parts of the refining process, but instead function as waste
holding and treatment units. Finally, EPA cited damage incidents
associated with management of such materials as confirmation that these
materials can be part of the waste disposal problem.
(2) Limitation on Point of Insertion. The final recovered oil
exclusion does not apply to recovered oil or other hazardous oil-
bearing secondary materials that are inserted into the petroleum coker.
EPA decided not to exclude materials that are recycled in the petroleum
coker because of concerns about the fate of the hazardous constituents
that may be contained in the recovered oil. As stated in the preamble
to the recovered oil rule, the Agency was concerned that toxic
constituents could end up in the coke product in quantities that could
be harmful to human health and the environment when the coke is burned
as a fuel. See 59 FR 38542, July 28, 1994. EPA had limited data on the
composition of hazardous oil-bearing residuals compared to normal coker
feed and was concerned that additional toxic constituents (e.g., heavy
metals) that may be present in these secondary materials could be
discarded by simple incorporation into the coke product, in which case
the coke could be part of the waste disposal problem when burned.
The Agency therefore retained jurisdiction over recovered oil, and
other hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials that are inserted into
the petroleum coker. Cokers that receive hazardous oil-bearing waste as
a feedstock are currently not subject to regulation under RCRA,
however. (59 FR 38542, July 28, 1994.) (See also May 3, 1995 letter to
Ralph J. Colleli, API Counsel, from Michael Shapiro, Director, Office
of Solid Waste).
2. Proposed Amendments To Address Hazardous Residuals Returned to the
Refining Process
a. Summary of Proposed Amendments. In the preamble to the final
recovered oil rule, EPA indicated that the rulemaking was not
necessarily its final disposition of jurisdictional issues relating to
the petroleum industry, and that further exclusions might be warranted
after additional study (59 FR 38536, and 38541, July 28, 1994). Since
promulgation of the recovered oil rule, EPA has received numerous
comments from petroleum industry representatives objecting to the
Agency's decision to narrow the scope of the originally proposed
exclusion. Industry representatives continue to assert that cokers are
an integral part of the petroleum refining process and that the
practice of recycling oil-bearing secondary materials (including
recovered oil) as feed to petroleum cokers, or elsewhere to the
refining process, falls outside of RCRA jurisdiction. In light of these
comments, and as part of its continued efforts to define more clearly
the scope of RCRA jurisdiction within the petroleum industry, EPA has
reviewed its position regarding whether exclusions should apply only to
recovered oil and whether reinsertion into petroleum cokers as well as
earlier parts of the refining process should be excluded.
Accordingly, the Agency has reevaluated existing information on
oil-bearing residuals and their use in the petroleum refining process.
In particular, EPA has reviewed existing information on the composition
of oil-bearing refinery residuals and the fate of toxic constituents
contained in secondary materials that are reinserted into the coker. In
addition, the Agency has obtained more detailed information from the
petroleum refining industry on the coking process itself. The Agency's
analysis, which is discussed in detail below, supports broadening the
existing recovered oil exclusion. Therefore, EPA is today proposing to
expand the recovered oil exclusion to cover all oil-bearing secondary
materials that are generated within the petroleum refining industry and
are reinserted into the petroleum refining process (including
distillation, catalytic cracking, fractionation, or thermal cracking
(i.e., coking)).
Under today's proposal, Sec. 261.4(a)(12) would be revised to
provide that oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum industry
sources that are inserted into the petroleum refining process
(including the coker) along with normal process streams would be
excluded from the definition of solid waste, if the material is not
stored in a manner involving placement on the land, or accumulated
speculatively before being recycled and (if insertion is into the
coker) if the coke product does not exceed characteristically hazardous
levels. More specifically, today's proposed exclusion would cover oil-
bearing secondary materials that are generated on-site at refineries,
transported intracompany from off-site, or received from any off-site
facilities (intercompany transfers) in the following SIC codes: 1311,
1321, 1381, 1382, 1389 (oil and gas extraction), 2911 (petroleum
refining), 4612 and 4613 (crude oil and refined petroleum pipelines),
4922 and 4923 (natural gas transmission and distribution), 4789
(independent pipeline operators), and 5171 and 5172 (petroleum product
bulk stations and terminals). It should be noted that certain existing
exclusions provided under Sec. 261.6 that pertain specifically to
petroleum refining wastes would become unnecessary as a result of
today's proposal. The Agency will amend these provisions as necessary
in its final rulemaking.
Today's proposal would not effect the current regulatory status of
petroleum refinery wastewaters. EPA considers refinery wastewaters to
be discarded materials and therefore solid wastes potentially subject
to regulation under RCRA (59 FR 38539, July 28, 1994). Likewise,
wastewater treatment systems in which RCRA hazardous wastes are managed
would continue to be subject to regulation as hazardous waste
management units or exempt under 40 CFR 264.1 under today's proposal.
[[Page 57754]]
Today's proposed exclusion would also be expanded to include
recovered oil that is generated from certain organic chemical industry
operations and inserted into a petroleum refining process along with
normal process streams.
b. Rationale for Proposed Amendments. (1) Exclusion for Oil-Bearing
Residuals Returned to Refining Process. Today's proposed exclusion
applies to any oil-bearing residual material from any phase of
petroleum exploration, refining, transport or marketing that is
inserted directly into any part of the refining process. These
materials are most likely to be inserted into the petroleum coker, and
the basis for this proposed exclusion is discussed at length below.
Materials inserted elsewhere into the refining process are likely to
already be recovered oil, and hence to be excluded, or to so closely
resemble recovered oil as to fit the rationale of the existing rule, if
not its exact literal language. Thus, with respect to insertion into
parts of the refining process other than coking, extending the
exclusion to all oil-bearing materials largely avoids unproductive
disputes about what is and is not recovered oil, and leaves refineries
with maximum flexibility as to the best part of the process to reinsert
oil-rich residuals.
(2) Proposed Exclusion for Oil-Bearing Materials Inserted into
Petroleum Coking. Role of the Petroleum Coker in the Petroleum Refining
Process. EPA decided in the July 1994 rule not to exclude hazardous
oil-bearing secondary materials that are inserted into the coking
process until the Agency studied further whether the coker may be
functioning, at least in part, as a waste management unit in these
cases (59 FR 38542, July 28, 1994). A more detailed review of the
coking process has since convinced EPA that the coker is in fact an
integral part of the petroleum refining process and is similar to other
refining processes such as distillation and catalytic cracking. The
coker is normally located on-site and typically processes oil-bearing
materials that are generated on-site. The petroleum coker contributes
significant revenue to the refinery primarily through upgrading of
lower value hydrocarbons into light ends that are used to produce more
valuable product fuels. While coke is a co-product of the coking
process, the primary purpose of the coker is, in fact, to thermally
convert longer-chain hydrocarbons to recover the more valuable middle
and light end hydrocarbons that are used to produce high grade fuels
(e.g., gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, etc.). The typical coker yield is
about 25%-30% petroleum coke and 70% light hydrocarbons that are
returned to the refining process to produce high grade fuels. The
importance of the coker to the refining process is illustrated by the
fact that the coking operation may determine the economic viability of
the refinery. Given that the coker is a crucial unit in the refining
process, industry representatives assert and the Agency believes that
it is highly unlikely that refinery owners or operators would allow any
incompatible materials to be inserted into the coker for fear of
interfering with proper operation of the coker. It is also significant
that, consistent with EPA's finding that cokers are considered process
units for purposes of today's proposed exclusion, cokers are also
viewed as process units under recently issued Clean Air Act (CAA)
regulations and that emissions from cokers are subject to regulations
under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR 63 Subpart CC; 60 FR 43244, August 18,
1995).
Hazardous Oil-bearing Residuals Compared to Normal Coker Feed. EPA
also initially decided not to exclude recovered oil and other oil-
bearing hazardous materials used to produce petroleum coke because of
concerns that toxic metals contained in these materials are being
disposed of by incorporation into a coke product. At the time the
recovered oil rule was published, the Agency had only limited data
indicating that oil-bearing hazardous residuals do not contain
significantly different amounts of toxic constituents from the heavy
petroleum residuals that are normally fed to the petroleum coker, but
was uncertain of the representativeness of the information. The Agency
has since received some additional data on the composition of oil-
bearing hazardous sludges relative to crude oil residuals that are
typically fed to the coker which supports industry's claim that oil-
bearing sludges generated during the refining process are substantially
similar to normal coker feedstock material.2 At this time, all of
the data in EPA's possession indicates that the recycling of oil-
bearing residuals can be accomplished without raising hazardous
constituent (e.g., heavy metal) concentrations to levels of concern in
the final coke product. To guard against this possibility, the Agency
is limiting this exclusion to the production of coke which does not
exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous waste. This is consistent
with the thrust of RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A) which subjects certain
petroleum refinery wastes converted into petroleum coke to regulation
if the resulting coke exhibits a characteristic.
\2\ See October 8, 1993 and October 13, 1993 letters from Mark
A. Smith (Unocal) to James R. Berlow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another significant consideration bearing on today's proposal is
the fact that hazardous oil-bearing sludges constitute only a very
small fraction of the total residual materials that are generated by
the petroleum refining process and inserted back into the refinery for
further processing. Due to process limitations, hazardous oil-bearing
materials comprise only about 1-3% of the total amount of refining
residuals that are routinely fed to the coker according to industry
representatives.
Additionally, EPA has found that hazardous oil-bearing refinery
sludges are managed in much the same way as are non-regulated crude oil
residuals prior to insertion into the petroleum coker. In a typical
petroleum refinery operation, refinery residuals (e.g., K048-52) that
are inserted into petroleum cokers are transferred from wastewater
treatment tanks to the coker via a closed system. The wastewater
treatment tanks in which the residuals are initially stored are exempt
from Subtitle C regulation. (See 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6).) The residuals are
typically transferred from exempt wastewater treatment tanks via hard
pipe or tank trucks to stationary tanks or containers where oil is
recovered and/or the secondary materials are prepared for insertion
into the coker. Since the residuals are not ordinarily stored in stand
alone storage tanks but are instead transferred directly to process
tanks and containers (i.e., centrifuge systems, desorption units, etc.)
EPA does not believe that storage of the residuals prior to reinsertion
into the refining process poses hazards to human health or environment.
In addition, American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards
governing design, construction, operation, maintenance and inspection
of petroleum terminal and tank facilities help to ensure
environmentally protective management storage of the in-process
residuals prior to reinsertion into the coker or other parts of the
refinery.
Furthermore, data on the composition of the coke product indicate
that use of oil-bearing secondary materials has little, if any, impact
on the quality and/or properties of the resulting coke. In particular,
EPA has information which indicates that levels of toxic metals in coke
produced from oil-bearing sludges are comparable to those found in coke
[[Page 57755]]
produced strictly from crude oil residuum.3
\3\ See February 2, 1993 data submission from Mobil Oil
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, coke product is subject both to regulatory requirements
and certain limited industry product specifications, a fact that serves
to ensure the quality of the coke product. The statute and existing
regulations provide that coke product derived from a hazardous waste
which exhibits a hazardous characteristic (as determined by application
of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) is subject to
regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA. See RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A)
and 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii). EPA would retain this provision under
today's proposal as a means of ensuring that reinsertion of these
materials is not part of the waste disposal problem. See generally AMC
II, supra. Coke is also subject to product standards established by the
American Society for Testing of Materials' (ASTM) for volatile matter
and ash content. Taken together, these controls help to ensure that
coke product does not contain unsafe levels of toxic contaminants.
Restrictions on Land Placement and Speculative Accumulation.
Today's proposed exclusions do not apply to oil-bearing hazardous
secondary materials that are placed in land-based hazardous waste
management units such as surface impoundments or land treatment units.
The Agency considers materials placed in such units to be discarded,
and hence solid wastes. Land-based units that contain hazardous oil-
bearing residuals would remain subject to Subtitle C requirements under
today's proposal. AMC II, 907 F. 2d at 1186-87. In addition, any
material that spills from tanks and containers and is not expeditiously
retrieved for reinsertion is a solid waste and, if listed or
characteristic, a hazardous waste. See Sec. 261.33(d) and 55 FR 22671,
June 1, 1990.
Today's proposed exclusion also does not apply to oil-bearing
secondary materials that are accumulated speculatively (as defined in
Sec. 261.1(c)(8)) before being recycled into a petroleum refining
process. Under RCRA, secondary materials that are accumulated
speculatively are considered to be discarded and hence solid waste. EPA
applies this standard condition to otherwise excluded secondary
materials to prevent risks from prolonged storage of the material
before recycling. See 50 FR 634-635, 658-661, Jan. 4, 1985.
Restrictions on Petroleum Coke Produced From Hazardous Oil-Bearing
Secondary Materials. Under the current regulations, petroleum coke
produced from hazardous oil-bearing refinery wastes is excluded from
regulation under RCRA provided that the resulting coke product does not
exceed one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste in part
261, Subpart C (Sec. 261.6(a)(3)(vii)). Under today's proposal, EPA
would continue to regulate coke that exhibits a characteristic as
hazardous if the coke is produced from oil-bearing residuals that are
excluded from regulation because they are reinserted into the refining
process, but are otherwise regulated as hazardous waste. In addition,
EPA is proposing to condition the exclusion for oil-bearing residuals
that are inserted into the coker on the requirement that coke produced
from these materials not exceed characteristic levels. In other words,
the exclusion would not apply to secondary materials that, if recycled,
would result in coke that exhibits a characteristic. To do otherwise,
as noted, would lead to situations where management of oil-bearing
residues becomes part of the waste management problem by tainting the
coke. EPA thus is proposing these conditions to ensure that coke
produced from otherwise excluded oil-bearing secondary materials will
not contain toxic constituents in quantities that could be harmful to
human health and the environment when the coke is burned so as to
assure that the proposed exclusion does not undermine RCRA's cradle-to-
grave purpose. API, 906 F.2d at 741; RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A). EPA
requests comment on the adequacy of the TCLP for this purpose.
Materials That Are Deemed To Be Inherently Waste-Like. The existing
regulations provide EPA with authority to designate as solid wastes
materials that are inherently waste-like regardless of the mode of
recycling. (See Sec. 261.2(d).) Under current regulations, the Agency
may designate materials as inherently waste-like either because they
are typically disposed of or incinerated on an industry-wide basis or
they contain toxic constituents not normally found in the raw materials
or products for which they are being substituted (50 FR 637, January 4,
1985). Therefore, while EPA is proposing to generally exclude hazardous
oil-bearing refinery residuals that are returned to the petroleum
refining process, the Agency retains the authority to regulate specific
waste-streams as ``inherently waste-like'' if it finds that particular
petroleum refining residuals contain high levels of toxic constituents
that are not ordinarily found in the normal coker feed and do not
contribute to the product.
Regulatory Status of Petroleum Refinery Wastewater and Wastewater
Treatment Operations. Under today's proposal petroleum refining
wastewaters would continue to be subject to regulation as solid wastes
under RCRA. Petroleum industry representatives have argued in public
comments submitted in response to both the January 8, 1988 proposal and
the July 28, 1994 final recovered oil rule, that plant wastewaters
containing oil are not solid wastes. Industry representatives contend
that primary wastewater treatment operations in which oil is skimmed
and oil-bearing sludges are separated from plant waters are part of the
ongoing refining process.
EPA has considered this argument but does not agree for the
following reasons. First, petroleum refining wastewaters differ from
both recovered oil and oily sludges that are separated from the
wastewaters in that, unlike these secondary materials, the wastewaters
themselves are not analogous in composition to normal petroleum
refining feedstock material and consequently are not reinserted into
the petroleum refining process to produce petroleum products. Instead,
petroleum refining wastewaters from which oily materials have been
removed are discharged, and are thus not eligible for exclusion as a
petroleum refining process feed.
Second, as explained in the preamble to the recovered oil rule,
primary wastewater treatment operations exist to treat plant
wastewater. The main purpose of wastewater treatment is to purify
discarded wastewaters from the refining process so that they can
ultimately be discharged pursuant to Clean Water Act requirements, not
to recover secondary materials for recycling back into an ongoing
manufacturing or industrial process. See 59 FR 38539, July 28, 1994.
A final and equally important consideration in EPA's decision not
to exclude refinery wastewaters from regulation is that regulation of
these wastewaters ensures treatment of hazardous constituents in
characteristic wastestreams that are managed in wastewater treatment
impoundments (e.g., impoundments in which biological treatment occurs)
in accordance with the land disposal restriction (LDR) requirements of
Part 268. See 59 FR 38540.
Recovered Oil From Co-Located Petroleum Refineries and
Petrochemical Facilities. EPA is also today proposing to add an
exclusion at Sec. 261.12(a)(13) for recovered oil that is generated by
certain
[[Page 57756]]
organic chemical industry operations and inserted into petroleum
refining processes provided that the conditions discussed above are met
(i.e., provided that the recovered oil is not stored in a manner
involving placement on the land, or accumulated speculatively before
being recycled and that (if insertion is into the coker) coke product
does not exceed characteristically hazardous levels).
The final recovered oil exclusion does not currently apply to
recovered oil from organic chemical industry operations except in cases
where petrochemical and petroleum refining operations share a common
wastewater treatment system (where wastewater from petrochemical
processing units typically comprises only small percentage of the total
refinery wastewater volume). In these cases, given the predominance of
petroleum refining wastewater, the Agency believes that the recovered
oil exclusion appropriately applies to oil recovered from shared
petrochemical/petroleum refining wastewater treatment systems.4
The Agency did not more broadly exclude recovered oil from organic
chemical operations in its final recovered oil rule because of concerns
about additional toxic constituents that may be present in oil
recovered from petrochemical processing residuals (i.e., the exclusion
is provided on the premise that the oil-rich materials in question
contain the same constituents as normal refining process streams).
\4\ May 3, 1995 letter from Michael Shapiro (EPA) to Ralph J.
Colleli, Jr. (API).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is aware, however, that some petrochemical facilities recover
oil separately from their process streams and send it to petroleum
refineries for insertion into the refining process. This practice
typically occurs between petroleum refineries and chemical operations
that are either co-located or owned by the same company. The oil
recovered from petrochemical operations typically comes from ``dry''
process streams, i.e., hydrocarbon streams with little or no water
content that are recovered outside of wastewater treatment systems. It
is generally composed of hydrocarbons that originate from, or are
derived from, feedstocks supplied by the petroleum industry.
Since promulgation of the final recovered oil rule in July 1994,
the Agency has received compelling information from the chemical
manufacturing industry indicating that the recovered oil from these
organic chemical industry operations is comparable to oil recovered
from petroleum refining operations.5 Based on this information,
which is described in detail below, the Agency is proposing to exclude
oil that is recovered from petrochemical operations and inserted into
co-located or commonly owned petroleum refining operations.
\5\ September 13, 1995 letter to Becky Daiss (Office of Solid
Waste) from Michael W. Steinberg (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and July
31, 1995 letter to Steven E. Silverman (U.S. EPA, Office of General
Counsel) from Michael W. Steinberg (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific reasons for the proposed petrochemical exclusion are
as follows. First, chemical industry representatives have argued and
EPA agrees that the need to closely control petroleum product quality
makes it unlikely that the recovered oil from the dry organic chemical
plant streams covered by the proposed exclusion would contain toxic
contaminants not otherwise found in petroleum feedstock. The presence
of non-hydrocarbon contaminants in the recovered oil can jeopardize the
integrity of the refined product. Product quality problems (e.g.,
solids or potential gum-forming problems in automobile fuel injection
or carburetor systems) can, in turn, have a widespread impact both on
customers and the refiners because of the extensive distribution
network in the industry. In addition, quality of the recovered oil
feedstock is important to the integrity of the refining process itself
(e.g., some chemicals and metals can cause equipment fouling and costly
downtime at refineries).
Precautions are therefore taken to ensure that recovered oil from
petrochemical plants does not contain contaminants that may adversely
affect the quality of refinery products or cause equipment and catalyst
fouling process unit downtime within refineries. Recovered oil from
organic chemical operations is segregated from other by-product or
waste streams generated by petrochemical plants. In addition, the
petrochemical recovered oil streams, which are generally aggregated on-
site, are routinely analyzed before being sent to the petroleum
refinery for use as a feedstock to ensure that the recovered oil does
not include toxic contaminants beyond those found in normal petroleum
refining process streams. Recovered oil quality parameters include bulk
solids and water content, bromine number (an indicator of olefin
content and potential fouling due to polymerization) and specific
gravity.
Second, the Agency has received sampling and analytical data that
supports industry's premise that recovered oil from petrochemical and
petroleum refining operations is similar in composition and that,
consequently, petrochemical recovered oil is suitable for insertion
into the petroleum refining process. The data provides a comparison
between recovered oil samples from co-owned petrochemical and petroleum
refining operations on key parameters including specific gravity,
distillation temperature ranges, flash point, hydrocarbon type, and
sulfur, ash, and total chlorine content. The analysis indicates that
the petrochemical recovered oil is comprised essentially of
hydrocarbons that are within a refinery's distillation range and
hydrocarbon type. The refinery and chemical plant recovered oil samples
were also compared against the Agency's used oil fuel specification.
The used oil specification includes levels for arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and flash point. Used oil that is within the specified
limits is considered by EPA to be comparable to crude oil for
regulatory purposes. The analysis of all recovered oil samples
indicates that arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and total halogen
levels are well below the used oil fuel specification. The
petrochemical recovered oil samples were below detection limits for the
specified contaminants. Flash points of both types of recovered oil
were also well below the used oil specification minimum.
EPA requests comment on today's proposed exclusion for recovered
oil that is generated by organic chemical plants and inserted into co-
located or commonly owned petroleum refining processes along with
normal refining process streams. Today's proposal is based on a very
limited set of data. To ensure that the data are representative of the
industry, the Agency is soliciting additional data on the composition
of recovered oil from petrochemical operations that is typically sent
to petroleum refineries. Additionally, EPA may consider broadening the
proposed exclusion to include recovered oil from plastic materials and
resins manufacturers (SIC Code 2821), synthetic rubber manufacturers
(SIC Code 2822), and cyclic crude and intermediate producers (SIC Code
2865) if the Agency receives sufficient analytical data to support such
an extension. Finally, EPA also solicits additional information on
refinery limitations that serve to preclude introduction of toxic
constituents from recovered oil from chemical manufacturing operations.
F. Description of Health and Risk Assessments
In determining whether wastes generated from petroleum refining
[[Page 57757]]
operations meet the criteria for listing a waste as hazardous as set
out at 40 CFR 261.11, the Agency evaluated the potential toxicity and
intrinsic hazard of constituents present in the wastes, the fate and
mobility of these chemicals, the likely exposure routes, and the
current waste management practices. A quantitative risk assessment was
conducted for those wastes where the available information made such an
assessment possible.
1. Human Health Criteria and Effects
The Agency uses health-based levels, or HBLs, as a means for
evaluating the level of concern of toxic constituents in various media.
In the development of HBLs, EPA first must determine exposure levels
that are protective of human health and the environment, then apply
standard exposure assumptions to develop media-specific levels. EPA
uses the following hierarchy for evaluating human health effects data
and health-based standards in establishing chemical specific HBLs:
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is used as the HBL for
the ingestion of the constituent in water, when it exists. MCLs are
promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, as
amended in 1986, and consider technology and economic feasibility as
well as health effects.
Agency-verified Reference Doses (RfDs) or Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) are used in calculating HBLs for noncarcinogens
and verified carcinogenic slope factors (CSFs) in calculating HBLs for
carcinogens. Agency-verified RfDs, RfCs, and CSFs and the bases for
these values are presented in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS).
RfDs, RfCs, or CSFs are used which are calculated by
standard methods but not verified by the Agency. These values can be
found in a number of different types of Agency documents and EPA used
the following hierarchy when reviewing these documents: Health Effects
Assessment Tables (HEAST); Human Health Assessment Group for
Carcinogens; Health Assessment Summaries (HEAs) and Health and
Environmental Effects Profiles (HEEPs); and Health and Environmental
Effects Documents (HEEDs).
Use RfDs or CSFs that are calculated by alternative
methods, such as surrogate analyses, including structure activity
analysis, and toxicity equivalency.
a. 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene. 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene was identified in
the record samples. EPA has adequate toxicological information to
develop a provisional health benchmark (i.e., RfD). The Agency has
developed a provisional RfD of 0.05 mg/kg/day for 1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene using a subchronic oral rat study, along with other
toxicological studies. In addition, the Agency has determined that the
provisional RfD developed for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene is an appropriate
benchmark for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. These studies and the Agency's
supporting analysis for the provisional RfD can be found in the docket
supporting this rule. The Agency has conducted limited external peer
review of the provisional RfD and it is therefore subject to change.
A number of assumptions and extrapolations are used to derive the
provisional RfD, including extrapolating from short-term animal studies
to a chronic human exposure, and the selection of the critical study on
which to develop a health benchmark. The Agency requests comments on
the appropriateness of the provisional RfD and requests any additional
data on the toxicity of 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene.
b. Use of Structure-Activity Relationships. There are 15
constituents identified in the record samples for which EPA has found
no reliable health effects data to calculate health benchmarks for
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals. Because of the lack of
health effects data on these constituents, the Agency used a structure-
activity analysis to identify surrogate chemicals, where possible, that
have reliable health benchmarks for use in the risk assessment. The
approach involves identifying a surrogate chemical that has similar
chemical structure, physical properties, and health effects information
as that of the constituent for which human health data and animal data
are either lacking or inadequate. The Agency used the surrogate health
benchmarks in the risk analysis to assess the potential impacts of the
constituents without benchmarks found in the wastestreams for the
following five constituents: 1-methylnaphthalene; t-butylbenzene;
butylbenzene; sec-butylbenzene; and 2-hexanone. The risk analysis did
not include an evaluation of potential impacts from the following
constituents because no appropriate surrogates with health benchmarks
could be found: indene; 2-methylnaphthalene; n-propylbenzene;
bromobenzene; dibenzofuran; aluminum (+3); cobalt; magnesium hydroxide;
magnesium oxide; and iron oxide. Based on this assessment none of these
constituents were of concern in any of the listing decisions in today's
proposal. Further discussion of this approach can be found in the
docket supporting this rule. The Agency is planning to conduct a peer
review of the surrogate analysis and, therefore, the health benchmark
is subject to change. See ADDRESSES section. The Agency requests
comment on this approach, and any additional toxicity information on
these compounds.
c. Use of Relative Potencies for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The Agency has a verified cancer slope factor available for
only one PAH, benzo(a)pyrene. For the remaining PAHs evaluated in the
risk assessment supporting this rule, the Agency used two methods to
quantitatively estimate the relative potencies of other PAHs. The first
method, developed by EPA's Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, is interim guidance for the quantitative risk assessment of
six PAHs. This guidance uses data from mouse studies to develop
relative carcinogenic potency estimates relative to benzo(a)pyrene. A
detailed description of the methodology and resulting rankings can be
found in ``Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons,'' included in the docket supporting
today's rule. The second method the Agency used for the risk assessment
is a semi-quantitative scoring exercise organized by the Office of
Pesticides, Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances. In this method,
experts independently reviewed available data and reached consensus
scoring on an additional 101 PAHs in terms of the compound's relative
potency using benzo(a)pyrene as the reference compound. The Agency
seeks comments on the uncertainties and limitations of both methods. A
more detailed discussion of the two methods can be found in the docket
supporting today's rule.
All HBLs and their bases for this listing determination are
provided in a document entitled ``Assessments of Risks from the
Management of Petroleum Refining Waste: Background Document,'' which
can be found in the RCRA docket for this rule at EPA Headquarters (see
ADDRESSES section).
2. Risk Analysis
a. Risk Characterization Approach. The risk characterization
approach follows the EPA Guidance on Risk Characterization (Habicht,
1992), and Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA Risk Assessment Council,
1991), and Guidance for Risk Characterization (EPA Science Policy
Council, 1995). These guidance documents specify that EPA risk
assessments will be expected to include (1) the central tendency and
high-end portions of the risk
[[Page 57758]]
distribution, and (2) important subgroups of the populations such as
highly susceptible groups or individuals, if known, and (3) population
risk. In addition to the presentation of results, these guidance
documents also specifies that the results portray a reasonable picture
of the actual or projected exposures with a discussion of
uncertainties. These documents are available in the public docket for
this action (see ADDRESSES section).
b. Individual Risk. Individual risk descriptors are intended to
convey information about the risk borne by individuals within a
specified population and subpopulations. These risk descriptors are
used to answer questions concerning the affected population, and the
risk for individuals within a population of interest. The approach used
in this analysis for characterizing baseline individual risk included:
(1) identifying and describing the population of concern for an
exposure route; (2) determining the sensitivity of the model parameters
used in the risk estimation; (3) estimating central tendency and high-
end values for the most sensitive parameters in the risk estimation
procedures; and (4) calculating individual risk for likely exposure
pathways that provides a characterization of the central tendency and
high-end risk descriptor.
Descriptors of population risk are intended to convey information
about the risk borne by the population or population segment being
studied. These risk descriptors are used to answer questions concerning
the number of cases of a particular health effect that could occur
within the population during a given time period, the number of persons
or percent of the population above a certain risk level or health
benchmark (e.g., RfD or RfC), and risk for a particular population
segment.
The Agency performed a population risk analysis for impacts to the
affected community surrounding the refineries across the country. The
results of the analysis are discussed in Section VI.C.
c. Risk Assessment. The results of the risk assessment are
presented in waste-specific risk tables in each of the basis for
listing sections (Section III.G). The risk tables include the following
information: constituents of concern; estimated human health central
tendency and high-end risk for each constituent of concern associated
with the management scenarios; high, low, and average concentrations of
constituents found in this waste; the number of samples in which the
constituent was detected; and notes regarding potential sources of
uncertainty. In addition to assessing the risks associated with the
individual constituents found in the waste, the Agency presents the
combined potential risk of constituents that coexist in the waste, as
described in ``The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986,'' found in the
docket supporting today's rule. However, where sampling data or the
exposure analysis show compelling evidence that the constituents cannot
or do not occur together in the waste stream or at the receptor, the
Agency considered only the risk associated with the individual
constituent.
In addition to those compounds presented in the waste-specific risk
tables, the Agency's characterization data include other constituents
found in these wastes. The risk tables presented in this preamble
contain only those constituents which had adequate data for
quantitative risk assessment and which were found to present a risk of
concern. The complete list of constituents found in each of the wastes
generated from petroleum refining operations, an explanation of the
risk analysis process, and an explanation of EPA's development of the
target analyte list are presented in the background documents for this
rule, which are located in the RCRA Docket for this rulemaking (see
ADDRESSES section).
(1) Selection of Waste Management Scenarios. EPA's regulations at
261.11(a)(3)(vii) require the Agency to consider the risk associated
with ``the plausible types of improper management to which the waste
could be subjected'' because exposures to wastes (and therefore the
risks involved) will vary by waste management practice. The choice of
which ``plausible management scenario'' (or scenarios) to use in a
listing determination depends on a combination of factors which are
discussed in general terms in EPA's general policy statement on
hazardous waste listing determinations (59 FR 24530, December 22,
1994). EPA generally employed the elements of the policy in this
listing determination.
The following discussion explains the selection of plausible
management scenarios for the petroleum listing determination. The
Agency requests comment on its choice of plausible management scenarios
and on the possibility of using alternative plausible management
scenarios.
EPA's basic approach to selecting which waste management scenarios
to model for risk analysis in listing determinations is to examine
current management practices and assess whether or not other practices
are available and are reasonably expected to be used. Where a practice
is actually reported used, that practice is generally considered
``plausible'' and may be considered for potential risk. EPA then
evaluates which of these current or projected management practices for
each wastestream are likely to pose significant risk based on an
assessment of exposure pathways of concern associated with those
practices. There are common waste management practices, such as
landfilling, which the Agency generally presumes are universally
plausible for solid wastes and will assess it for risk. There are other
practices which are less common, such as land treatment, where EPA will
consider them plausible only where the disposal methods have been
reported to be practiced. In some situations, potential trends in waste
management for a specific industry suggest the Agency will need to
project ``plausible'' mismanagement even if it is not currently in use
in order to be protective of potential changes in management and
therefore in potential risk. Finally, there may be situations where
analysis shows no need to model any scenarios because, although
considered plausible management, no exposure potential exists.
In its study of the petroleum refining industry, EPA was able to
develop a comprehensive database of existing waste management
practices. All U.S. refineries that EPA was aware of were sent a RCRA
section 3007 questionnaire and all the active ones responded. This
allowed the Agency to conduct a careful analysis of how wastestreams
were managed in 1992. Based on discussions with industry, the Agency
also was able to project potential changes in these practices and thus
determine whether or not to include unused or little used practices in
the risk assessment.
Overall, the Agency found the reported waste management practices
for the industry to be numerous and varied. This required an assessment
of the existing (and potential) management of each wastestream to
determine which of those practices should be modeled for that
particular residual. Some wastestreams had special considerations
(e.g., rarity of practice, volumes managed, existing regulatory
coverage) associated with their management that had to be included in
the decision-making process. The description of such considerations is
included in the listing determination section for that wastestream.
Given the extensive amount of data collected for this industry, EPA
did not find it necessary to quantitatively model all currently used
waste management practices. Furthermore, for the reported management
practices that were
[[Page 57759]]
assessed for risk, EPA conducted risk analysis based on the volumes of
wastes reported to be managed by those practices in 1992. This is a
modification of EPA's general policy to consider plausible (and model)
all reported waste management practices. The reasons for the
modification, discussed in more detail later in this section, are:
1. Some practices involve very small volumes or very few generators
with a correspondingly low potential to cause unacceptable risk.
2. Some practices have proved in past listing determinations to
pose less risk than those more common practices (e.g., landfilling)
that were modeled. Therefore the modeled practices act as surrogates to
the less common, less risky alternatives.
3. Most of the reported management practices selected for modeling
are less expensive than other plausible alternatives (industry will
usually select and continue to use the less costly option) and
therefore there was no need to assess practices not currently used or
only rarely used.
4. The Agency was unable to model every reported management
practice for every metric ton of waste due to time and resource
constraints. However, EPA believes it has evaluated the practices
likely to be of most concern.
EPA's data show that the overwhelming volume of the wastestreams
that were actually disposed of (as opposed to being recycled or
reclaimed) involved three specific waste management practices:
discharge to a wastewater treatment plant, landfilling, and land
treatment. Each of these was reported to be currently in use by a
number of refineries.
(2) Disposal in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Exposure pathways and
potential risks associated with disposal of wastes to wastewater
treatment plants, which in this industry generally represents combined
wastestream treatment in tanks, are largely covered by regulation under
the NPDES or air permit programs. Furthermore, sludges generated by
refinery wastewater treatment systems, which could be affected by the
discharge of the wastestreams of concern in this listing, are already
listed hazardous wastes F037, F038, K048, and K051. The exception is
activated biological treatment (ABT) sludge and sludges generated
downstream of ABT units. These sludges can be disposed of in various
ways, including surface impoundments. However, activated biological
treatment sludge is not one of the residuals under consideration in
this listing. In addition, the volumes managed in the wastewater
treatment system of the residuals under consideration in this listing
are relatively small in comparison to the volumes typically handled in
refinery wastewater treatment systems. In addition, unlike most
refinery process wastewaters, these volumes are generated on an
intermittent (e.g., once a year) basis. The wastestreams of concern for
this listing would be considerably diluted by the other wastestreams
sent to the plant. Further, EPA has proposed that the risk associated
with disposal of these ABT and downstream sludges be covered by the
Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions treatment requirements (60 FR
43654, August 22, 1995). For these reasons, discharge of wastes covered
by the consent decree to wastewater treatment systems, although a
practiced management scenario, was not modeled for risk.
(3) Disposal in Landfills and Land Treatment Units. The principal
waste management practices chosen for modeling the residuals in this
listing determination were off-site and on-site Subtitle D landfilling
and treatment in off-site and on-site land treatment units (LTUs).
These disposal practices were reported in the Section 3007
questionnaire survey to be in use by a large percentage of refineries
and for a large proportion of the total volume discarded. Therefore,
EPA modeled both direct and indirect exposure pathways associated with
these two waste management practices.
For on-site landfills and LTUs, the Agency used the data submitted
by industry in the Section 3007 questionnaire to characterize the units
in terms of the waste quantities disposed, surface area of disposal
units, and distances to receptors. For off-site landfills and LTUs, the
Agency used characteristics based on a statistical analysis of existing
Subtitle D land treatment facilities, from the Agency's ``Industrial
Subtitle D Facility Study'' (October 20, 1986).
The Agency modeled the releases from the disposal of wastes in on-
site and off-site land treatment units by partitioning the constituents
of concern between several fate and transport processes. These releases
include the following: volatilization to the air, leaching to ground
water, erosion of soil and runoff of dissolved constituents to nearby
land and surface water bodies, and biodegradation. For the screening or
bounding estimates, the Agency assumed that no partitioning or
biodegradation occurred, thus maximizing releases to all media; for
example, for the groundwater pathway's bounding analysis, TCLP results
were used as model inputs. For the central and high-end estimates of
risk, the Agency modeled the partitioning of these releases from the
land treatment units to derive annual concentrations in the media.
Biodegradation losses were calculated using data on constituent half-
life in the environment. The Agency's groundwater risk analysis used
the estimated leaching concentrations from this analysis, instead of
TCLP data, as the starting concentration in which to estimate
groundwater concentrations at a receptor well. The TCLP data that the
Agency collected estimate the concentration of the constituents
leaching from the waste samples in a landfill management scenario. The
Agency evaluated the land treatment scenario on a soil/waste mixture
for which the Agency did not have TCLP data and, therefore, relied on
the results of the partitioning analysis. A more detailed discussion of
the release processes for land treatment units is presented in the
``Assessment of Risks From the Management of Petroleum Refining Wastes:
Background Document'' in the docket supporting today's proposal.
(4) Other Disposal Practices Reported. There were other, less
commonly employed waste management practices reported in the petroleum
refining industry. Several residuals had ten or more different
management practices reported as ``in use.'' For most of them, EPA has
concluded that although they are used in the petroleum refining
industry, they are not management scenarios that need to be assessed
for risk. For example, there were ten reported management practices for
HF alkylation sludge. Four of these (representing 75% of the reported
waste volume) involved land treatment or disposal in a landfill and
were modeled for risk. One practice was on-site recovery in the coking
unit (12% of reported waste volume), two others involved practices
since terminated (10% of reported waste volume), and the remainder of
management practices involved discharge to the wastewater treatment
plant. These latter practices were not modeled. The factors the Agency
considered in deciding whether or not the less common disposal
practices should be modeled are:
i. Coverage of the characterization program. The comprehensive
nature of EPA's petroleum refining database allowed the Agency to
develop an in depth knowledge of the amounts of waste generated and the
final management practices employed by the petroleum refining industry.
In
[[Page 57760]]
particular, a very high percentage (more than 80 percent of the total
volume) of these wastestreams either were reused, reclaimed, or
recycled or were disposed of using landfilling or land treatment (more
than 50 percent of the remaining volume), suggesting that there are
financial and practical incentives to handle wastes using the methods
reported. These incentives were assumed to be constraints.
Moreover, the information indicated that aside from recycling,
landfilling, and land treatment, most reported management practices
involved low volumes of waste that would be of significantly less
concern in terms of risk. If possible given the potential risks
involved, EPA tries not to base listing determinations on disposal
practices employed by a very small segment of an industry producing low
volumes of waste as this can penalize unnecessarily, without a
concomitant benefit in actual risk reduction, the vast majority of
generators who dispose of the bulk of the wastes generated in less
risky ways. For example, if one plant reported one metric ton of a
wastestream as used as dust suppressant, but thousands of tons of that
wastestream were reported as landfilled by a number of other plants,
EPA would likely conclude that dust suppression, although nominally in
use, is not a practice that should be assessed for risk. In fact, EPA
was unable, due to resource and time constraints, to cover all waste
volumes reported with the plausible management scenarios selected for
modeling. Therefore, there are some reported management practices that
were not formally evaluated using predictive risk assessment models
after EPA judged them unlikely to be significant. Less formal
projections of potential risk were made for some management scenarios.
Also, experience in previous listings has indicated some waste
management practices show more risk than others. Therefore, if EPA
calculates risk for the usually more risky management scenario, the
risk from other scenarios will probably be lower.
ii. Effect of other regulatory programs. For some wastestreams and
their reported waste management practices, EPA concluded that existing
regulatory programs provided a level of regulatory coverage that
rendered further assessment of risk unnecessary. Many of these
wastestreams are often characteristically hazardous. In fact, the
Agency concluded that many of the wastestreams that were disposed of in
Subtitle C management facilities were sent there specifically because
they were characteristically hazardous wastes. Therefore, EPA believes
that the volumes sent to Subtitle C facilities would continue to be
handled in that way.
iii. Management costs. Where one management practice is generally
more expensive than another, cost becomes a factor in EPA's assessment
of whether or not that practice should be considered plausible. In this
industry, the Agency generally found that the lower cost management
option was currently the one employed and that factor further suggested
existing management practices would not change. The principal example
is incineration, which is a higher cost option than landfilling or land
treating. Little direct incineration of wastestreams was reported by
the industry. EPA concluded there was a negative cost incentive for the
industry to switch to incineration of these wastestreams. Additionally,
the petroleum refining industry reported little disposal of these
wastestreams in surface impoundments. Due to the industry's heavy
investment in wastewater treatment tanks, there appears to be little
incentive to switch to surface impoundments to treat and dispose of
wastestreams. Therefore, EPA only modeled surface impoundments in its
risk assessment for one wastestream.
Because of all of these factors, EPA determined it was unnecessary
either to project unreported management scenarios or to model many of
the infrequently reported management practices for this listing
determination. Instead, EPA determined it more appropriate to estimate
risk based on the most plausible, highest risk management practices and
therefore focused risk assessment modeling on landfilling and land
treatment.
During EPA's information collection process, it was pointed out to
the Agency that leaking tanks and refinery piping have been problems
for the petroleum industry and that exposures from such sources should
be modeled. Although such unintentional spills are not management per
se, exposures from such sources could be a concern. For the major
liquid wastestreams evaluated in today's proposal (e.g., spent sulfuric
acid and spent caustic), spills and leaks already fall under the
hazardous waste management system because these wastes are typically
characteristically hazardous. This obviates the need for conducting a
risk assessment for such pathways. For other wastestreams, EPA
concluded that the selection of unlined landfilling as a plausible
management scenario could serve as a surrogate for such sources because
the exposure scenario would be roughly similar. Leaks and spills of
wastestreams would cause exposures similar to those caused by landfills
(for potential groundwater contamination) or land treatment units (for
runoff or windblown dust). Because EPA modeled those management
scenarios, the Agency concluded additional modeling of leaks and spills
is unnecessary. Furthermore, such leaks and spills are typically
intermittent and should not present the long-term exposure potential
presented by land disposal.
The Agency evaluated each of the residuals of concern to determine
whether it was appropriate to model interim storage methods (e.g.,
tanks, containers, etc.) that are typically employed prior to final
management (e.g., landfilling). In most cases, the Agency determined
that the predominant exposure risks were expected to be associated with
long-term final management methods and that it was unnecessary to model
short-term interim storage. For example, many of the residuals of
concern are generated infrequently: the typical generation frequency
for tank sludges is once every ten years per tank and the catalyst
residuals are only generated every 2 to 5 years. For these types of
infrequently generated residuals, the residuals are typically stored
on-site for a period of time comparable to the tank or unit turnaround.
The Agency observed that these turnaround periods are often only 4 to 6
weeks in duration. Several factors contribute to the refineries'
motivation to move the residuals out of short-term storage: (1) the
residuals are often staged in the immediate vicinity of the process
area, impeding movement for continued operations; (2) the containers
used to transport the residuals (e.g., flo-bins, dumpsters, roll-off
bins) are often rented and incur substantial cost during usage; and (3)
turnarounds are often contracted out and the refineries are financially
motivated to minimize the length of time that they must pay for
contractor services and equipment, including storage units.
Because the on-site storage period is so short for many of the
infrequently generated residuals of concern, the Agency felt that it
was more appropriate to focus on assessing risk from long-term
management of these types of residuals. For those residuals, however,
that are generated on a more frequent basis, the Agency did model
certain storage practices. For example, spent caustic is generated on a
continual or frequent basis and is generally stored in tanks prior to
further management. These tanks are in continual usage. The Agency
modeled potential air releases from these spent caustic storage tanks
because of the potential for continual
[[Page 57761]]
toxicant releases. Similarly, sludge from sulfur complex operations can
be generated on a regular basis (e.g., weekly) and the Agency observed
facilities that maintain storage areas in the process units for
dumpsters used to accumulate filter cartridges. This practice also
poses the potential for ongoing air emissions and was modeled in EPA's
risk assessment.
Finally, the Agency notes that residuals from refining are, due to
their very nature, often reusable. They can be recycled, sold, or
transferred to other facilities. The disposition of these reusable
wastes is described in Section III.E. of this preamble. Because these
residuals are currently exempt or are proposed to be excluded from the
hazardous waste management system, exposures associated with their
management were not modeled in this listing determination. However, for
the wastestreams managed in an exempt manner that were assessed in this
listing determination, EPA has done qualitative risk analysis. Those
qualitative risk evaluations are described in the listing decision
rationales for the appropriate individual wastestream. Additionally,
the Agency did model air pathways for certain wastestreams when on-site
storage tanks were projected to be a potential source of air risk.
(5) Exposure Scenarios. The scenarios (i.e., receptors) included in
the risk assessment include adult resident, child resident, subsistence
fisher, recreational fisher, subsistence farmer, home gardener, and
consumers of ground water.
Adult Resident Applicable exposure pathways for the adult resident
include incidental ingestion of contaminated soil and direct inhalation
of vapors and particulates.
Child Resident Exposure pathways for the child resident are
identical to those for the adult resident. The rate of incidental soil
ingestion for the child, however, is twice that for an adult.
Recreational Fisher Applicable exposure pathways for the
recreational fisher include ingestion of contaminated fish, in addition
to exposure pathways of an adult resident (i.e., incidental ingestion
of contaminated soil, and direct inhalation of vapors and
particulates). Risks calculated for the recreational fisher were found
to be predominantly driven by the incidental ingestion of contaminated
soil; risks estimated through the ingestion of contaminated fish were
negligible by comparison. While the results for the recreational fisher
are presented in the risk assessment background document, they are not
presented in the preamble. The Agency is not using the subsistence
fisher scenario to support the listing determination proposed today.
Subsistence Fisher Applicable exposure pathways for the subsistence
fisher include ingestion of contaminated fish, in addition to exposure
pathways of an adult resident (i.e., incidental ingestion of
contaminated soil, and direct inhalation of vapors and particulates).
The rate of ingestion of fish for the subsistence fisher is twice that
for the recreational fisher. Risks calculated for the subsistence
fisher were also found to be predominantly driven by the incidental
ingestion of contaminated soil. The subsistence fisher risk assessment
results are available in the risk assessment background document in the
docket for this rule and are not presented in this preamble. The Agency
is not using the subsistence fisher scenario to support the listing
determination proposed today.
Subsistence Farmer Applicable exposure pathways for the subsistence
farmer include ingestion of home-grown beef and milk, ingestion of
home-grown fruits and vegetables, incidental ingestion of soil, and
direct inhalation of vapors and particulates. The total amount of beef,
milk, fruit, and vegetables that the subsistence farmer consumes is
assumed to be contaminated.
In conducting the subsistence farmer risk assessment, the Agency
determined that there is high uncertainty in the calculated plant-to-
animal (primarily beef and dairy cattle) bioconcentration factors for
the key constituents of concern, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). No empirical data were found for bioaccumulation of PAHs in
mammals by this route; the model uses physical properties of
constituents (Kow) to predict transfer factors. For fish,
empirical data show that using Kow to predict bioconcentration
overestimates fish tissue concentrations by several orders of
magnitude. Based on these very high predicted bioconcentration factors,
the beef and dairy product ingestion pathways are major contributors to
cancer risk estimates for subsistence farmers. Because of the high
uncertainty associated with these bioconcentration factors, the Agency
is not using the subsistence farmer scenario to support the listing
determinations proposed today. The subsistence farmer scenario risk
assessment results are presented in the risk assessment background
document in the docket for this proposal but are not presented in the
preamble; the Agency requests comment and data regarding the
uncertainty associated with the bioconcentration factors of concern.
Home Gardener Applicable exposure pathways for the home gardener
include incidental ingestion of soil, direct inhalation of vapors and
particulates, and ingestion of fruits and vegetables. Forty percent of
the total amount of fruits and vegetables that the home gardener
consumes is assumed to come from their home garden which is assumed to
be contaminated.
Consumers of Ground Water These receptors are exposed only from
ingestion of untreated ground water contaminated by the leaching of
toxic constituents in the wastes being managed in land disposal units.
The Agency used a ground water fate and transport model, the EPACMTP
(EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products), to project the concentrations reaching the receptor well.
The EPACMTP is described in the background documents available in the
docket for today's proposal. See ADDRESSES section.
Chemicals in the subsurface may be subject to a variety of
biochemical transformation processes. EPACMTP accounts for
transformations due to hydrolysis, however, none of the organic
constituents considered in the present analysis are subject to
breakdown by hydrolysis. Biodegradation may be a significant removal
process for some of the constituents considered in the analysis.
However, the data and parameters associated with biodegradation are
subject to much greater uncertainty, vary over a wide range, and may be
highly site-specific. For these reasons, the Agency developed a
protocol for the determination of nationwide biodegradation rates,
which was published on June 15, 1988 (53 FR 22300). The protocol
requires biodegradation data from six sites that represent different
regions of the country. To date, the Agency has not received a complete
set of biodegradation rates for the constituents of concern
(particularly benzene). Therefore, biodegradation is not considered
directly in the groundwater pathway analysis. However, EPA evaluated
the potential effect of biodegradation using the available information
and best estimates.
Using the limited data available, EPA estimates that the benzene
concentration in well water is reduced by less than a factor of two
(reduction varies from 2 to 44 percent). Details of effects of benzene
biodegradation rates on modeling results for the different waste
streams are presented in
[[Page 57762]]
``Background Document for Groundwater Pathway Analysis'' available in
the docket. The Agency is soliciting comments on these rates and
requesting any biodegradation data, consistent with our protocol, which
can be used for nationwide modeling analyses.
3. Consideration of Uncertainty in Listing Determinations
One of the potential exposures of significant concern for this
rulemaking is erosion of soil from a land treatment unit onto adjacent
areas, including possible vegetable gardens. This type of exposure is
what the Agency refers to as ``indirect'' exposure, meaning that the
receptor (in this case a home gardener) is exposed to contaminants in
the waste after these contaminants have been transported from the waste
management area and have entered another environmental media (in this
case soil and vegetables) at the receptor site.
The Agency has used indirect exposure assessments in a number of
programs over the last several years. Some examples include the
development of the sewage sludge regulations, the development of
proposed standards for land application of paper mill sludge, and the
development of pesticide standards. In the hazardous waste listing
program, the Agency has considered indirect exposures for several
proposed regulations (wood surface protection, carbamate pesticides,
dyes and pigments) but has not based any final listing determinations
on risks from indirect exposures. These examples apply to national
regulations; in addition, the Agency has used indirect exposure
analyses on a site-specific basis in the Superfund program and to
develop hazardous waste combustion permit limits.
Despite its considerable experience with indirect exposure
assessments, the Agency recognizes that there are still significant
uncertainties associated with estimating the risks associated with some
exposure routes. Therefore, the Agency requests comment on how it
should factor in uncertainty in its listing determinations.
For example, if a risk estimate has a high degree of uncertainty
associated with it, should the Agency consider listing the waste in
question only if the calculated risk is near the high end of the risk
range of 10-6 to 10-4? Should the calculated risk estimate be even
higher? These questions imply that greater uncertainty generally
results in making a risk assessment more conservative. Is that
implication accurate? The Agency solicits comment on these questions
and this issue in general.
4. Peer Review
A peer review of the risk assessment for non-ground water pathways
has been performed. (The groundwater model was previously reviewed by
the Agency's Science Advisory Board.) Particular emphasis was placed on
the components that follow:
(1) Confidence in data on biotransfer factors for PAHs;
(2) Assumptions regarding design and operation of land treatment
units, including methods used to prevent excess build-up of
constituents in land treatment units;
(3) Methods used to predict soil concentrations at receptor
locations, with particular emphasis on the contribution of soil run-
off from land treatment units in which residuals are disposed and
the maintenance of a mass balance of constituents at the receptor
location; and
(4) Overall maintenance of mass balance of constituents among
multiple exposure pathways.
Three academic experts on risk assessment issues such as these were
selected to review the risk assessment for non-ground water pathways.
Comments have been received from these peer reviewers and will be
addressed concurrently with public comments on this proposed rule.
G. Waste-specific Listing Determination Rationales
1. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
a. Summary. EPA is proposing to not list as hazardous tank sediment
from the storage of crude oil at petroleum refineries. This wastestream
does not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a
waste as hazardous, because it does not pose a substantial or potential
hazard to human health and the environment. The Agency identified
limited risks to consumers of groundwater associated with releases from
off-site Subtitle D landfilling due solely to a single constituent,
benzene, which is already regulated under the Toxicity Characteristic
(TC). Home gardeners and adult residents show low risks from
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) potentially released from land
treatment operations. The risk assessment results are summarized in
Table III-2.
Table III-2.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates--Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site land treatment * Off-site land treatment * Waste characterization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern Central Central
tendency High end tendency High end Avg. conc. High conc. Low conc. # of pts. Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Gardener
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo (a) pyrene............. 2E-9 9E-7 2E-9 1E-7 12.3 26.0 6.6 3 of 6...... J(2), 1
Dibenz (a,h), anthracene..... 9E-10 3E-7 7E-10 3E-8 2.1 3.7 .......... 1 of 6...... J(1), 1
Benzo (a) anthracene......... 4E-10 7E-8 3E-10 9E-9 11.5 31.0 .......... 1 of 6...... 1
Indeno (1, 2, 3-cd) pyrene... 2E-10 7E-8 1E-10 8E-9 15.0 15.0 3.0 2 of 6...... J(1)
Benzo (b) fluoranthene....... 3E-10 1E-7 3E-10 1E-8 11.4 29.0 5.9 2 of 6...... J(1), 1, 2
Total Carcinogen Risk***..... 4E-9 1E-6 3E-9 2E-7 .......... .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult Resident
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo (a) pyrene............. 4E-9 7E-7 3E-9 9E-8 12.3 26.0 6.6 3 of 6...... J(2), 1
Dibenz (a, h) anthracene..... 2E-9 5E-7 2E-9 6E-8 2.1 3.7 .......... 1 of 6...... J(1), 1
Total Carcinogen Risk***..... 8E-9 1E-6 6E-9 2E-7 .......... .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Detection limits greater than the highest detected concentration are excluded from the average concentration calculations.
2. Concentration for combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene. J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#''
indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.
[[Page 57763]]
Only the combination of high-end factors resulting in the greatest overall carcinogen risk are presented:
* Scenario: high-end factors of quantity, duration of exposure for all scenarios.
** Scenario: high-end factors of small area, duration of exposure for all scenarios.
*** Total carcinogen risk includes risks from other PAHs not tabulated. The risks for the PAHs not presented in this table are lower than those that are
presented.
All concentrations are in mg/kg.
Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates, Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site land treatment Off-site land treatment Off-site landfill Waste characterization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern Central Central Central
tendency High end tendency High end tendency High end Avg. conc. High conc. Low conc. # of pts Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene......................... <1e-6><1e-6><1e-6><1e-6 4e-7="" 3e-5="" 0.68="" 1.7="" 0.032="" 5="" of="" 6="" j(1)="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" notes:="" j(#)="" samples="" were="" estimated="" concentrations="" below="" quantitation="" limits,="" ``#''="" indicates="" number="" of="" samples="" that="" are="" ``j''="" values.="" all="" concentrations="" are="" tclp="" leachate="" values="" in="" mg/l.="" b.="" discussion.="" crude="" oil="" storage="" tank="" sediment="" is="" generated="" from="" the="" storage="" of="" crude="" oil="" where="" heavy="" hydrocarbons="" when="" basic="" sediment="" and="" water="" (bs&w)="" and="" entrapped="" oils="" settle="" in="" the="" bottom="" of="" storage="" tanks.="" a="" storage="" tank="" is="" drained="" for="" inspection="" and="" sediment="" removal="" on="" average="" once="" every="" 10="" years.="" the="" results="" of="" the="" 1992="" sec.="" 3007="" petroleum="" refining="" survey="" showed="" that="" approximately="" 22,017="" metric="" tons="" of="" crude="" oil="" storage="" tank="" sediment="" were="" generated.="" the="" management="" scenarios="" selected="" for="" risk="" assessment="" included="" on-="" site="" land="" treatment="" units="" (12.1="" percent="" of="" the="" sediment="" volume),="" off-="" site="" land="" treatment="" units="" (0.9="" percent),="" and="" off-site="" subtitle="" d="" landfills="" (10.5="" percent).="" other="" major="" management="" practices="" used="" included="" discharge="" to="" the="" wastewater="" treatment="" plant="" (9.5="" percent),="" subtitle="" c="" landfilling="" (17.1="" percent),="" or="" on-site="" recovery="" in="" the="" crude="" unit,="" coker="" or="" catalytic="" cracker="" (43.5="" percent).="" the="" agency="" collected="" six="" randomly="" selected="" samples="" of="" crude="" oil="" storage="" tank="" sediment.="" these="" samples="" are="" believed="" to="" be="" representative="" of="" typical="" sediments="" generated="" throughout="" the="" industry="" and="" the="" range="" of="" oil="" recovery="" techniques="" employed="" for="" crude="" oil="" storage="" tank="" sediment.="" the="" risks="" given="" in="" table="" iii-2="" show="" a="" high-end="" cancer="" risk="" of="" 3e-5="" (3="" x="">-5) due to benzene for an adult consuming groundwater
contaminated from an off-site landfill. The high-end carcinogenic risks
from PAHs in the home gardener and adult resident pathways were 1E-6
for the on-site land treatment scenario. The central tendency estimates
did not show significant risk for any exposure scenario.
The Agency conducted another level of analysis of its risk results
to further evaluate the PAH risks that were identified for land
treatment. One of the major assumptions in the Agency's run-off models
for releases from land treatment units (LTUs) is that the unit does not
have controls for run-on and run-off waters from precipitation. A
significant portion of the predicted risk for the PAHs is associated
with contaminated soils washing off of the LTU into residential areas.
PAH risks are reduced below listing levels of concern if no run-on/run-
off is assumed (i.e., the refinery diverts all run-on and collects all
run-off). EPA's data collection effort showed most LTUs reported run-
on/run-off controls to be in place. A survey of some state programs,
however, showed that non-hazardous waste LTUs run-on/run-off controls
were voluntary.\6\ Permits were not required, nor were management
standards (where developed) mandatory. The Agency believes that an
assumption of complete run-on/run-off control would overstate reality
in that existing controls for Subtitle D land treatment units may be
inadequate to control all releases, including dike failures during
severe storm events, and, more routinely, tracking wastes from the unit
on trucks and earthmoving equipment. While the Agency does not have
information on the actual effectiveness of land treatment units at
controlling releases associated with run-on/run-off, the Agency
believes the risks may lie somewhere between those posed by scenarios
with and without controls. For crude oil storage tank sediment, LTU
controls that reduced off-site run-off to nearby residential areas
(e.g., by about 50%) would reduce the high-end risk from land treatment
to below the 10-6 level.
\6\ See ``Communications with State Authorities on Requirements
for Land Treatment Units,'' U.S. EPA 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (land
treatment and landfills) were assessed, and that the other management
practices would not serve as a basis for listing. The wastes being
disposed of in Subtitle C landfills are already handled as hazardous
and should not present significant risk. As described in Section II.F.2
(``Risk Analysis''), EPA believes that potential risks associated with
disposal of wastes to wastewater treatment plants are largely covered
by existing regulations. In addition to the existing NPDES or air
programs: (1) Refinery sludges generated by wastewater treatment
systems are already listed hazardous wastes (K048, K051, F037, F038);
(2) the volumes of the crude oil storage tank residuals are relatively
small compared to volumes in refinery wastewater treatment systems; and
(3) residual risk associated with treatment would be covered by the
proposed Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions treatment requirements.
Concerning on-site recovery for this waste, nearly all of this material
is currently excluded from the definition of solid waste because it is
reinserted into the refining process prior to distillation and
catalytic cracking. See Sec. 262.4(a)(12). A proposed expansion of this
exclusion and its rationale are discussed in Section III.E. of this
notice.
Today's listing determination is limited in scope to crude oil
storage tank sediment that is generated from storage tanks associated
with petroleum refineries, either on-site or at affiliated tank farms
(e.g., tank storage areas owned or under contract to the refinery). The
Agency is not attempting to evaluate sediments generated from the
storage of crude oil at exploration
[[Page 57764]]
and production sites or associated with pipelines or other crude oil
transportation conveyances. The Agency has not collected data necessary
to support a risk characterization of these non-refinery sediments and
is not, at this time, making a determination whether to list these
materials. Furthermore, these non-refinery materials are governed by
special statutory provisions (i.e., the ``Bevill'' provisions), and are
currently exempt from regulation as hazardous waste.
Under today's proposal, hazardous oil-bearing wastes that are
inserted into the petroleum refining process (including the coker)
would be excluded from the definition of solid waste, and thus from
regulation, as a petroleum refining process feed under amended
Sec. 261.4(a)(12). This exemption allows refineries to continue a
practice currently in use where crude oil storage tank sediment or oil
recovered from crude oil storage tank sediment are returned to the
refinery operations, whether or not the Agency lists this waste as
hazardous. The Agency believes this is appropriate for many reasons
(see Section III.E for the Agency's detailed rationale for this
exemption), and also reasonable given the inherent similarity between
crude oil feedstock, crude oil storage tank sediment, and recovered oil
from crude oil storage tank sediments.
Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list crude oil storage
tank sediment from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste.
The Agency found essentially no significant risks arising from land
treatment. The only risk of possible concern arises from management in
landfills. However, even the landfill risks are within EPA's
discretionary range for listing, and EPA believes that a number of
additional factors argue for not listing this residual.
First, the only constituent of significant concern for this waste
is benzene, and this constituent is already regulated under the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC). Wastes which contain levels of mobile
benzene above 0.5 mg/L (as measured by the TCLP) are already subject to
regulation as D018. Therefore, the Agency believes that the TC captures
as hazardous the crude oil storage tank sediment that contains benzene
levels of concern.
For this waste, EPA is confident that constituents of most concern
were identified, and that the risks are unlikely to be significantly
higher. Several factors are compelling. First, the Agency compiled a
comprehensive database on constituents found in crude oil storage tank
sediments and concluded risks would be posed only by benzene.
Uncertainty in potential risk levels from other toxicants or from
unknown toxicants is low. Second, the Agency has employed a more
accurate, realistic risk assessment approach, which the Agency believes
accurately projects actual risks posed. Uncertainty in exposure
analysis for crude oil storage tank sediments is also low. Finally,
while the Agency did not factor biodegradation of benzene directly into
its risk assessment, model runs using preliminary data suggest that the
levels of benzene reaching a drinking water well will be reduced to
some extent due to biodegradation. See Section III.F.2.c for further
discussion of this point.
EPA considers the listing decision for this waste to be a case in
which the decision on whether or not to list crude oil storage tank
sediments was difficult to make. The risk levels projected for the
single constituent of concern, benzene, are above the Agency's initial
risk level of concern (10-5). However, other factors can and were
considered , which suggest the actual risk posed is not of concern. The
Agency requests comment on the decision not to list crude oil storage
tank sediments, and on other factors that may affect the final
decision. EPA seeks comment on whether the TC effectively captures
wastes of concern, whether the Agency adequately characterized the risk
for this waste, and whether any other factors should be considered.
If comments on this proposal provide sufficient information to show
that the TC is not effective in regulating the wastes of concern, or
that the risks from this waste have not be adequately characterized by
the Agency's analysis, EPA would consider making a final decision to
list this residual. If listed, this waste would be identified as EPA
Hazardous Waste Number K169--Crude oil storage tank sediment from
petroleum refining operations, and benzene would be added to Appendix
VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing for the K169 wastestream. In today's
notice, the Agency is also including treatment standards, the CERCLA
reportable quantity, and exemptions that would apply to this waste
stream if the waste were to be listed. Certain background documents in
the docket for this rule present elements involving costs and treatment
standards EPA would use were this waste to be listed. Thus, final
action may not be delayed by the need for additional proposals. If the
waste were to be listed, the Agency also seeks comments on whether the
listing description might be narrowed to exempt crude oil storage tank
sediments that are treated or disposed of in certain ways (e.g., if
deoiled). See Section III.H, ``Request for Comment on Options for
Conditional Exemptions,'' for a general discussion of possible
approaches.
2. Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) Tank Sediment and/or In-line Filter/
Separation Solids
a. Summary. EPA is proposing to list as hazardous sediment from the
storage of clarified slurry oil and/or in-line filter/separation solids
from the filtration of clarified slurry oil. This wastestream meets the
criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as
hazardous and is capable of posing a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when mismanaged. The Agency
has identified risks of concern associated with two of four selected
management practices: on-site land treatment, and off-site land
treatment. The home gardener and adult resident receptors showed
potential risks of concerns, and the contaminants of concern are
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The risk assessment results
are summarized in Table III-3.
[[Page 57765]]
Table III-3.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates: K170--Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment and/or In-line Filter/Separation Solids
[Assumes no run-off controls]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site land treatment* Off-site land treatment** Waste characterization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern Central Central
tendency High end tendency High end Avg. conc. High conc. Low conc. # of pts. Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME GARDENER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo(a) pyrene.............. 1E-7 1E-5 5E-7 7E-6 132.0 230.0 52.0 4 of 4...... J(1).
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene........ 8E-8 6E-6 3E-7 3E-6 37.0 49.0 .......... 1 of 4...... 1.
3-Methylcholanthrene......... 2E-7 1E-5 7E-7 6E-6 23.8 27.0 .......... 1 of 4...... J(1), 1.
Benzo(a)anthracene........... 3E-8 2E-6 1E-7 1E-6 203.0 390.0 360.0 2 of 4...... ............
7, 12-Dimethylbenz 3E-7 3E-5 1E-6 4E-5 331.0 1,200.0 .......... 1 of 4...... ............
(a)anthracene.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene / 1E-8 1E-6 5E-8 5E-7 76.8 110.0 27.0 4 of 4...... J(3),2.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (total).
Total Carcinogen Risk***..... 7E-7 6E-5 3E-6 5E-5 .......... .......... .......... ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADULT RESIDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo(a)pyrene............... 2E-7 1E-5 9E-7 6E-6 132.0 230.0 52.0 4 of 4...... J(1).
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene........ 2E-7 1E-5 7E-7 5E-6 37.0 49.0 .......... 1 of 4...... 1.
3-Methylcholanthrene......... 3E-7 1E-5 1E-5 6E-6 23.8 27.0 .......... 1 of 4...... J(1),1.
7, 12-Dimethylbenz 7E-7 5E-5 3E-6 6E-5 331.0 1,200.0 .......... 1 of 4...... ............
(a)anthracene.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene......... 2E-8 1E-6 6E-8 4E-7 76.8 110.0 27.0 4 of 4...... J(3)2.
Total Carcinogen Risk***..... 2E-6 9E-5 6E-6 8E-5 .......... .......... .......... ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Detection limits greater than the highest detected concentration are excluded from the average concentration calculations.
2. Concentration for combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene.
J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#'' indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.
Only the combination of high-end factors resulting in the greatest overall carcinogen risk are presented:
* Scenario: high-end factors of quantity, duration of exposure.
** Scenario: high-end factors of distance to receptor, duration of exposure.
*** Total carcinogen risk includes risks from other PAHs not tabulated. The risks for the PAHs not presented in this table are lower than those that are
presented.
All concentrations are in mg/kg.
b. Discussion. Clarified slurry oil wastes are generated from
process unit residuals, and the storage or filtration of clarified
slurry oil, which is the bottom distillation fraction from the
Fluidized Catalytic Cracker (FCC) fractionator. CSO tank sediment is
generated every 5 to 10 years during storage tank cleanout. Some
refineries use in-line filters or separators to remove solids from CSO
prior to storage. For example, cartridge filters can be used to remove
catalyst fines entrained in the product CSO. Filter/separation solids
may be generated once or twice a year depending on product volume.
The results of the 1992 Sec. 3007 petroleum refining survey showed
that approximately 24,010 metric tons of clarified slurry oil tank
sediment and filter/separation solids were generated. The management
scenarios selected for risk assessment focussed on known Subtitle D
land disposal activities, which included on-site land treatment (12.1
percent of the CSO tank sediment and filter/separation solid volume),
off-site land treatment (9.9 percent), on-site Subtitle D landfilling
(2.8 percent), and off-site Subtitle D landfilling (47.2 percent).
Other major management practices included Subtitle C landfilling (14.8
percent), on-site recovery or reuse (2.3 percent), discharge to the
wastewater treatment plant (1.04 percent), transfer for use as fuel
(7.7 percent), and on-site road material (1.7 percent).
For this infrequently generated waste, the Agency was able to
collect four samples, including 3 tank sediment samples and 1 CSO
filter solid. These randomly selected samples are believed to be
representative of typical residuals generated throughout the industry.
The risks described in Table III-3 are significant for a variety of
exposure routes and management scenarios. The high-end cancer risk
arising from the home gardener exposure for on-site was 6E-5, and the
central tendency risk was 7E-7. For off-site land treatment, the high-
end risk for the home gardener was 5E-5, with a central tendency risks
of 3E-6. The adult resident scenario also showed a significant high-end
risk of 9E-5 for on-site land treatment, and a central tendency risk of
2E-6. For off-site land treatment, the high-end risk for the adult
resident was 8E-5, and the central tendency risk was 6E-6.
Similar to the analysis conducted for crude oil storage tank
sediment, the Agency conducted another level of analysis of the CSO
tank sediment and filter/separation solids risk results to further
evaluate the impacts of run-on/run-off controls. While the Agency does
not have information on the actual effectiveness of land treatment
units at controlling releases associated with run-on/run-off, the
Agency believes the risks lie somewhere between those posed by
scenarios with and without controls. EPA believes that these results
continue to warrant listing of the CSO wastes. In order for the high-
end risks to be reduced to a 10-6 level, the Agency estimates that for
both on-site and off-site LTUs, controls would need to be more than 90
percent effective in controlling releases to nearby fields.
The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (land
treatment and landfills) were assessed for this residual, and that the
other management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. EPA
did not
[[Page 57766]]
attempt to model wastes discharged to the wastewater treatment system,
disposed of in Subtitle C units, or recovered for use on-site, because
wastewater treatment sludges are already listed as hazardous wastes
(K048, K051, F037, and F037), and Subtitle C management and reuse
activities are viewed as protective. The on-site road use scenario for
this residual was not assessed because of the small volume and the
small number of facilities using this practice. Additionally, the
potential risks posed by the road use management scenario are likely to
be less than those calculated for the land treatment scenario (using a
much larger volume of >2,000 MT), which considered similar
environmental pathways.
Today's listing is limited in scope to clarified slurry oil tank
sediment and filter/separation solids that are generated from CSO
filtration/separation and storage tanks associated with petroleum
refineries, either on-site or at affiliated tank farms. The Agency is
not attempting to include sludges generated from the storage of
clarified slurry oil at carbon black manufacturing facilities using
clarified slurry oil as raw materials, or associated with
transportation conveyances or other off-site storage of clarified
slurry oil. The Agency has not collected data necessary to support a
risk characterization of these non-refinery sludges and is not, at this
time, making a determination regarding whether to list these materials.
Under today's proposal, hazardous oil-bearing clarified slurry oil
tank sediment or filter/separation solids that is inserted into the
petroleum refining process (including the coker) would be excluded from
regulation as a petroleum refining process feed under amended
Sec. 261.4(a)(12). This exemption allows refineries to continue a
practice currently in use where clarified slurry oil laded wastes or
oil recovered from clarified slurry oil tank sediment or filter/
separation solids are returned to the refinery operations. The Agency
believes this is appropriate for the reasons described in Section
III.E. of this preamble, and also reasonable given the inherent
similarity between refinery feedstocks, clarified slurry oil tank
sediment or filter/separation solids, and recovered oils from clarified
slurry oil sediment or filter/separation solids.
Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current
management practices, i.e., land treatment, EPA is proposing to list
clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and filter/separation solids
from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste, designated as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K170. However, the disposal of CSO storage
tank sediment and in-line filter/separation solids in landfills was not
associated with significant risks. Therefore, EPA is also proposing two
alternative listing descriptions that either limit the listing to CSO
residuals managed in land treatment units, or specifically exclude from
the listing waste managed in a landfill. These proposals and other
options are discussed in Section III.H, ``Request for Comment on
Options for Conditional Exemptions.''
Due to the risks described above, the Agency is proposing to add
the following constituents to Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for
Listing: benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 3-methylcholanthrene,
benzo(a)anthracene, 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene.
3. Catalyst from Hydrotreating
a. Summary. EPA is proposing to list as hazardous spent catalysts
from hydrotreating operations. This wastestream meets the criteria set
out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as hazardous and is
capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when mismanaged. The Agency has identified
risks of concern associated with: off-site and on-site Subtitle D
landfilling. Health risks are associated with benzene and arsenic
releases to groundwater. The risk assessment results are summarized in
Table III-4. In addition, this material presents a hazard because it
has pyrophoric and self-heating properties, and is sometimes
characteristically hazardous due to its ignitability, or benzene and/or
arsenic leachability.
Table III-4.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates--K171--Spent Catalyst From Hydrotreating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site landfill Off-site landfill Waste characterization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern Central Central
tendency High end tendency High end Avg. conc. High conc. Low conc. # of pts Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUNDWATER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene...................... 9E-7 9E-6 2E-7 1E-5 7.9 39.0 0.05 6 of 6...... J(1).
Arsenic...................... 8E-7 8E-6 2E-7 1E-5 1.1 4.9 1.5 2 of 6 .....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
J(#) Samples were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, ``#'' indicates number of samples that are ``J'' values.
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.
b. Discussion. Spent catalysts from hydrotreating are generated
every 2 to 7 years during hydrotreater turnarounds and topping
activities. Hydrotreating is used to remove sulfur and nitrogen
compounds and to saturate olefins in naphthas, lube oils, and some
middle distillates. The catalyst is typically nickel and molybdenum or
cobalt and molybdenum on an alumina base. The catalyst is removed from
the unit because its activity has been reduced below acceptable levels
due to coking, metals poisoning, and/or particle degradation. As
described further in the listing background document in the docket to
this proposal, the Agency is defining hydrotreating to be
hydroprocessing applied to lighter boiling stocks and to not include
those catalysts with precious metals as their active catalytic metals.
Note that in this notice the Agency is also proposing to list
hydrorefining catalysts, which is one of two other major types of
hydroprocessing catalysts used by the industry. Today's listing
determinations, however, do not address catalysts from hydrocracking
operations which the Agency is studying separately under the consent
decree and which will not be addressed in this notice.7
\7\ The Agency recognizes that the terms hydrotreating and
hydroprocessing are used somewhat loosely within the industry and
that various definitions have been posed by different sources of
authority. One widely used set of definitions is used in the Oil and
Gas Journal's annual report on worldwide refining, which establishes
that hydrotreating includes processes where essentially no reduction
in the molecular size of the feed occurs, that hydrorefining
includes processes where 10 percent of the feed or less is reduced
in molecular size, and that hydrocracking includes processes where
50 percent of the feed or more is reduced in molecular size. The
Listing Background Document for this proposal discusses these
definitions further.
[[Page 57767]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 5,640
metric tons of spent hydrotreating catalyst. Of this total 2,236 metric
tons were identified as hazardous, because the wastes were in most
cases D018-benzene, D001-ignitable, or D004-arsenic. The management
scenarios selected for risk assessment focussed on known Subtitle D
landfilling activities, which included off-site Subtitle D landfilling
(11.3 percent), and on-site landfilling (0.2 percent). Other major
spent hydrotreating catalyst management practices included transfer for
metals reclamation or regeneration (75.8 percent), or Subtitle C
landfilling (11.3 percent).
The Agency collected six samples of spent hydrotreating catalysts.
These samples are believed to be representative of the various types of
applications and active metals used by the industry. The Agency
observed that many refineries take great care to remove this residual
from the process units under an inert atmosphere due to the potential
for this residual to ignite spontaneously. On two occasions during
sampling, the refineries determined that the risk associated with
collecting catalyst samples from inert gas blanketed catalyst storage
bins was too great to allow EPA to collect the samples directly.
Specially trained refinery personnel collected these samples while
being observed by EPA representatives. A third refinery also requested
that EPA not collect a sample of their residual due to the risks
presented by the spent catalyst.
When sufficient quantities of spent hydrotreating catalysts are
stockpiled and exposed to air to allow self heating and self ignition
to occur, harmful quantities of toxic sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
and other toxic constituents such as nickel carbonyl may be formed. The
Agency has received reports of fires, building evacuations, and metals
reclamation process disturbances attributed to the ignition of these
spent catalysts.8
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the self-heating or self-ignition characteristics of spent
hydrotreating catalysts, the spent catalysts frequently meet the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) 49 CFR 173.124(b) definition of
spontaneously combustible material, and must be shipped accordingly. A
self-heating material is a material that once in contact with air and
without an energy supply, is liable to self-heat. A material of this
type may be classified as spontaneously combustible if the temperature
of a test sample exceeds 200 deg.C (392 deg.F) during the 24-hour test
period when tested in accordance with the DOT test in 49 CFR 173
Appendix E--Guidelines for the Classification and Packing Group
Assignment of Class 4 Materials. Test data obtained by the Agency
indicate that up to 60 percent of these spent hydrotreating catalysts
reclaimed at one site are self-heating solids.9 Furthermore, from
the data collected by EPA in the Sec. 3007 questionnaire, about 40
percent of this wastestream is characteristically hazardous, and a
significant portion is classified as ignitable under RCRA.
\9\ See May 19, 1995 letter from John N. Glover (CRI-MET) to
William F. Brandes (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk assessment results showed that the primary toxicants of
concern for spent hydrotreating catalysts are benzene and arsenic. On-
site landfilling results in a high-end cancer risk of 9E-6, and a
central tendency risk of 9E-7 for benzene, and arsenic risks of 8E-6
and 8E-7 for high-end risk and central tendency risk, respectively.
Off-site landfilling shows high-end modeled risks of 1E-5, and central
tendency risks of 2E-7 for each constituent. The on-site groundwater
risk is 18 times the MCL for benzene; the off-site risk is 30 times the
MCL for benzene.
The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (off-
site and on-site landfills) were assessed, and that the other
management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. The wastes
being disposed of in Subtitle C landfills are already handled as
hazardous and should not present significant risk. As described in
Section III.J. (``Third Party Regeneration/Reclamation of Spent
Petroleum Catalysts''), EPA believes that the regeneration and
reclamation of spent hydrotreating/hydrorefining catalysts is an
environmentally sound alternative to disposal, and is also proposing
that these units be excluded from regulation as Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces (BIFs). In summary, EPA does not believe that these off-site
recycling activities present significant risk because: (1) much of the
waste going to recycling is characteristically hazardous, and EPA has
found that recycling facilities typically handle nominally nonhazardous
waste in a protective manner due to its pyrophoric properties; and (2)
a preliminary survey of reclaimers/regenerators showed that these units
are already equipped with pollution control devices.10 Therefore,
EPA believes that any potential risks associated with regeneration and
reclamation are unlikely to be significant, and would be less than the
risks found to exist for the management practices modeled.
\10\ See ``Survey of Spent Petroleum Catalyst Regenerators and
Reclaimers,'' U.S. EPA 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current
management practices and the characteristically hazardous properties of
the waste, EPA is proposing to list spent catalysts from hydrotreating
from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste, designated as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K171. Note that as described further in
Section III.J. of this preamble that this listing does not include
ceramic support media that is separated from the spent catalyst prior
to catalyst disposal or recycling.
For the reasons stated above, the Agency is proposing to add
benzene and arsenic to Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing.
4. Catalyst from Hydrorefining
a. Summary. EPA is proposing to list as hazardous spent catalysts
from hydrorefining operations. This wastestream meets the criteria set
out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as hazardous and is
capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when mismanaged. The Agency has identified
risks of concern associated with: off-site and on-site Subtitle D
landfilling. Health risks are associated with benzene and arsenic
releases to groundwater. The risk assessment results are summarized in
Table III-5. In addition, this material presents a hazard because it
has pyrophoric and self-heating properties, and is sometimes
characteristically hazardous due to its ignitability, or benzene and/or
arsenic leachability.
[[Page 57768]]
Table III-5.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates--K172--Spent Catalyst From Hydrorefining
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site landfill Off-site landfill Waste characterization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern Central Central
tendency High end tendency High end Avg. conc. High conc. Low conc. No. of pts Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUNDWATER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene...................... 1E-6 1E-5 2E-7 2E-5 1.5 4.2 0.1 3 of 3......
Arsenic...................... 4E-6 4E-5 8E-7 6E-5 13.7 34.0 0.2 3 of 3 .....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.
b. Discussion. Spent catalysts from hydrorefining are generated
every 2 to 7 years during hydrorefiner turnarounds and topping
activities. Hydrorefining is used to remove sulfur and nitrogen
compounds and to saturate olefins in gas oil, residual oil, and some
middle distillates. The catalyst is typically nickel and molybdenum or
nickel and cobalt on an alumina base. The catalyst is removed from the
unit because its activity has been reduced below acceptable levels due
to coking, metals poisoning, and/or particle degradation. The Agency
observed that many refineries take great care to remove this residual
from the process units under an inert atmosphere due to the exposure
hazards associated with this residual. Similar to hydrotreating
catalysts, these hydrorefining catalysts also frequently exhibit the
properties of spontaneously combustible materials. Two of the three
refineries sampled insisted that refinery personnel collect the
Agency's record samples due to potential risks. Similar to spent
hydrotreating catalyst, the spent hydrorefining catalyst exhibits self-
heating and spontaneously combustible properties (see discussion in
Section III.G.3). Also like the hydrotreating residual, data collected
by EPA in the Sec. 3007 questionnaire showed that much of this
wastestream (nearly 30 percent) is characteristically hazardous, and
approximately 9 percent is classified as ignitable under RCRA.
In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 18,630
metric tons of spent hydrorefining catalyst. Approximately 5,028 metric
tons (27 percent) were identified as hazardous because the waste
exhibited a hazardous characteristic, primarily D018-benzene, D001-
ignitable, or D004-arsenic. The management scenarios selected for risk
assessment focussed on known Subtitle D landfilling activities, which
included off-site Subtitle D landfilling (12.6 percent), and on-site
land filling (3.8 percent). Other major spent hydrorefining catalyst
management practices included transfer for metals reclamation or
regeneration (82.4 percent), or Subtitle C landfilling (1.1 percent).
Due to sample availability, the Agency was only able to obtain
three samples of spent hydrorefining catalysts during its data
collection effort. These samples are believed to be representative of
the various types of applications and active metals used by the
industry.
In this notice, the Agency is also proposing to list hydrotreating
catalysts, which is one of two other major types of hydroprocessing
catalysts used by the industry. Today's listing determinations,
however, do not address catalysts from hydrocracking operations which
the Agency is studying separately under the consent decree and which
will not be addressed in this notice. Note that as described further in
Section III.J of this preamble, this listing also does not include
ceramic support median that is separated from the spent catalyst prior
to catalyst disposal or recycling.
The risk assessment results showed that the primary toxicants of
concern for spent hydrorefining catalysts are arsenic and benzene. On-
site landfilling results in a high-end cancer risk of 4E-5, and a
central tendency risk of 4E-6. Off-site landfilling shows a modeled
high-end risk of 6E-5 and central tendency risk of 8E-7.
The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (off-
site and on-site landfills) were assessed, and that the other
management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. See
Section III.G.3. for a discussion explaining why EPA did not attempt to
model disposal in Subtitle C units or regeneration and reclamation
processes.
Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current
management practices and the characteristically hazardous properties of
the waste, EPA is proposing to list spent catalysts from hydrorefining
from petroleum refining operations as a hazardous waste, designated as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K172.
For the reasons stated above, the Agency is proposing to add
benzene and arsenic to Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing.
5. Catalyst From Sulfuric Acid Alkylation
a. Summary. The Agency is proposing not to list spent catalysts
from sulfuric acid alkylation. This residual is currently managed
almost entirely under an existing exemption from the definition of
solid waste. In addition, this residual consistently exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity and already is subject to regulatory
control if not returned to the production of virgin sulfuric acid.
b. Discussion. The sulfuric acid alkylation process contacts olefin
and isobutane gases over concentrated sulfuric acid catalyst to
synthesize alkylates for octane boosting. A portion of the acid
catalyst is continuously bled from the reactor and replaced with fresh
acid to maintain the reactor acid concentration at around 90 percent.
The acid bleed stream is the spent catalyst of concern for this
category. The industry reported the generation of almost 1,760,100
metric tons of spent catalyst in 1992. This residual consistently
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity.
The Agency previously has exempted from the definition of solid
wastes (40 CFR 261.4(a)(7)) spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin
sulfuric acid, unless it is accumulated speculatively (50 FR 614,
January 4, 1985). In 1992, more than 99 percent of spent sulfuric acid
generated was used to produce virgin sulfuric acid or reused on-site,
and less than 1 percent was used to neutralize wastewaters prior to
biological treatment. The Agency has reexamined the contaminants found
in such spent acids and has found no materials which would likely be
carried through production to the virgin acid. As noted in the preamble
to the January 4, 1985, final rule on the definition of solid waste,
the spent sulfuric acid recycling process more closely resembles a
manufacturing operation than a reclamation process. (50 FR 642, January
4, 1985). Spent sulfuric acid is a hazardous waste if disposed
(assuming it is corrosive or exhibits other hazardous waste
characteristics), and could be a hazardous waste if recycled
[[Page 57769]]
in some other manner (such as burning for energy recovery). The Agency
finds no reason to change the existing regulatory structure for spent
sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid and is taking no
action in this area.
Waste survey data indicate that 155 metric tons of spent acid from
spills were discharged to wastewater treatment units in 1992. The
Agency believes that this small volume is unlikely to cause any
significant risk, especially due to the existing regulation of primary
treatment sludge as hazardous. Furthermore, spent acids which are used
to neutralize other waste characteristics, forming a mixture which no
longer exhibits a characteristic, remain subject to land disposal
restrictions. The Agency has proposed in the Phase Three Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule (60 FR 11702, March 2, 1995) that treatment is
required not only to remove the characteristic, but also to treat any
underlying hazardous constituents which may be present in the wastes,
even though they are not what causes the characteristic property. EPA
proposes to continue the current regulation of spent acids, which are
not used to produce virgin acid, as characteristically hazardous waste
when discarded. The Agency requests comment on this proposed decision.
6. Spent Caustic From Liquid Treating
a. Summary. The Agency is proposing not to list spent caustic from
liquid treating as a hazardous waste. After analyzing potential
exposure pathways, EPA concluded that with the exception of air
exposure pathways from open tank storage, there were no potential risk
pathways that needed to be modeled. This residual, however, will
frequently exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity and/or toxicity
due to cresol leachability (and sometimes ignitability) and is subject
to all applicable regulatory controls when any of the hazardous waste
characteristics are present. The Agency has identified certain
management practices used for spent caustics for which the Agency is
clarifying the application of the definition of solid waste, and in one
case proposes a modification to the definition.
b. Discussion. Caustic is used to remove certain acidic compounds
like mercaptans from liquid petroleum streams to reduce product odor
and corrosivity as well as to meet product sulfur specifications. In
1992, the industry reported the generation of approximately 918,000
metric tons of spent caustic. Twenty-one separate management practices,
most involving relatively small volumes, were employed. EPA's survey
showed, however, that more than 99 percent of this wastestream is
managed as follows: reused as an ingredient or substitute for virgin
caustic (51 percent of the total volume or 470,400 metric tons); sent
to wastewater treatment systems (29 percent or 266,200 metric tons); or
used as a feedstock to production processes from which cresylic or
naphthenic acids are obtained (17 percent or 153,000 metric tons). A
much smaller volume is injected into underground wells.
The Agency collected six samples of spent caustic. The samples are
considered representative because the sample profile reflected the
distribution of the different categories of caustics in use and because
spent caustics perform essentially the same function in refining
processes. The samples collected by the Agency were found to
consistently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste: corrosivity (D002) and/or toxicity for one or more cresols
(D023, D024, D025, or D026).
Under current rules, spent materials are solid wastes whether
reclaimed or abandoned, and, because they are characteristically
hazardous, spent caustics from liquid treating are hazardous wastes
under existing regulations. Today's proposal does not change the
regulatory status of liquid treating caustic managed in this manner
except as discussed in section (3.) below.
The Agency examined the various management techniques before
concluding that, aside from tank storage, no exposure pathways needed
to be modeled and therefore the residual should not be listed as
hazardous. The analysis and conclusion are based on the following
management practices reported.
1. Use as Ingredients or Substitutes. Spent caustics that are used
as ingredients or reagent substitutes (e.g., use in pH control;
sulfidic caustic used in the making of paper) are eligible for
exclusion from the definition of solid waste under (Sec. 261.2(e)).
This exclusion provides that secondary materials that are used or
reused directly (i.e., without reclamation) as ingredients in an
industrial process to make a product are not subject to regulation
under RCRA and therefore not subject to any listing determination. EPA
notes that characteristically hazardous spent materials that are
reclaimed prior to reuse would still be hazardous wastes subject to
pertinent management requirements.
2. Sent to Wastewater Treatment. The Agency considered whether
there was a need to conduct a risk assessment of the wastewater
treatment system but determined that the combination of the existing F
and K sludge listings, the benzene NESHAP, the planned MACT standards
for volatile organics emissions (assuming such standards would apply),
and the proposed LDR Phase III (60 FR 11702, March 2, 1995) and Phase
IV (60 FR 43654, August 22, 1995) rulemakings (if promulgated) would
address any residual risk associated with spent caustics, mixed with
other refinery wastewaters.
Wastewaters discharged under NPDES permits are generally excluded
from RCRA at the point they are discharged to surface waters so the
exposure pathways associated with discharge were not modeled. For
wastewater treatment plant sludges, only the aggressive biological
treatment (ABT) sludges and sludges generated downstream from ABT units
are not already listed hazardous wastes. While these sludges could be
contaminated by toxicants carried in spent caustics, in fact the
majority of the toxicants would either be removed by biotreatment or
fall out in the listed sludges upstream from the biotreatment units.
The Agency also concluded that dilution with other refinery wastewaters
would significantly reduce the concentrations involved. EPA estimates
that spent caustic wastestreams receive significant dilution upon
discharge to wastewater systems (to less than 3 percent of original
concentration). Further, it would be virtually impossible to trace
contaminants in ABT sludges to a spent caustic wastestream because the
contaminants are common to many different influent streams. For these
reasons, EPA did not model risk associated with sludge disposal.
Air exposure pathways from wastewater treatment systems treating
spent caustics were not modeled because the Benzene NESHAP (55 FR 8292,
March 7, 1990) and the MACT standards (60 FR 43244, August 18, 1995)
for volatile organics emissions were considered to be the pertinent
regulatory mechanisms for potential air emission sources. Furthermore,
the Agency notes that bounding estimates for air emissions from storage
tanks managing spent caustic show no significant risk from volatile
emissions. The Agency specifically requests comment on this
determination with regard to potential lapses in coverage due to
emission volume cutoffs in CAA air rules and the adequacy of
technology-based controls to control specific volatile organics from
spent caustics that are discharged to wastewater treatment systems.
[[Page 57770]]
3. Use as a Feedstock. Some 153,000 metric tons/year of spent
caustics are sold as feedstock to produce naphthenic and cresylic acid
products (16.8 percent of reported 1992 generation). One reading of the
existing regulations is that, because this production process arguably
involves reclamation of the spent caustics, the spent caustics would be
regulated as hazardous wastes. However, as an early finding in our
effort to redefine ``solid waste,'' EPA has concluded that spent
caustic from liquid treating is not a waste when recycled in this
manner even though it does have an element of reclamation associated
with it. Rather, the spent caustic constitutes a valuable commercial
feedstock which is used in the manufacture of commercial chemical
products. The caustic in this case has been used to isolate an acidic
cresylic or naphthenic fraction during the refining of petroleum crude
oil. Spent caustic meeting the appropriate specifications is purchased
from petroleum refineries (i.e., it has a positive economic value and
is not accepted indiscriminately) and is managed as a valuable
commodity (i.e., feedstock) to prevent loss en route to its use in the
manufacturing process. The caustic solutions are individually shipped
by the refiners like other petroleum products. They move to the plant
in barges, railroad cars and tank trucks. Because this feedstock is
corrosive, the transportation conveyances used are subject to
applicable Coast Guard, Federal Railroad Administration, and Department
of Transportation regulations. Consequently, the human health and
environmental risk posed by the transportation of these products is
expected to be comparable to risks posed by similar raw materials. The
spent caustic which is currently used as a feedstock is managed in the
following manner. Upon arrival at the production facility, the caustic
solutions are directly loaded into storage tanks. The storage tanks are
constructed of steel and are built with diked concrete containment
systems for spill control and equipped closed vent headers that are
tied into a fume incinerator. These factors would mitigate air
emissions concerns presented by the handling of caustics in this
manner. The storage tanks meet all applicable Federal and State air
pollution regulations. From the storage tanks, the caustic is directly
pumped into the plant's chemical manufacturing process. The facility in
question has been in operation for close to 50 years. A review of
recent release history indicates that there have been no reportable
spills or releases associated with the handling and receipt of caustics
used in this manner over the past ten years. Based on the manner in
which these materials are routinely handled and processed, this
recycling practice more closely resembles a manufacturing operation
than a reclamation process.
EPA is therefore proposing to amend the regulations at 40 CFR
261.4(a)(14) to provide an exclusion from the definition of solid
waste, clarifying that spent liquid treating caustics from petroleum
refineries used as feedstock in the manufacture of naphthenic and
cresylic acid products are not solid wastes. EPA may identify
additional ``commodity-like'' materials as we proceed with other Agency
efforts to redefine the definition of solid waste and revise the
existing RCRA regulations.
4. Storage of Spent Caustic. Approximately 534,000 metric tons of
spent caustic were reported stored on-site prior to further management.
Storage is typically in covered tanks, however, EPA conducted a risk
analysis of uncovered tanks under the assumption that uncovered tanks
would pose the highest potential risk. A bounding maximum estimated
risk assessment resulted in risk estimates of less than one additional
cancer case in a population of one million (1E-6) and hazard
quotients\11\ less than one for the toxicants detected in this
residual.
\11\ The hazard quotient is a ratio of exposure to the RFC or
RfD, and is used as a measure of noncancer risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While RCRA hazardous wastes are subject to either 40 CFR 264 or 265
Subpart AA, BB, and CC Air Emission Standards, storage vessels
associated with petroleum refining process units are subject to the
recently promulgated 40 CFR 63 Subpart CC--National Emission Standards
for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (60 FR
43244, August 18, 1995). Therefore (assuming such standards'
enforceability), regardless of whether this secondary material is
considered waste or feedstocks, regulations in place prohibit the open
storage of these materials. The Agency does not believe the management
of the spent caustics at the petroleum refinery (prior to
transportation and use as a feedstock) poses a risk to human health and
the environment.
5. Deep Well Injection. As noted above, this wastestream is
typically characteristically hazardous. Spent caustics that are
underground injected that are characteristic will be subject to LDR
treatment requirements prior to injection. Furthermore, the spent
caustic is usually neutralized and diluted before injection, further
reducing any associated risks. Therefore, the Agency did not model this
disposal practice.
7. Off-Specification Product and Fines from Thermal Processes
a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous off-spec
product and fines from thermal processes. The Agency assessed the
potential risks associated with two selected management practices: on-
site Subtitle D landfilling and off-site Subtitle D landfilling. No
risks of concern were identified.
b. Discussion. Thermal processes include all processes where feed
is cracked solely by a thermal, rather than a catalytic, reaction
mechanism. These processes convert heavy stocks to light hydrocarbon
products. The most common thermal process is delayed coking; other
typical thermal processes include visbreaking, fluid coking, thermal
cracking and coke calcining. Only two generate residuals of concern for
this listing, delayed coking and fluid coking; the other processes do
not generate product coke. (See the Listing Background Document in the
Docket for this proposal for additional details. See ADDRESSES
section.)
The residual of concern for thermal processes consists of (1) off-
spec products (e.g., non-salable products generated during process
upsets, start ups, shut downs, turnarounds, or other conditions); and
(2) fines (e.g., coke fines generated during coke drum drilling). The
petroleum refining industry reported generation of almost 194,300
metric tons of off-spec product and fines. Approximately 87 percent of
this material is collected and combined with product inventory to be
sold.
Some cokers have been retrofitted to allow the refineries to
process certain waste materials, including the listed refinery
wastewater treatment sludges, as coker feeds. Hazardous waste-derived
petroleum coke or coke fines which exhibit any of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste are currently subject to RCRA requirements (see 40
CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii)).
Coke fines are generated on a daily basis. Although most off-spec
product and fines are sold with the refinery coke product, more than
7,250 metric tons (3.7 percent) are landfilled in on-site or off-site
Subtitle D landfills. The Agency conducted its risk assessment on these
disposal practices. Other management practices included recovery in the
coker (4.8 percent), discharge to wastewater treatment (2.6 percent),
and treatment in on-site boilers (1.1 percent). Smaller volumes went to
Subtitle C units (0.5
[[Page 57771]]
percent) and land treatment (0.03 percent). The volume reported
disposed of in land treatment units (almost 50 metric tons) is small in
comparison to the volumes modeled for landfills, and was assumed to be
of insignificant risk.
The Agency collected six samples of off-spec products and fines
from thermal processes. Five were from the delayed coker, and one from
a fluid coker; this corresponds to the dominance of delayed cokers in
the industry. These samples are believed to be representative of the
residual category as generated by the industry.
The Agency believes the management practices of most concern (off
site and on-site landfills) were assessed, and that the other
management practices would not serve as a basis for listing. Fines sent
to wastewater treatment are insoluble and will be incorporated in the
primary treatment sludges; these are already listed (K048, K051, F037
and F038). The volume reported going to an on-site boiler was somewhat
misleading because this material was not isolated from the coking
process. Rather, this volume is associated with fines entrained in off-
gases from fluid cokers, which were sent directly to carbon monoxide
boilers for air pollution control. Furthermore, this process was only
relevant to fluid cokers, which are present at only 3 of the 76
facilities.
EPA did not model storage of fines from thermal processes (i.e.,
coke fines). The majority of coke fines are managed with coke product
as product and thus are not within the jurisdiction of this rulemaking.
The Agency did assess the potential for air releases during landfilling
as a result of the frequent generation frequency and small particle
size associated with this residual and believes that this assessment
would be comparable to any potential risks associated with on-site
storage prior to final management.
Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list off-spec products
and fines from thermal processes from petroleum refining operations as
a hazardous waste. Furthermore, EPA notes that most of the coke fines
are sold with product coke, and that the coke product is statutorily
exempt from regulation as hazardous, unless the material exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic (see RCRA Sec. 3004(q)(2)(A)).
8. Catalyst and Fines From Catalytic Cracking
a. Summary. The Agency proposes not to list Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking (FCC) catalyst and fines as hazardous wastes. The Agency
characterized FCC catalysts and fines and modeled the risk associated
with management in an on-site monofill. For the direct and indirect
exposures from volatile and particulate emissions from monofills,
bounding estimates showed no significant risk. The Agency also found no
significant risk from the high-end analysis for the groundwater
pathway.
b. Discussion. The Agency's evaluation of this category considered
two subcategories: spent equilibrium catalyst and catalyst fines. The
FCC reactor is a fluidized bed through which catalyst circulates and is
regenerated. Equilibrium catalysts are removed from the unit on a
routine basis (daily or weekly) and replaced with fresh catalysts to
maintain a target activity and metals level. Catalyst fines are
collected in the FCC off-gas air pollution control devices (which may
include dry systems such as cyclones and electrostatic precipitators or
wet scrubbers). Physically, the two subcategories differ primarily in
their particle size. More than 70 percent of the equilibrium catalyst
is reused or otherwise recycled, while 15 percent of the catalyst fines
are recycled.
EPA chose to model the monofill and surface impoundment scenarios
for these residuals because units dedicated to these materials were
observed during the Agency's engineering site visits; in addition,
these residuals are produced frequently and in sufficient quantities by
numerous facilities to make a monofill or dedicated surface impoundment
possible. The Agency observed several monofills and a dedicated surface
impoundment during the 20 site visits performed as part of the listing
determination; some of these monofills were referred to as ``catalyst
landfills'' by facility personnel. EPA believes that this type of
management will show greater risk than other plausible management
practices that could have been modeled for these residuals (e.g.,
landfills that accept other non-hazardous waste), because the residual
will not be mixed or diluted with other material in an unlined
monofill.
The Agency did not model storage of FCC catalysts and fines, even
though these residuals are generated frequently. FCC catalyst and fines
are typically managed in pneumatic containers and hoppers prior to
final management due to their particle size and large volumes
generated. These storage vessels are designed to minimize dust
emissions and control material losses. The Agency did model potential
air releases in the modeled monofill scenario for FCC residuals. Thus,
interim storage was not modeled because of the nature of the storage
vessels typically used and the consideration of air pathway releases
during long-term final management.
EPA collected six samples of catalysts and fines: two FCC catalyst
samples, two dry samples of fines, and two samples of fines from wet
scrubbers. Due to limited variation in feedstocks, catalyst-type, and
use practices across the industry, EPA believes that these samples are
representative of the different forms of FCC catalysts and fines.
1. FCC Catalyst. The industry reported the generation of more than
124,000 metric tons of spent FCC catalyst in 1992. Seventy percent of
this volume was recycled to other FCC units or cement plants. Almost 19
percent was managed in off-site Subtitle D landfills and 2.3 percent
was managed in on-site Subtitle D landfills. Less than 1 percent was
managed in on- or off-site land treatment units. About 3 percent was
managed in on-site Subtitle C landfills, however, facilities did not
report these as characteristically hazardous, so the reason for
Subtitle C management is unclear.
Bounding estimates for the direct and indirect exposures from
volatile and particulate releases from monofills showed no risks of
concern for the equilibrium catalyst. These bounding estimates were run
under worst-case assumptions using multiple high-end assumptions for
critical parameters. (More plausible high-end analyses would be
expected to give even lower risks.) For the groundwater pathway, high-
end analyses also showed no significant risks from the monofill
scenario. The results are available in the Risk Assessment Background
Document in the docket for today's proposal (see ADDRESSES section).
Spent FCC catalysts contain primarily silica, aluminum, iron,
sodium, calcium, and some other trace metals. The constituents of
concern found in other petroleum residuals evaluated in this listing
determination (e.g., carcinogenic PAHs and benzene) were not detected
in spent FCC catalysts. EPA did not pursue modeling for the relatively
small volumes (less than 1 percent) of catalysts that were reported to
go to land treatment. If the much larger volumes evaluated for
monofills do not present a risk, it was considered highly unlikely that
the land treatment risks will be significant.
2. FCC Fines. More than 67,500 metric tons of FCC fines were
reported to be generated in 1992. Over 48 percent of this volume was
managed in off-site Subtitle D landfills, 20 percent was recycled
(primarily by cement plants), 12.6 percent was managed in on-site
[[Page 57772]]
Subtitle D landfills, and 1.1 percent was managed in Subtitle C
landfills. 10.4 percent of the volume was reported to be managed in
surface impoundments, and almost 10 percent reportedly was not
collected, but vented into the atmosphere in states where aggressive
emissions controls were not required. 0.6 percent of the volume was
managed in land treatment units.
Bounding estimates for the direct and indirect exposures from
releases from monofills showed no risks of concern for FCC fines. For
the groundwater pathway, high-end analyses also showed no significant
risks from the monofill or surface impoundment scenarios. The results
are available in the Risk Assessment Background Document in the docket
for today's proposal (see ADDRESSES section).
Similar to FCC catalysts, EPA did not pursue modeling for the
relatively small volumes (less than 1 percent) of fines that were
reported to go to land treatment because the much larger volumes
evaluated for monofills and surface impoundments were not found to
present a risk above the level of concern.
3. Definition of Solid Waste Issues. A large fraction of the
recycled FCC catalyst (over one-third) is only partially deactivated
and may be reused without further reclamation in another FCC unit
(generally at another refinery) that can utilize catalysts with the
reduced activity. Because these materials are continuing to be used for
their intended purpose, (i.e., as catalysts) they are not considered to
be ``spent materials'' within the RCRA definition (50 FR 624, January
4, 1985). ``Spent materials'' as defined under RCRA do not include
materials that are reused for their original purpose, provided that the
materials do not undergo reclamation or reprocessing prior to their
reuse. Therefore, as long as the partially deactivated catalyst does
not undergo reclamation prior to its reuse as a catalyst, it would be
considered a product excluded from jurisdiction under RCRA.
Some of the spent FCC material is legitimately recycled in cement
plants, because the silica-alumina matrix, among other things, is
useful as an ingredient in cement production. EPA did not attempt to
model risks specifically from the recycling of FCC catalysts and fines
in cement plants. However, given the low levels of any hazardous
constituents in spent FCC catalysts and fines, the Agency does not
believe the practice should present significant risks. Furthermore, the
residuals are blended with other materials at the cement plant
(typically up to 5% of the feed material), and the ultimate product
(concrete) would tend to immobilize any trace metals present. While
generators did not report that the catalyst or fines exhibited a
characteristic, it should be noted that cement manufactured using a
characteristically hazardous waste as an ingredient would result in
regulation of the kiln as a BIF (56 FR 7185, February 21, 1991).
Furthermore, cement produced from FCC catalysts that exhibit a
hazardous characteristic would be considered a waste-derived product
(see 40 CFR 266.20). Under RCRA, products that are derived-from
hazardous wastes and are used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g.,
cement) may be marketed for the general public's use and used without
further regulation, if they meet applicable LDR standards and if the
hazardous constituents undergo a chemical change so as to be
inseparable by physical means (50 FR 629, January 4, 1985).
9. Sludge From Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation
a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous sludge from
hydrofluoric acid alkylation processes. The Agency assessed the
potential risks associated with: on-site Subtitle D landfilling, off-
site Subtitle D landfilling, on-site land treatment, and off-site land
treatment. Only marginal risk was identified for the ground-water
ingestion exposure pathway in the modeled off-site landfill. The
marginal risks identified in the Agency's risk assessment are
summarized in Table III-7.
Table III-7.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates: HF Alkylation Sludge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site land treatment Off-site land treatment On-site Off-site landfill Waste characterization
------------------------------------------------------- landfill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern ------------- High end
Central High end Central High end Central Central High end Avg. High Low # of pts Notes
tendency tendency tendency tendency con. conc. conc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUNDWATER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................ <1e-6><1e-6><1e-6><1e-6 1e-7="" 6e-7="" 5e-8="" 3e-6="" 0.08="" 0.2="" .......="" 1="" of="" 5="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" all="" concentrations="" are="" tclp="" leachate="" values="" in="" mg/l.="" b.="" discussion.="" the="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" (hf)="" alkylation="" process="" contacts="" olefin="" and="" isobutane="" gases="" over="" a="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" catalyst="" to="" synthesize="" alkylates="" for="" octane="" boosting.="" the="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" is="" managed="" in="" a="" closed-loop="" process,="" without="" leaving="" the="" unit="" for="" replacement="" or="" regeneration.="" as="" a="" result="" of="" neutralization="" of="" trace="" hf="" levels="" in="" product="" streams="" and="" certain="" process="" residuals,="" many="" refineries="" generate="" a="" calcium="" fluoride="" sludge.="" (see="" the="" listing="" background="" document="" in="" the="" docket="" for="" this="" proposal="" for="" additional="" details.="" see="" addresses="" section.)="" this="" sludge="" is="" the="" residual="" of="" concern="" for="" this="" category.="" sludge="" from="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" alkylation="" is="" generated="" every="" 3="" to="" 6="" months.="" the="" sludge="" is="" generally="" dewatered="" prior="" to="" final="" management="" and="" managed="" with="" other="" alkylation="" process="" unit="" wastewaters.="" the="" agency="" collected="" five="" samples="" of="" sludge="" from="" hydrofluoric="" alkylation.="" these="" samples="" are="" believed="" to="" be="" representative="" of="" the="" sludges="" generated="" by="" the="" industry.="" in="" 1992,="" the="" petroleum="" refining="" industry="" reported="" generating="" 11,288="" metric="" tons="" of="" sludge="" from="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" alkylation.="" the="" management="" scenarios="" selected="" for="" risk="" assessment="" focussed="" on="" known="" subtitle="" d="" land="" disposal="" activities,="" which="" included="" on-site="" land="" treatment="" (4.9="" percent),="" off-site="" land="" treatment="" (6.1="" percent),="" on-site="" landfilling="" (0.4="" percent),="" and="" off-site="" subtitle="" d="" landfilling="" (65.3="" percent).="" other="" major="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" sludge="" management="" practices="" reported="" in="" 1992="" included="" on-site="" recovery="" in="" a="" coker="" (11.6="" percent),="" off-site="" industrial="" furnace="" (7.3="" percent),="" disposal="" in="" surface="" impoundment="" (2="" percent),="" and="" discharge="" to="" wastewater="" (0.7="" percent).="" the="" agency's="" risk="" assessment="" of="" hf="" alkylation="" sludge="" showed="" only="" marginal="" risk="" for="" one="" of="" the="" four="" management="" scenarios="" modeled--off-="" site="" landfilling.="" the="" exposure="" route="" of="" concern="" was="" limited="" to="" ground-="" water="" ingestion.="" the="" contaminant="" of="" marginal="" concern="" was="" benzene,="" with="" a="" high-end="" cancer="" risk="" of="" 3e-6="" and="" a="" central="" tendency="" risk="" of="" 5e-8.="" epa="" believes="" that="" this="" risk="" is="" not="" significant="" enough="" to="" warrant="" a="" listing="" because="" it="" is="" near="" the="" presumptive="" no-list="" level="" of="" 10-6,="" and="" the="" actual="" risk="" [[page="" 57773]]="" may="" be="" lower="" than="" the="" results="" indicate="" due="" to="" the="" possible="" biodegradation="" of="" benzene="" prior="" to="" reaching="" receptors.="" in="" addition,="" the="" frequency="" of="" detection="" in="" tclp="" samples="" (one="" out="" of="" five)="" was="" low,="" further="" indicating="" that="" the="" risk="" attributed="" to="" this="" parameter="" would="" generally="" be="" lower.="" the="" agency="" did="" not="" attempt="" to="" model="" the="" volume="" of="" hf="" alkylation="" sludge="" going="" to="" an="" off-site="" industrial="" furnace="" because:="" (1)="" epa="" determined="" the="" furnace="" was="" a="" cement="" kiln="" that="" was="" already="" subject="" to="" regulation="" (the="" kiln="" had="" applied="" for="" a="" permit="" as="" a="" boiler="" and="" industrial="" furnace="" (bif)),="" and="" (2)="" this="" was="" reported="" to="" occur="" by="" only="" one="" facility,="" and="" the="" refinery="" has="" since="" closed.="" therefore,="" epa="" believes="" treatment="" of="" this="" waste="" in="" a="" furnace="" is="" extremely="" rare="" and,="" considering="" the="" existing="" regulatory="" controls="" in="" place="" for="" bifs,="" this="" management="" practice="" is="" not="" of="" concern.="" epa="" did="" not="" model="" the="" small="" volume="" (221="" metric="" tons)="" reportedly="" disposed="" of="" in="" a="" surface="" impoundment,="" because="" this="" practice="" was="" rare="" (one="" facility).="" furthermore,="" epa="" determined="" that="" this="" facility="" has="" since="" ceased="" this="" practice="" entirely="" and="" closed="" the="" impoundment.="" therefore,="" epa="" believes="" that="" disposal="" in="" a="" surface="" impoundment="" is="" not="" a="" plausible="" management="" practice="" of="" concern="" for="" this="" waste.="" some="" refineries="" reported="" the="" discharge="" of="" their="" hf="" alkylation="" sludge="" to="" wastewater="" treatment.="" the="" agency="" believes="" any="" hazardous="" materials="" contained="" therein="" would="" be="" largely="" removed="" during="" oil/water/="" solids="" separation="" as="" already="" listed="" hazardous="" waste="" (f037,="" f038,="" k048,="" and="" k051),="" or="" significantly="" diluted="" by="" other="" wastewaters.="" therefore,="" the="" agency="" did="" not="" model="" this="" management="" practice.="" refineries="" also="" reported="" the="" transfer="" of="" this="" residual="" for="" processing="" in="" an="" on-site="" coker.="" the="" agency="" did="" not="" model="" the="" risk="" associated="" with="" on-site="" coker="" recovery="" because="" the="" residual="" is="" managed="" in="" closed="" systems="" (i.e.,="" vacuum="" trucks,="" tanks,="" and="" piping)="" which="" eliminate="" environmental="" pathways="" of="" concern.="" in="" addition,="" the="" hf="" alkylation="" sludge="" residuals="" processed="" in="" an="" on-site="" coker="" typically="" are="" oil-bearing="" materials="" which="" are="" being="" proposed="" for="" exclusion="" from="" the="" definition="" of="" solid="" waste="" in="" this="" rulemaking.="" see="" section="" iii.f.="" based="" on="" an="" analysis="" of="" the="" risks="" associated="" with="" current="" management="" practices,="" epa="" is="" proposing="" not="" to="" list="" sludge="" from="" hydrofluoric="" acid="" alkylation="" from="" petroleum="" refining="" operations="" as="" a="" hazardous="" waste.="" the="" agency="" requests="" comment="" on="" this="" proposed="" decision.="" 10.="" sludge="" from="" sulfur="" complex="" and="">2S Removal Facilities
a. Summary. EPA is proposing to not list as hazardous sludge from
sulfur complex and H2S removal facilities. None of the plausible
management practices identified and modeled by the Agency pose
significant risk to human health and the environment.
b. Discussion. Virtually all crude oil contains sulfur which must
be removed at various points in the refining process. A common method
for treating light petroleum gases is amine scrubbing, followed by
recovery of elemental sulfur, and tail gas treating. The Agency has
defined the category of sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal
facilities to capture sludge generated during amine scrubbing and
recover.12 Sludges accumulate in amine systems due to the
formation of heat stable salts and other inert process system
impurities. Control methods to remove these impurities include
particulate filters, activated carbon, diatomaceous earth,
regeneration, and/or caustic addition, depending on the type of amine
used and petroleum stream being treated. These control methods (with
the exception of caustic addition) generate sludge that meets the
Agency's definition of sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal
facilities.
\12\ Other residuals of interest to the Agency from the H2S
removal and sulfur complex include several residuals described
elsewhere in today's notice (catalyst from Claus sulfur recovery,
catalyst from SCOT tail gas treating), and several residuals to be
addressed in the consent decree study (off-spec sulfur, off-spec
treating solution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 8,500 metric tons of sludge from sulfur complex and
H2S removal facilities were reported by the petroleum refining
industry in 1992. Over 47 percent was managed in off-site Subtitle D
landfills, and about 2 percent was managed in on-site Subtitle D
landfills. Less than 2 percent was disposed of in on-site or off-site
land treatment units. In addition, the Agency believes that a
significant portion (almost 50 percent) of this residual is managed on-
site intermediately in storage containers such as dumpsters prior to
shipment or final disposal. The Agency conducted its risk assessment on
these management practices. Other major management practices included
discharge to wastewater treatment (40 percent), on-site incineration
(0.1 percent), Subtitle C landfilling (2 percent), off-site carbon
regeneration (1.2 percent), and miscellaneous recycling methods (3.0
percent).
The Agency collected five samples of this sludge. The samples
represent sludges, sorbents, and filter media generated from amine
systems. These samples are believed to be representative of the
residual category as generated by the industry.
The Agency found no significant risks for any exposure pathway for
this waste when disposed of in on-site or off-site landfills and land
treatment units. Furthermore, no significant risks were found from
potential air releases from storage in dumpsters.
EPA did not model the volumes of waste that were discharged to the
wastewater treatment system, because the solids would be captured in
the API separator or primary treatment sludge, which are already listed
hazardous wastes (K048, K051, F037, F038). Incineration was also not
modeled, because the volume was 197 metric tons, and nearly all of this
volume (192 metric tons) was treated in a Subtitle C permitted
incinerator. Therefore, neither scenario was expected to cause
significant risk.
Based on an analysis of the risks associated with current
management practices, EPA is proposing not to list sludge from sulfur
complex and H2S removal facilities as a hazardous waste.
11. Catalyst From Sulfur Complex and H2S Removal Facilities
a. Summary. The Agency is not proposing to list any of the spent
catalysts generated from H2S removal and sulfur complex
operations. The plausible management scenarios used for the two major
subcategories of catalysts were modeled and found to pose no
significant risk.
b. Discussion. The Agency subdivided this category into two
distinct residuals of concern: spent Claus unit catalyst and spent
SCOT like tail gas catalyst. A Claus unit converts H2S
generated from the refinery sulfur removal system into elemental sulfur
through the use of heat and an alumina catalyst. The SCOT
unit converts sulfur dioxide in exhaust gas from the Claus unit to
H2S using a cobalt/molybdenum catalyst. The H2S either is
concentrated using amine solutions and sent back to the Claus unit, or
is converted directly into elemental sulfur. The Agency has evaluated
Claus and SCOT like catalysts separately because they differ
in the point of generation and their composition also differs somewhat
(the Claus catalyst is alumina, while the SCOT catalyst's
active metals are cobalt and molybdenum).
1. Claus Catalyst. The alumina Claus catalyst is generated during
unit turnarounds every 1 to 3 years. The industry reported generation
of over 3,800 metric tons in 1992. Almost 60 percent was reported to be
managed in off-site Subtitle D landfills, and another
[[Page 57774]]
10 percent was managed in on-site Subtitle D landfills. These
management practices were evaluated in the Agency's risk assessment.
Other management practices included recycling in cement plants (18.9
percent), disposal in Subtitle C landfills (7 percent), and off-site
reclamation (3.5 percent); these practices were not evaluated for the
same reasons discussed for the FCC catalyst and fines in Section
III.G.8.
EPA was able to collect three samples of spent Claus catalysts.
These are expected to be representative, because there are essentially
no process variations with the Claus process; all units use alumina
catalysts and all treat a purified stream of hydrogen sulfide.
For the direct and indirect pathways of volatile emissions and
particulate emissions, as well as for the groundwater leachate pathway,
the Agency found no significant risk from bounding estimates.
Therefore, the Agency proposes not to designate spent Claus catalyst as
a listed hazardous waste.
2. Tail Gas Treating Catalyst. Spent catalysts from tail gas
treating are generated every 2 to 7 years during tail gas treater
turnarounds and topping activities. Tail gas treating, as typified by
the SCOT process, is used to remove sulfur dioxide from Claus
unit off-gases. The catalyst is typically cobalt and molybdenum on an
alumina base. The catalyst is removed from the unit because its
activity has been reduced below acceptable levels due to coking and/or
particle degradation. This residual is similar to hydrotreating
catalyst in its general composition and purpose in sulfur removal.
However, tail gas treating catalysts are generally much less
contaminated than hydrotreating catalysts because they are exposed to
off-gases rather than hydrocarbon streams; thus, the tail gas catalysts
are not subjected to metals deposition. Twenty three percent of the
SCOT catalyst volume generated in 1992 was reported to be
managed as characteristically hazardous, primarily due to ignitability.
In 1992, the petroleum refining industry reported generating 361
metric tons of spent tail gas treating (e.g., SCOT) catalyst.
The management scenarios selected for assessment focussed on known
Subtitle D landfilling activities, which included on-site (2.7
percent), and off-site Subtitle D landfills (13.8 percent). Other major
management practices included transfer for metals reclamation or
regeneration (52 percent), or Subtitle C landfilling (28.8 percent);
these practices were not evaluated for the same reasons discussed for
the hydrotreating catalyst in Section III.G.3.
The Agency was able to collect three samples of spent tail gas
treating catalysts. These samples are believed to be representative of
the SCOT catalysts used by the industry, because there are
essentially no process variations in the treating of tail gas.
The Agency found no significant risks associated with the disposal
of this waste in landfills. The potential risks from ingestion of
groundwater were below levels of concern. Furthermore, the extremely
small volumes disposed of in landfills (60 metric tons total, average
of 12 metric tons per facility), suggest that spent tail gas treating
catalysts should not present any significant risks. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing not to list this waste.
12. Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment
a. Summary. EPA is proposing not to list as hazardous sediment from
the storage of unleaded gasoline. The Agency assessed the potential
risks associated with four selected management practices: on-site
Subtitle D landfilling, off-site Subtitle D landfilling, on-site land
treatment, and off-site land treatment. Only marginal risk was
identified for the groundwater ingestion exposure pathway. The marginal
risks identified in the Agency's risk assessment are summarized in
Table III-8.
Table III-8.--Waste Characterization and Risk Estimates: Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site land treatment Off-site land treatment On-site landfill Off-site landfill Waste characterization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituents of concern Central Central Central Central Avg. High Low
tendency High end tendency High end tendency High end tendency High end conc. conc. conc. # of pts Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUNDWATER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................ 3E-8 <1e-6 3e-8=""><1e-6 3e-8=""><1e-6 3e-8="" 2e-6="" 0.75="" 1.6="" 0.06="" 3="" of="" 3="" j(1)="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" notes:="" j(#)="" samples="" were="" estimated="" concentrations="" below="" quantitation="" limits,="" ``#''="" indicates="" number="" of="" samples="" that="" are="" ``j''="" values.="" all="" concentrations="" are="" tclp="" leachate="" values="" in="" mg/l.="" b.="" discussion.="" unleaded="" gasoline="" tank="" sediment="" is="" generated="" from="" the="" storage="" of="" unleaded="" gasoline="" and="" consists="" of="" tank="" scale="" and="" rust.="" the="" storage="" tanks="" are="" drained="" for="" inspection="" on="" average="" once="" every="" 10="" years="" during="" which="" time="" sediment="" removal="" occurs.="" an="" integral="" part="" of="" unleaded="" tank="" turnarounds="" includes="" extensive="" water="" washing="" to="" reduce="" volatile="" organic="" concentrations="" to="" achieve="" a="" concentration="" less="" than="" the="" lower="" explosive="" limit="" in="" preparation="" for="" safe="" tank="" entry.="" this="" tank="" washing="" results="" in="" significant="" sediment="" scouring="" to="" the="" wastewater="" treatment="" plant.="" the="" results="" of="" the="" 1992="" sec.="" 3007="" petroleum="" refining="" survey="" showed="" that="" approximately="" 3,600="" metric="" tons="" of="" unleaded="" gasoline="" tank="" sediment="" were="" generated.="" the="" management="" scenarios="" selected="" for="" risk="" assessment="" focussed="" on="" known="" subtitle="" d="" land="" disposal="" activities,="" which="" included="" on-site="" land="" treatment="" (3.1="" percent="" of="" the="" total="" unleaded="" gasoline="" tank="" sediment="" volume),="" off-site="" land="" treatment="" (2.6="" percent),="" on-site="" subtitle="" d="" landfilling="" (0.2="" percent),="" and="" off-site="" subtitle="" d="" landfilling="" (17.4="" percent).="" other="" major="" unleaded="" gasoline="" tank="" sediment="" management="" practices="" included="" discharge="" to="" the="" wastewater="" treatment="" plant="" (58.4="" percent),="" subtitle="" c="" landfilling="" (3.0="" percent),="" off-site="" incineration="" (4.9="" percent),="" and="" other="" on-site="" disposal="" (0.5="" percent).="" the="" remaining="" 7.6="" percent="" was="" recovered="" on-site="" or="" transferred="" for="" use="" as="" fuel.="" the="" agency="" was="" able="" to="" collect="" three="" samples="" of="" unleaded="" gasoline="" storage="" tank="" sediment.="" these="" samples="" are="" believed="" to="" be="" representative="" of="" typical="" sediments="" generated="" throughout="" the="" industry.="" the="" agency="" attempted="" to="" collect="" additional="" samples,="" but="" was="" unable="" to="" because="" several="" tank="" turnarounds="" were="" observed="" where="" little="" or="" no="" sediment="" to="" be="" sampled="" remained="" in="" the="" tanks="" following="" tank="" washing="" to="" reduce="" occupational="" benzene="" concentrations.="" the="" agency's="" risk="" assessment="" showed="" only="" marginal="" levels="" of="" concern="" for="" this="" residual.="" the="" agency's="" models="" showed="" risk="" only="" for="" ground-="" water="" ingestion="" associated="" with="" off-site="" landfilling.="" the="" off-site="" landfill="" scenario="" showed="" high-end="" risk="" due="" to="" benzene="" levels="" at="" a="" cancer="" risk="" of="" 2e-6="" and="" a="" central="" tendency="" risk="" of="" 3e-8.="" epa="" believes="" that="" [[page="" 57775]]="" this="" risk="" is="" not="" significant="" enough="" to="" warrant="" a="" listing="" because="" it="" is="" very="" close="" to="" the="" presumptive="" no-list="" level="" of="" 10-6,="" and="" the="" actual="" risk="" may="" be="" lower="" than="" the="" results="" indicate="" due="" to="" the="" possible="" biodegradation="" of="" benzene="" prior="" to="" reaching="" receptors.="" the="" agency="" also="" notes="" that="" the="" total="" volume="" of="" unleaded="" gasoline="" tank="" sediment="" is="" moderately="" small=""><4,000 metric="" tons),="" and="" that="" the="" portion="" actually="" disposed="" of="" in="" landfills="" is="" even="" smaller="" (about="" 600="" metric="" tons="" total,="" or="" an="" average="" of="" 28="" metric="" tons="" per="" facility)="" due="" to="" the="" intermittent="" generation="" of="" this="" waste.="" therefore,="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" small="" waste="" volumes="" disposed="" of,="" and="" the="" infrequent="" generation="" of="" this="" waste="" are="" other="" factors="" that="" support="" a="" decision="" not="" to="" list="" this="" waste.="" the="" agency="" notes="" that="" the="" industry="" reported="" that="" approximately="" 25="" percent="" of="" these="" sediments="" are="" managed="" as="" hazardous="" for="" benzene="" under="" the="" toxicity="" characteristic="" (tc).="" in="" this="" case,="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" the="" tc="" will="" effectively="" capture="" wastes="" with="" high="" benzene="" levels,="" i.e.,="" the="" only="" constituent="" that="" exhibited="" even="" marginal="" concern="" in="" this="" waste.="" the="" agency="" requests="" comment="" on="" whether="" this="" factor="" should="" be="" used="" to="" support="" a="" positive="" listing="" determination.="" epa="" did="" not="" pursue="" modeling="" for="" the="" volume="" of="" sediment="" that="" was="" reportedly="" discharged="" to="" the="" wastewater="" treatment="" plant,="" because="" of="" the="" volumes="" concerned="" are="" small="" compared="" to="" other="" discharges="" and="" will="" have="" minimal="" impact="" of="" the="" treatment="" process.="" furthermore,="" these="" waste="" solids="" would="" be="" incorporated="" in="" the="" api="" separator="" or="" primary="" treatment="" sludges,="" and="" these="" are="" already="" listed="" (k048,="" k051,="" f037="" and="" f038).="" the="" agency="" also="" did="" not="" try="" to="" assess="" risks="" associated="" with="" off-site="" incineration,="" because="" the="" practice="" was="" relatively="" rare="" and="" the="" volume="" was="" small="" (177="" metric="" tons="" from="" 4="" of="" 81="" facilities).="" in="" addition,="" the="" off-site="" incinerators="" were="" reported="" to="" be="" hazardous="" waste="" incinerators="" that="" are="" already="" subject="" to="" regulatory="" control.="" similarly,="" wastes="" disposed="" of="" in="" a="" subtitle="" c="" landfill="" are="" already="" regulated="" as="" hazardous="" and="" should="" not="" present="" significant="" risk.="" 13.="" catalyst="" from="" reforming="" a.="" summary.="" epa="" is="" proposing="" not="" to="" list="" spent="" catalysts="" from="" reforming="" operations="" as="" a="" hazardous="" waste.="" a="" principal="" component="" of="" reforming="" catalyst="" is="" platinum="" and="" the="" spent="" catalyst="" itself="" is="" extremely="" valuable.="" ninety="" four="" percent="" of="" it="" is="" recycled="" due="" to="" its="" platinum="" content.="" the="" remaining="" 6="" percent="" consists="" primarily="" of="" other="" materials="" generated="" during="" catalyst="" replacement="" (e.g.,="" ceramic="" support="" media).="" the="" strict="" inventory="" controls="" the="" industry="" uses="" with="" spent="" platinum="" catalysts="" limit="" potential="" routes="" of="" exposure="" resulting="" from="" the="" management="" of="" these="" materials.="" the="" only="" exposure="" pathway="" epa="" examined="" was="" the="" air="" pathway="" from="" the="" combustion="" of="" the="" reforming="" catalyst="" prior="" to="" reclamation.="" epa="" data="" show="" the="" presence="" of="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" in="" spent="" reforming="" catalysts="" that="" are="" believed="" to="" be="" generated="" during="" regeneration="" of="" the="" catalyst="" within="" the="" reforming="" reactor.="" a="" screening="" risk="" analysis="" of="" potential="" air="" release="" pathways="" for="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" at="" recycling="" facilities="" failed="" to="" show="" any="" significant="" risk.="" b.="" discussion.="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" reforming="" process="" is="" to="" upgrade="" the="" octane="" value="" of="" naphtha="" feedstocks="" by="" the="" conversion="" of="" the="" naphtha="" to="" aromatics.="" the="" process="" is="" catalyzed="" by="" platinum="" chloride="" or="" a="" platinum/rhenium="" chloride="" combination.="" agency="" survey="" data="" indicate="" that="" 94%="" of="" the="" approximately="" 3,600="" metric="" tons="" of="" spent="" precious="" metal="" bearing="" reforming="" catalyst="" reported="" as="" generated="" in="" 1992="" are="" currently="" recycled="" for="" their="" precious="" metal="" content.="" because="" of="" the="" value="" of="" these="" materials="" (each="" drum="" of="" it="" is="" estimated="" to="" be="" worth="" several="" thousand="" dollars),="" the="" spent="" catalysts="" are="" controlled="" and="" tracked="" between="" the="" refinery="" and="" metals="" reclamation="" facilities="" to="" prevent="" loss.="" the="" agency="" can="" foresee="" no="" generator="" site="" environmental="" release="" pathway="" for="" spent="" catalysts="" other="" than="" potential="" de="" minimis="" spills.="" there="" are="" two="" separate="" management="" activities="" for="" reforming="" catalyst="" the="" agency="" assessed="" in="" this="" listing="" determination:="" in-situ="" regeneration="" and="" off-site="" recycling.="" regeneration="" spent="" reforming="" catalysts="" are="" regenerated="" in-situ="" either="" on="" a="" cyclic,="" semi-regenerative,="" or="" continuous="" basis.="" part="" of="" the="" purpose="" of="" regeneration="" is="" to="" redistribute="" the="" platinum="" into="" the="" catalyst.="" this="" involves="" the="" addition="" of="" chlorine="" or="" chlorinated="" compounds.="" data="" collected="" by="" epa="" shows="" that="" this="" regeneration="" step="" leads="" to="" the="" generation="" of="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" and="" the="" potential="" dioxin="" contamination="" of="" air="" pollution="" control="" scrubber="" waters="" as="" well="" as="" the="" release="" of="" these="" contaminants="" to="" the="" air.="" the="" epa's="" office="" of="" water="" has="" collected="" limited="" data="" from="" five="" refineries="" and="" received="" addition="" voluntary="" data="" submissions="" from="" three="" refineries="" indicating="" that="" low="" levels="" of="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" are="" found="" in="" scrubber="" waters="" during="" the="" in-situ="" catalyst="" regeneration="" process.="" these="" scrubber="" waters="" are="" commonly="" discharged="" to="" the="" oil="" recovery="" sewer="" for="" transfer="" to="" wastewater="" treatment.="" sludge="" data="" was="" obtained="" for="" three="" of="" the="" facilities.="" two="" of="" the="" three="" samples="" were="" found="" to="" contain="" dioxins="" and="" furans.="" (the="" third="" sample="" was="" analyzed="" by="" two="" laboratories,="" and="" dioxins/furans="" were="" found="" by="" one="" of="" the="" laboratories;="" however,="" the="" presence="" of="" dioxins/furans="" could="" not="" be="" verified="" by="" epa="" because="" the="" laboratory="" information="" was="" not="" complete.)="" based="" on="" these="" limited="" data,="" the="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" appear="" to="" concentrate="" in="" wastewater="" treatment="" sludges="" generated="" during="" the="" regeneration="" process.="" (see="" petroleum="" refining="" industry-presence="" of="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" in="" wastewater="" generated="" by="" reforming="" operations,="" epa,="" may="" 1994.)="" the="" primary="" oil/water/solids="" sludges="" are="" already="" listed="" hazardous="" wastes="" (k048,="" k051,="" f037,="" and="" f038).="" the="" agency="" is="" seeking="" data="" on="" api="" separator="" sludge="" and="" other="" oil-="" bearing="" wastes="" that="" have="" come="" into="" contact="" with="" discarded="" caustic="" scrubber="" waters="" from="" the="" regeneration="" of="" precious="" metal="" catalysts="" in="" the="" reforming="" process.="" in-situ="" regeneration="" of="" these="" catalysts="" typically="" occurs="" for="" a="" two="" to="" three="" day="" period="" from="" one="" to="" three="" times="" a="" year.="" epa="" notes="" that="" the="" sampling="" was="" limited="" and="" that="" it="" is="" still="" unclear="" whether="" the="" samples="" would="" represent="" typical="" refinery="" operations.="" therefore,="" epa="" requests="" additional="" data="" on="" the="" dioxin/furan="" content="" of="" similar="" sludges,="" especially="" sludges="" generated="" during="" normal="" operations="" when="" regeneration="" is="" not="" occurring,="" and="" those="" sludges="" generated="" by="" facilities="" using="" a="" continuous="" reforming="" process="" that="" does="" not="" produce="" caustic="" scrubber="" waters.="" the="" agency="" also="" requests="" comment="" on:="" (1)="" opportunities="" for="" removing="" dioxin="" prior="" to="" discharge="" of="" scrubber="" water="" into="" wwt="" system,="" (2)="" opportunities="" to="" segregate="" this="" wastestream,="" and="" (3)="" potential="" health="" risk="" associated="" with="" insertion="" of="" dioxin-contaminated="" media="" back="" into="" the="" refining="" process="" (such="" as="" the="" coker).="" petroleum="" refining="" reformer="" units="" are="" specifically="" cited="" in="" the="" caa="" for="" mact="" standards,="" scheduled="" for="" proposal="" in="" 1996="" (57="" fr="" 44156,="" september="" 24,="" 1992).="" 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin="" is="" a="" hazardous="" air="" pollutant="" and="" would="" be="" assessed="" for="" potential="" controls="" under="" the="" air="" program.="" epa="" may="" rely="" on="" the="" air="" program="" to="" protect="" human="" health="" and="" the="" environment="" from="" air="" emissions="" during="" the="" regeneration="" process.="" epa="" currently="" lacks="" an="" adequate="" record="" to="" propose="" further="" regulation="" of="" the="" spent="" air="" pollution="" control="" caustic="" and="" sludge.="" therefore,="" epa="" is="" making="" no="" determination="" of="" the="" ``listability''="" of="" [[page="" 57776]]="" these="" spent="" caustic="" residuals="" at="" this="" time.="" recycling="" once="" spent="" reformer="" catalysts="" reach="" the="" recycler,="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" environmental="" pathways="" of="" potential="" significance="" are="" air="" emissions="" during="" the="" recycling="" process="" and="" any="" subsequent="" disposal="" of="" small="" quantities="" of="" support="" media="" separated="" from="" the="" spent="" catalyst.="" however,="" the="" support="" media="" is="" only="" a="" very="" small="" portion="" of="" the="" overall="" waste="" volume="" and,="" since="" it="" consists="" of="" inert="" ceramic="" material,="" it="" was="" not="" considered="" for="" risk="" assessment.="" air="" emissions="" are="" scrubbed="" to="" capture="" and="" return="" precious="" metals="" to="" the="" process.="" a="" variety="" of="" polychlorinated="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" were="" detected="" in="" samples="" of="" spent="" reformer="" catalyst.="" while="" the="" dioxin="" isomer="" of="" most="" concern="" 2,3,7,8-tertachlorodibenzodioxin="" (2,3,7,8-tcdd)="" was="" not="" detected,="" other="" 2,3,7,8-homologs="" of="" dibenzodioxin="" and="" dibenzofuran="" were="" detected="" in="" samples="" of="" the="" spent="" reformer="" catalyst="" at="" levels="" ranging="" from="" 0.03="" to="" 9.8="" ppt="" when="" expressed="" in="" terms="" of="" the="" 2,3,7,8-tcdd="" toxic="" equivalent="" value="" (teq).="" the="" median="" concentration="" was="" 0.12="" ppt="" teq.="" a="" screening="" risk="" assessment="" was="" conducted="" to="" see="" if="" the="" concentrations="" of="" these="" toxicants="" in="" spent="" catalysts="" would="" produce="" possibly="" unacceptable="" risk="" from="" air="" releases="" during="" reclamation.="" the="" analysis="" showed="" the="" concentrations="" of="" dioxins="" and="" furans="" in="" spent="" reformer="" catalysts="" were="" below="" levels="" of="" concern.="" residuals="" from="" recycling="" processes="" were="" found="" to="" be="" considered="" by="" recyclers="" to="" still="" have="" precious="" metals="" value="" and="" are="" shipped="" to="" smelters="" for="" further="" metals="" recovery.="" as="" such,="" they="" would="" be="" eligible="" for="" a="" case-by-case="" variance="" from="" certain="" rcra="" hazardous="" waste="" management="" requirements="" (notification="" and="" manifesting="" requirements)="" even="" if="" the="" catalyst="" were="" listed="" as="" hazardous.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 260.31(c).="" overall,="" the="" agency's="" assessment="" of="" current="" management="" practices="" associated="" with="" recycling="" reforming="" catalyst="" fails="" to="" find="" any="" significant="" risks="" to="" human="" health="" or="" the="" environment.="" the="" results="" of="" the="" agency's="" analysis="" of="" 6="" spent="" reformer="" catalyst="" samples,="" as="" well="" as="" further="" description="" of="" the="" reforming="" process="" and="" catalyst="" management="" are="" provided="" in="" the="" listing="" background="" document="" in="" the="" public="" docket="" for="" this="" rule="" (see="" addresses="" section).="" the="" agency="" concludes="" that="" risk="" from="" the="" solid="" waste="" management="" of="" spent="" reformer="" catalysts="" are="" negligible="" because="" of="" the="" lack="" of="" release="" and="" exposure="" pathways="" associated="" with="" off-site="" precious="" metals="" recovery="" operations.="" therefore,="" the="" agency="" proposes="" not="" to="" designate="" spent="" reformer="" catalysts="" as="" a="" listed="" hazardous="" waste.="" 14.="" sludge="" from="" sulfuric="" acid="" alkylation="" a.="" summary.="" epa="" is="" proposing="" not="" to="" list="" sludge="" from="" sulfuric="" acid="" alkylation="" as="" a="" hazardous="" waste.="" the="" agency="" evaluated="" the="" plausible="" management="" practices="" used="" by="" the="" industry="" to="" manage="" this="" residual="" and="" found="" no="" significant="" risk="" to="" human="" health="" or="" the="" environment.="" b.="" discussion.="" some="" refineries="" use="" a="" neutralization="" tank="" or="" pit="" in="" their="" sulfuric="" acid="" alkylation="" process="" areas="" to="" control="" the="" ph="" of="" alkylation="" wastewaters="" released="" to="" their="" wastewater="" treatment="" plants.="" discharges="" to="" the="" pit="" may="" include="" spills,="" acid="" leaks,="" acid="" samples,="" and="" runoff="" from="" the="" process="" area.="" refineries="" typically="" use="" caustic="" for="" any="" necessary="" neutralization.="" over="" time,="" some="" sludge="" accumulates="" in="" the="" neutralization="" pit="" and="" periodically="" is="" removed="" for="" disposal.="" in="" the="" past="" refineries="" used="" lime="" for="" neutralization="" which="" resulted="" in="" a="" buildup="" of="" unreacted="" lime,="" scale,="" polymer,="" tars,="" and="" insoluble="">13 However, the current use of liquid caustics for
neutralization produces largely soluble sulfates, minimizing sludge
generation. The sludge is removed for disposal only once every three to
five years.
\13\ The consent decree identified sulfuric acid alkylation
sludge as a residual requiring a listing determination based on
consideration of the large amount of sludge reported in the Agency's
1983 database (61,338 metric tons). Upon subsequent review of the
1983 volumes, the Agency determined that its original volume
estimation was significantly overstated due to the misidentification
of three large volume spent sulfuric acid catalyst residuals as an
alkylation sludge. The corrected volume for the 1983 database is 482
metric tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency data indicate that 608 metric tons were generated in 1992 by
10 refineries. EPA selected the following practices for risk assessment
modeling: on-site land treatment (46.0 percent of the residual volume
generated), off-site land treatment (16.4 percent), and off-site
landfilling (1.5 percent). 21.3 percent of this sludge is managed at
the refinery wastewater treatment plant, 13.2 percent is transferred
for reclamation, 1.2 percent is managed in Subtitle C landfills, and
0.2 percent is sent to off-site incineration.
Of the 45 facilities employing the H2SO4 alkylation
process, the Agency was able to obtain only one sample of
H2SO4 alkylation sludge during the sampling effort. This
sample was found to be characteristically hazardous for chromium, but
was derived from wastewaters from on-site acid reclamation, as well as
the alkylation unit. As a result, the sample may not be completely
representative of sludges from sulfuric acid alkylation alone. The
Agency requests any additional waste characterization data.
The Agency conducted a bounding risk assessment of the analytical
data available, using on-site and off-site land treatment and off-site
Subtitle D landfilling as the baseline management scenarios. No
significant risk was indicated.
The Agency did not attempt to model the volumes reported to be
discharged to wastewater treatment plants because the primary treatment
and API separator sludges resulting from the treatment of the residual
are already listed hazardous waste (K048, K051, F037, F038). Off-site
incineration was not modeled because the volume was extremely small (1
metric ton) to pose any threat to human health and the environment.
The Agency also believes, based on its examination of the process
chemistry and the available analytical data, that this infrequently
generated waste may exhibit the hazardous characteristic of
corrosivity. Given the relatively small volumes and infrequent
generation of this waste, the Agency proposes to regulate
H2SO4 alkylation sludge within the existing framework of
characteristic wastes, and not to list this process residual
specifically. The Agency requests comment on this proposed decision.
H. Request for Comment on Options for Conditional Exemptions
As EPA was preparing the risk assessments used for this rulemaking,
the Agency became aware that there were risk scenarios (such as land
treatment of a waste), or specific risk pathways (run-off to off-site
receptors from land treatment) that may pose significantly higher risk
than other scenarios or exposure pathways. If there were relatively
simple, enforceable, means of assuring that those scenarios or exposure
pathways would not occur, and if EPA could conclude it had identified
the highest risk reasonable management scenarios, comparable protection
of human health and the environment could be achieved at a
significantly lower regulatory cost.
Many Subtitle C requirements were written generically to address
all hazardous wastes and, consequently, provide protection for those
wastes that pose the greatest risks. Some are either explicitly or
implicitly technology-based rather than risk-based. Some of these
requirements are statutory and cannot easily be adjusted to take risk
into account. Nevertheless, EPA
[[Page 57777]]
generally believes that it would be desirable to tailor waste
management requirements to more closely relate to risks. An initial
significant step in this process would apply Subtitle C requirements
only to those significant risk scenarios, leaving low risk scenarios
subject only to less prescriptive federal and state controls for non-
hazardous wastes.
EPA explored whether it would be possible to create additional
exemptions from Subtitle C management standards to allow more flexible
management of wastes found to be hazardous in one or more scenario, but
not others, without compromising protection of human health and the
environment. These options would be premised on the theory that a
waste's risk is due not only to its chemical composition, but also the
manner in which it is managed, which can greatly affect the amount of
chemical constituents that ultimately reach a human or environmental
receptor. The multipathway analysis prepared to support this listing
determination shows that the risk to human health or the environment
varies significantly with the type of management that a waste receives.
The following discussion presents the legal framework for management-
based or conditional listings, outlines the options EPA has begun to
consider, and presents in more detail the options which EPA finds to be
most promising.
1. Legal Basis for Conditional Exemptions
EPA's original approach to determining whether a waste should be
listed as hazardous had been to focus on the inherent chemical
composition of the waste and to assume that mismanagement would occur
so that people or organisms would come into contact with the waste's
constituents. See 45 FR 33113 (May 19, 1980). Based on more than a
decade of experience with waste management, EPA questions whether it is
appropriate to assume that worst-case mismanagement will occur, and EPA
does not believe that such worst-case assumptions are compelled by the
statute. Rather, in recent hazardous waste listing decisions, EPA has
identified ``mismanagement'' scenarios that are reasonable, and looked
at available data to then determine if any of these are unlikely for
the specific wastes being considered, or if other scenarios are likely
given available information about current waste management practices
for the specific wastes. See the Carbamates Listing Determination (60
FR 7824, February 9, 1995) and the Dyes and Pigments Proposed Listing
Determination (59 FR 66072, December 22, 1994). As a further extension
of that logic, EPA believes it may be more appropriate to find that,
where a mismanagement scenario is not likely or has been adequately
addressed by other programs, EPA need not consider risk from that
scenario in deciding whether to classify the waste as hazardous.
EPA believes that the definition of ``hazardous waste'' in RCRA
section 1004(5) permits this approach to classifying wastes as
hazardous. Section 1004(5)(B) defines as ``hazardous'' any waste which
may present a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment ``when improperly * * * managed.'' EPA reads this
provision to allow it to determine the circumstances under which a
waste may present a hazard and to regulate the waste only when those
conditions occur. Support for this reading can be found by contrasting
section 1004(5)(B) with section 1004(5)(A), which defines certain
inherently dangerous wastes as ``hazardous'' no matter how they are
managed. The legislative history of Subtitle C of RCRA also appears to
support this interpretation, stating that ``the basic thrust of this
hazardous waste title is to identify what wastes are hazardous in what
quantities, qualities and concentrations, and the methods of disposal
which may make such wastes hazardous.'' H.Rep. No. 94-1491, 94th Cong.,
2d Sess. 6 (1976), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as Amended, Congressional Research Service, Vol.1,
567 (1991) (emphasis added).
EPA also believes that section 3001 provides it with flexibility to
consider the need to regulate those wastes that are not managed in an
unsafe manner as hazardous. (Section 3001 requires that EPA, in
determining whether to list or otherwise identify a waste as hazardous
waste, decide whether a waste ``should'' be subject to the requirements
of Subtitle C.) EPA's existing regulatory standards for listing
hazardous wastes reflect that flexibility by allowing specific
consideration of a waste's potential for mismanagement. See
Sec. 261.11(a)(3) (incorporating the language of RCRA section
1004(5)(B)) and Sec. 261.11(c)(3)(vii) requiring EPA to consider
plausible types of mismanagement. Where mismanagement of a waste is
implausible, the listing regulations do not require EPA to classify a
waste as hazardous based on that mismanagement scenario.
Decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit provide support for considering management controls in deciding
whether a waste should be listed as hazardous waste. See, e.g., Edison
Electric Institute v. EPA, 2 F.3d 438, (D.C. Cir. 1993) (remanding
EPA's RCRA Toxicity Characteristic (``TC'') as applied to certain
mineral processing wastes because the TC was based on modeling of
disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill, yet EPA had provided no
evidence that such wastes were ever placed in municipal landfills or
similar units).
2. Improvements in Risk Assessment Methodology
EPA's early regulations defining hazardous waste reached broadly to
ensure that wastes presenting potential or actual hazards were quickly
brought into the system. When EPA promulgated its first listings and
characteristic rules in 1980, its knowledge of toxic constituents,
constituent transport pathways, and waste management options was more
limited than it is today.
Significant improvements in waste management have occurred since
the early 1980's. Many states have established or strengthened
industrial non-hazardous waste programs since that time. See EPA draft
report ``State Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities,'' September 1994 in the docket. Industry has had
more experience in managing wastes and has improved waste management
under the incentives provided by factors such as the publicity from the
implementation of the Emergency Preparedness and Community Right to
Know Act, and the deterrent value of Superfund cleanups, RCRA
corrective action and state cleanup programs.
EPA's ability to predict the risks that a waste may pose has also
improved significantly. EPA has collected much more data on a variety
of waste management units and other factors that impact the ability of
waste constituents to reach a receptor. Models such as the EPACMTP and
the models used in the multipathway analysis provide more sophisticated
means of assessing the risks of a range of waste management options. As
a result of all these changes, EPA is now in a position to begin to
implement a more carefully tailored risk-based approach to regulating
hazardous wastes.
3. Options for Conditional Exemptions
a. Conditional Exemption based on Specific Management Practice.
Where EPA has characterized a specific waste, modeled the associated
management practices and found specific management practices (and not
others)
[[Page 57778]]
to present significant risks to human health or the environment, EPA
could list as hazardous only those wastes managed in a manner that
presents significant risk. Alternatively, EPA could list wastes unless
they are managed by the method that does not exhibit significant risk.
The Agency believes allowing use of exemptions tailored to waste
management is a practical and appropriate way to allow waste to be
exempt from Subtitle C without increasing risks, if the management
practices identified are clear and very easily ascertainable (such as
the difference between land treatment units and landfills), and the
differences in risk presented by these practices are clearly defined.
Concerning the wastes examined in today's rule, EPA believes that
an opportunity exists to fashion a conditional listing for CSO storage
tank sediment and filter/separation solids (also referred to as CSO
residuals). While disposal of CSO residuals in land treatment units was
projected to pose significant risks (due to releases from run-off), the
disposal in landfills was found to not result in significant risks (see
discussion in Section III.G. ``Waste-specific Listing Determination
Rationales''). This arises because the constituents of most concern,
PAHs, are relatively immobile in the groundwater pathway due to their
low water solubility. Therefore, EPA believes a contingent management
listing for this waste may be appropriate and is proposing three
possible conditional listings for CSO storage tank sediment and filter/
separation solids as alternatives to simply listing all CSO residuals
generated. The Agency requests comments on these proposed alternatives
to simply listing all CSO residuals. These alternatives have certain
advantages and disadvantages, and EPA seeks comment on the relative
merits of the different approaches.
Option (1)--The first option is to list CSO residuals as hazardous
only if the waste is applied in a land treatment unit. Thus, the first
alternative listing description would be:
K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations if the
sediment and filter/separation solids are applied to the land in a
land treatment unit.
Under this option, only the waste disposed of in the type of unit
exhibiting unacceptable risk (land treatment) would be subject to
Subtitle C regulation. EPA believes that the practical effect of this
option would be that refineries would cease land treatment for these
wastes, thereby eliminating the practice that was found to pose
significant risks. EPA seeks comment on whether other possible
management methods might present risks that warrant Subtitle C control.
Option 2--The second option would list CSO residuals as hazardous
unless the waste was managed in a landfill. Thus, the second
alternative listing description would be as follows:
K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations unless
the sediment and filter/separation solids are disposed of in a
landfill licensed or permitted by the State.
Under this option, the waste would be hazardous if managed by any
method, except for disposal in a landfill. EPA believes that the effect
of this type of listing would be to encourage disposal in landfills,
rather than land treatment units. (If data were submitted showing
similarly low risks from other management methods, the Agency would
consider expanding the list of permissible disposal practices.) EPA
seeks comment on the impact of such changes in waste management might
have on the risks associated with this waste.
CSO residuals that are exempt due to contingent management would be
considered as nonhazardous from the point of generation. As a result,
the qualifying waste would not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C rules for
generation, storage, transport, or disposal (including land disposal
restrictions), if the waste is destined for disposal in a unit that is
excluded from the listing because it does not pose unacceptable risk.
(Of course, should the waste not be disposed of in such a unit, then
the exemption would no longer be effective and full Subtitle C would
apply). This approach is analogous to the existing exclusions from the
definition of solid waste for materials that are to be recycled (see
Sec. 261.2(e)(1)), or to special standards applicable to used oil
destined for recycling; the exclusions or special standards apply at
the point of generation, provided that certain conditions are met
(e.g., no speculative accumulation). However, under such an approach,
it would be necessary for the Agency to have the ability to easily
determine whether or not the exempted wastes are disposed of in the
proper manner. As a result, some kind of notification or certification
process may be appropriate.
EPA requests comment on whether the internal records typically kept
by solid waste generators would be adequate, whether the usual Subtitle
C recordkeeping and manifest requirements should apply, or if some
other mechanism to document the destination of the waste would be
desirable. Option 3 discussed below includes a specific mechanism that
might be used.
Option 3--With regard to the second option in particular, EPA has
considered what requirements would be appropriate to ensure proper
disposal in accordance with the conditional exemption. EPA determined
that CSO residuals present a hazard if applied on the land due to
potential run-off to nearby residents. To be certain that the
intermediate management of the waste would not cause a similar problem,
EPA could put limits on the conditional exemption to ensure that the
waste was handled properly until safely disposed of in a landfill. The
generator could be required to maintain proof of disposal in an on-site
landfill, or document what off-site landfill received the waste. In
addition, to address concerns over the handling of the waste until it
reaches the landfill, the generator could be required to store the
waste in containers, or be restricted from placement on the ground.
Therefore, Option 3 is similar to Option 2, except that it specifically
requires certain conditions be met for the exemption to be effective.
One way to implement these restrictions would be to add conditions
for the exemption directly to the listing description in Sec. 261.32.
Therefore, EPA seeks comment on adding conditions for the landfill
exemption for CSO residuals to the listing definition for K170, as
shown below, to promote proper disposal of the waste.
K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations unless
the sediment and filter/separation solids meet the following
conditions: (i) the waste does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste; (ii) the waste is stored in
containers and disposed of in a Subtitle D or C landfill licensed or
permitted by the state or federal government; and (iii) the
generator maintains documentation showing that the waste was (A)
disposed of in an on-site landfill, or (B) consigned to a
transporter or disposal facility that has provided a written
commitment to dispose of the waste in an off-site landfill
identified by name and address. Persons claiming this exclusion in
an enforcement action will have the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that the material meets all the exclusion
requirements.
EPA seeks comment on whether the generator should also be required
to file
[[Page 57779]]
a one-time notification with EPA or authorized state (and update this
if practices change), whether maintaining the on-site documentation is
sufficient, and whether a documentation and/or notification certifying
the ultimate disposal of the waste is an adequate guarantee that the
waste is actually managed in a landfill, particularly if the waste
leaves the generator's control. Since historic approaches to relying on
the intent of the generator have proven extremely difficult, EPA seeks
comment on what the regulatory status of the waste should be between
the point of generation and the ultimate disposal in a landfill.
Finally, EPA requests comment on whether there should be a clear
prohibition for placement on the land (prior to reaching the landfill),
rather than the proposed language to require intermediate storage of
the waste in containers.
Implementation of any of the above options also assumes that there
is a clear understanding precisely how a landfill and a land treatment
unit can be distinguished. EPA believes that the definitions
incorporated into the RCRA regulations (see 40 CFR 260.10) should be
adequate. According to that definition, for example, a land treatment
facility is a facility at which waste is ``applied onto or incorporated
into the soil surface.'' Furthermore, states typically define
nonhazardous waste landfills clearly into several categories
(industrial, municipal, debris), and issue permits or licenses.
Therefore, EPA believes that States would be able to easily distinguish
between landfills and land treatment. EPA seeks comment on whether the
difference between landfills and land treatment units needs to be
further defined.
One of the drawbacks of contingent management listings that link
regulatory status to particular management practices is that contingent
regulation may reduce the incentive for generators to explore pollution
prevention opportunities. Thus, allowing disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill may result in more waste being placed in Subtitle D landfills,
because it is less expensive than Subtitle C management or recycling,
and easier than implementing process changes that would result in
reduced or eliminated waste volumes. However, EPA is also proposing in
today's rule to allow generators to reinsert oil-bearing wastes such as
these back into the refining process. Thus, in the case of CSO
residuals, generators will still have an incentive to deoil or reuse
these residuals, if possible, thereby resulting in increased recycling.
b. Conditional Exemption Based on Specific Management Standards.
Another approach, but one about which EPA feels much more caution is
required, is that EPA could use the multipathway methodology to
determine whether imposing specific design or operating standards on
particular unit types would result in adequate protection. In the case
of the petroleum residuals evaluated in this rule, it might be possible
to conclude that use of run-off controls would reduce releases
sufficiently from land application units to warrant exemption. Failure
to manage the waste in a unit meeting design and operating requirements
would mean that the waste was not exempt.
Exemptions based on specific management standards could be used to
more narrowly define listed waste. The listing for CSO residuals, for
example, might apply only to wastes managed in a land treatment unit
that does not have run-off controls approved by the State.
Alternatively, CSO residuals might be listed, unless they are managed
in a landfill or land treatment units with approved run-off controls.
However, as noted earlier in Section III.G.2. under the rationale
for listing CSO residuals, the effectiveness of the run-on/run-off
controls currently in place at land treatment units is unclear, and the
level of control would have to be high to reduce risks to acceptable
levels. EPA contacted the three States with the most land treatment
units that receive CSO or crude oil tank residuals and found: none
require permits for these nonhazardous waste units; run-off controls
are usually voluntary; and that even voluntary controls appear
variable. Therefore, more data are likely required before this approach
could be implemented.
EPA requests comment on the general approach and on the run-off
control measures most likely to have a significant impact on
contaminant migration. EPA particularly asks for comments on whether
there are unit design attributes that are easily ascertainable in a
spot inspection versus those that require more detailed engineering
review, or review or monitoring of operations. The more complex a
judgement, the more appropriate EPA believes it may be that such
determinations are made in the context of a permitting authority or
prior approval rather than as a directly enforceable condition for a
listing exemption.
I. Impacts on Idled Units
Many of the wastes proposed for listing in today's rule are
normally generated on removal from the process unit during maintenance
periods. These wastes may also become subject to hazardous waste
regulation during periods of process shut down. If the proposed
listings are finalized, wastes associated with idled units would become
subject to RCRA regulation 90 days after the process ceases operation.
Regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(c) state: ``A hazardous waste which is
generated in a raw material storage tank, a product or raw material
transport vehicle or vessel, a product or raw material pipeline, or in
a manufacturing process unit or an associated non-waste-treatment-
manufacturing unit, is not subject to regulation under parts 262
through 265, 268, 270, 271, and 124 of this chapter or to the
notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA until it exits the
unit in which it was generated, unless the unit is a surface
impoundment, or unless the hazardous waste remains in the unit more
than 90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for manufacturing, or
for storage or transportation of product or raw materials.''
EPA provided further clarification on this provision in the October
30, 1980 preamble to that rulemaking: ``The 90-day accumulation period
(Sec. 262.34) starts when the hazardous waste is removed from the tank,
vessel, or unit, except when in the case where a tank, vessel, or unit
ceases to be operated for its primary purpose, in which case the period
starts when operation ceases.'' 45 FR 72024 (Emphasis added.) Thus, the
preamble states that for the owner/operator the accumulation period
begins the day the manufacturing process unit is shut down.
It was not the Agency's intent to regulate wastes in these units
unless the waste exits the unit or remains in the unit for more than 90
days after the unit is no longer in operation. Therefore, the Agency is
changing its interpretation. The accumulation period for a tank,
vessel, or unit that ceases to be operated for its primary purpose
would begin either when the waste exits the unit, or if the waste
remains in the unit for more than 90 days, the accumulation period
would begin on day 91. Because the regulations delay application of
Part 262 until 90 days after operation ceases, the Agency believes that
the availability of the 90-day accumulation period in Sec. 262.34 is
more consistent with the plain language of the regulation. Thus,
hazardous waste which is generated in a product or raw material storage
tank, a product or raw material transport vehicle or vessel, a product
or raw material pipeline, or in a manufacturing process unit or
associated non-waste-treatment-manufacturing unit, may remain in the
unit for up to ninety days
[[Page 57780]]
after the unit has been shut down, and may then be stored for an
additional ninety days in a tank, container, drip pad, or containment
building in the compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34,
without an RCRA storage permit.
J. Third Party Regeneration/Reclamation of Spent Petroleum Catalysts
1. Exemption Under Section 266.100(b)
Spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining petroleum catalysts are
typically recycled either by being regenerated for reuse as catalysts
or through the reclamation of valuable metals or metal-bearing
products. Catalyst regeneration is a process by which spent catalysts
are treated with heat and air to drive off impurities which have been
deposited on the catalyst during use in the petroleum refining process.
Once regenerated, the catalysts are returned for reuse within the
petroleum industry. In metals recovery, various thermal treatment
technologies are employed to extract valuable metals from the spent
catalysts. There are currently four catalyst regeneration and five
metals recovery facilities known by the EPA to be operating in the
United States.
Spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts that exhibit a
hazardous characteristic for benzene and/or ignitability are currently
subject to regulation as RCRA hazardous wastes (and, under today's
proposal, would become listed hazardous wastes). Because reclamation of
metals from and regeneration of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining
catalyst involves thermal processing of RCRA hazardous wastes, there
has been confusion regarding whether these catalyst recovery furnaces
are subject to regulation as a type of industrial furnace (as defined
in Sec. 260.10 of the RCRA regulations).
The Agency is today proposing to clarify the regulatory status of
these units by specifically excluding them from regulation as
industrial furnaces under RCRA for the following reasons. First, EPA
did not consider these units specifically in developing regulations
governing burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs). They do not readily fit within the list of thermal processing
units specifically designated as industrial furnaces subject to
regulation under the BIF rules (40 CFR 266 Subpart H). They also differ
from the types of furnaces specifically considered in the BIF rule in
that the process involves burning of hazardous waste solely for
materials recovery as opposed to destruction or energy recovery. In
this sense, spent petroleum catalyst recovery units are analogous to
smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that process hazardous waste
solely for metals recovery. Significantly, such smelting, melting, and
refining furnaces are conditionally exempt from the Subpart H
regulations because the process does not involve burning either
partially or wholly for destruction or energy recovery. See 40 CFR
266.100(c).
In addition, EPA believes that spent catalyst regeneration and
metals recovery operations provide an environmentally sound alternative
to disposal of spent petroleum catalysts. Spent catalyst recycling has
been practiced in the petroleum refining industry since the 1950's.
According to 1992 Petroleum Refining Survey data, approximately 80% of
spent petroleum catalysts are currently recycled. In developing today's
proposal, the Agency solicited information on the extent to which
petroleum catalyst recovery units are currently equipped with emission
control devices and the adequacy/efficiency of existing controls. The
Agency's preliminary findings indicate that these units are already
equipped with pollution controls comparable to those required under the
BIF rule such that further regulation may be unnecessary.
The Agency does not want to impose any unnecessary regulatory
burden that may serve to discourage environmentally safe recycling of
spent petroleum catalysts. Therefore, based on preliminary findings
regarding existing emissions controls, and the fact that these units
process spent catalyst solely for materials recovery, the Agency
intends to formally exempt these units from regulation under the BIF
rule and is proposing to amend the BIF regulations accordingly.
However, the Agency has not yet fully evaluated the prevalence and
adequacy of existing emission controls and the potential for
uncontrolled emissions of toxic organic compounds, toxic metals, and
particulate matter from spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining
catalysts. EPA is therefore requesting additional information on
control technologies currently being used to control toxic emissions
from thermal treatment of spent petroleum catalysts. If, after further
study, the Agency finds that emissions from these units pose a threat
to human health and the environment, it will reconsider today's
proposed exemption under Sec. 266.100(b) and assess whether the BIF
standards should instead be amended to specifically apply to spent
petroleum catalyst recovery furnaces. In the interim, if necessary to
protect human health and the environment, 3008(h) authority can be used
to address air emissions from particular catalyst processing
facilities. (Availability of these authorities assumes that the
catalyst recovery facility either has a permit for hazardous waste
storage, or interim status as a hazardous waste storage facility.)
It is important to note that today's proposed exemption applies
only to the petroleum catalyst recycling furnace. The catalyst itself,
if listed or characteristically hazardous, is subject to RCRA
transportation and storage controls before introduction into the
furnace. (See Sec. 261.6(c).) EPA is not proposing any changes to the
management standards applicable to hazardous petroleum catalysts that
are sent for recycling at this time. However, as explained in section
III.E. above, the Agency is working to develop a simpler, more
streamlined approach to regulating secondary materials recycling under
RCRA.
2. Catalyst Support Media
Hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalyst beds are kept in place in
part by the use of screens and inert ceramic support media, which make
up typically 6 to 8 percent by weight of the catalyst bed. The support
media also functions to provide a mixing area at the inlet and outlet
of the reactor vessel to lessen the back-pressure created by the more
densely packed catalyst bed. These support media are commonly separated
from the spent catalyst by screening the catalyst as it is removed or
as the first step in catalyst regeneration or metals reclamation. The
larger support media is readily distinguished from spent catalysts, and
commonly is either reused or sent for cleaning prior to reuse. Because
of its largely inert ceramic composition, the Agency has not
specifically characterized catalyst support media.
Because the support media is generally an inert ceramic, is
separate from the catalyst, and is commonly managed separately, the
Agency believes it is appropriate to specifically exclude these
catalyst support media from the definition of hazardous waste. The
Agency believes the screening separation of support media from the
spent catalyst to be discarded or separately reclaimed is exempt
recycling. Paragraph (E) would be added to 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii) The following solid wastes are not hazardous
even though they are generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal
of a hazardous waste, unless they exhibit one or more
[[Page 57781]]
of the characteristics of hazardous waste:
* * * * *
(E) Ceramic support media separated from one of the following
wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--Spent hydrotreating catalyst used in the
refining of petroleum (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K171), and Spent
hydrorefining catalyst used in the refining of petroleum (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K172).
* * * * *
3. Residuals Generated from Petroleum Catalyst Regeneration/Reclamation
Residuals generated from the metals reclamation process are in some
cases used as ingredients to produce cement because they contain
alumina, a primary component in cement. Under existing regulations,
residues from metal recovery of listed hazardous wastes are considered
to be derived from the treatment of hazardous waste and thus hazardous
themselves (40 CFR 261.3(c)). Therefore, if EPA finalizes today's
proposal to list spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts, the
residuals from the reclamation of metals from these wastes will also be
considered RCRA hazardous wastes subject to transportation and storage
controls prior to their insertion into the cement kiln.
Today's proposal also has potential regulatory implications for
cement produced from such petroleum catalyst reclamation residuals.
Under 40 CFR 266.20, cement produced from hazardous waste is subject to
regulation as a waste-derived product. Under RCRA, products that are
produced from legitimately recycled hazardous wastes and are used in a
manner constituting disposal (e.g., cement) may be marketed and used
without further regulation, provided that they meet applicable land
disposal restriction treatment standards and if the incorporated
hazardous constituents are inseparable from the product by physical
means. EPA is not proposing any changes to the existing RCRA
regulations as they apply to waste-derived products that are placed on
the land at this time. However, the Agency may propose changes to the
regulations pertaining to waste-derived products that are land applied
as part of future revisions to the RCRA regulations.
a. Status of Partially Reclaimed Metals. Some petroleum catalyst
reclaimers achieve only partial reclamation of metals from the spent
catalyst (i.e., the reclaimed metals are not fit for end use as
products without further reclamation through smelting and refining).
Under RCRA, materials that are partially reclaimed from listed
hazardous wastes are themselves hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.3(c)).
Therefore, if today's proposal is finalized, metals that are partially
reclaimed from hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts would be
considered RCRA hazardous wastes subject to applicable transportation
and storage controls until the reclamation process is complete or until
a variance from the definition of solid waste is granted pursuant to 40
CFR 260.30. Under Sec. 260.30(c), a partially-reclaimed hazardous waste
that is more commodity-like than waste-like may be excluded from the
definition of solid waste through a variance from the Administrator.
This determination must be based on a series of factors set forth in 40
CFR 260.31(c). Variance considerations include: the degree of
processing the material has undergone and the degree of further
processing that is required; the value of the material after it has
been reclaimed; the degree to which the reclaimed material is like an
analogous raw material; the extent to which an end market for the
reclaimed material is guaranteed; and the extent to which a material is
managed to minimize loss.
The purpose of this variance is to allow partially-reclaimed
recyclable materials that are more commodity-like than waste-like to be
excluded from the definition of solid waste and applicable hazardous
waste regulatory requirements. Because this is a variance, it is not
self-implementing. Administrative approval by the appropriate
regulatory authority (authorized State or EPA) is required to grant
this variance.
Under existing regulations, variances for partially reclaimed
materials must be granted on a case-by-case basis. However, the Agency
would consider granting a generic exclusion for metals reclaimed from
spent petroleum catalysts should it obtain data which indicates these
partially reclaimed metals consistently meet the terms of the
Sec. 260.30(b) commodity-like variance. EPA is therefore requesting
information relevant to determining the ``commodity-like'' nature of
metals reclaimed from spent petroleum catalysts as defined under
Sec. 260.30(b) for possible use in developing a generic commodity-like
exclusion, e.g., the typical composition and value of the reclaimed
metals relative to analogous raw material, the manner in which the
partially reclaimed materials are managed, etc.
K. Headworks Exemption
Because some refineries manage some of the residuals proposed for
listing today in their wastewater treatment facilities (i.e., CSO
storage tank sediment), and because others may scour residual sludge
proposed for listing during process vessel cleaning or tank washing
into the refinery wastewater treatment system, a consequence of
potentially listing certain residuals as hazardous waste would be to
cause all wastewaters and wastewater treatment sludges to be derived
from those wastes. The Agency believes those listed petroleum refining
residuals carried into the wastewater system would be removed during
primary treatment as sludges that are already regulated hazardous
wastes (e.g., K048, K051, F037, or F038), provided they are discharged
to the oil recovery sewer system. Therefore, the Agency proposes to
modify the definition of hazardous waste to exclude when mixed with
wastewaters as indicated in italic:
Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *
(C) One of the following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32, provided
that the wastes are discharged to the refinery oil recovery sewer
before primary oil/water/solids separation--heat exchanger bundle
cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K050), and clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or
in-line filter/separation solids (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K170); or * *
*
If the Agency makes a final decision to list crude oil tank
sediment as hazardous waste (K169), this residual would also be added
to this exemption.
IV. Waste Minimization
Over the past several years, EPA has emphasized pollution
prevention as the preferred method of environmental protection over
``end-of-pipe'' treatment and disposal approaches. EPA seeks to avoid
the generation of waste or environmental releases through pollution
prevention by focusing on the relationship between air, land and water;
viewing the environment as a whole, rather than individual segments.
Finding opportunities to both reduce pollution at the source as well as
recycle will result in more cost savings to industry and government,
broader environmental protection, and more efficient implementation of
the RCRA program as reflected in ``The Waste Minimization National
Plan,'' EPA530-R-94-045, November 1994.
Congress reinforced this approach by enacting the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101, et seq., Pub. L. 101-
508, November 5, 1990) establishing a national policy on pollution
prevention. PPA reinforces EPA's waste management options
[[Page 57782]]
hierarchy which lists, in order of importance, source reduction,
recycling, treatment and disposal. Source reduction, the highest
priority, includes equipment or technology modifications, process or
procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping,
maintenance, training, or inventory control.
The petroleum refining industry and others have been working with
EPA for several years to explore pollution prevention opportunities as
part of this listing determination and other Agency efforts (i.e., a
multimedia permitting initiative to foster pollution prevention
opportunities at the Amoco Corporation refinery in Yorktown, VA).
Due to the nature of the residuals of concern (e.g., high oil
content, metals content), the residuals are well suited for source
reduction and recycling. Many refineries have already done much to
reduce, recycle and/or recover valuable hydrocarbons and other
commodities from these wastes. EPA believes the impact of this rule
will be offset by further source reduction and recycling efforts by
industry through economical incentives and through waste minimization
efforts in which EPA has not been made aware.
Of the approximately 3 million tons represented by all the 14
residuals of concern, 86 percent was reused, recycled or reclaimed
either on-site or off site. Most of these activities will continue
unaffected by the proposed listings because of the proposed exemptions
designed to allow appropriate source reduction and environmentally
sound recycling efforts as discussed in Section II. The following
summarizes the source reduction and recycling findings from the 1992
RCRA Sec. 3007 Survey. The industry's source reduction efforts were not
quantified in the survey (i.e., refiners were not asked to report the
volumes reduced) so the information will be presented as techniques
reported. The recycling methods will be presented quantitatively with
the percentage of the total quantity generated for that residual.
However, the quantity generated is likely to be higher than the
quantities reported because some facilities are not able to provide EPA
with the volumes of residuals recycled back to the process.
A. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
Refiners use in-tank mixers to suspend the solids in the crude oil
decreasing the amount of sediment that deposits on the bottom of the
tank. Approximately 68 percent of crude oil storage tanks have mixers.
Source reduction efforts for crude oil storage tank sediment were
reported as equipment/technology modifications, process/procedure
modifications and the installation of in-tank mixers.
Many refiners attempt to de-oil the tank sediment to recover
additional hydrocarbons from the sediment prior to and after removal
from the tank. De-oiling procedures include hot diesel washing or
stream-stripping the sediment while in the tank, then filter-pressing
or centrifuging any remaining oil from the sediment prior to final
management. The Agency does, however, believe that sediment de-oiling
is valuable and can be an important element of a refinery's waste
minimization activities. De-oiling appears to reduce tank sediment
volumes significantly; the average de-oiled sediment volume is
approximately 65 percent lower than the average oily sediment volume.
Approximately 30 percent of the crude oil storage tank sediment has
gone through a de-oiling process prior to final management. Recovered
oil is recycled to various points in the refinery process, increasing
product yield and reducing waste volumes disposed. About 44 percent of
the tank sediment was reported to be recycled to either the
distillation unit, catalytic cracker, coker or asphalt production. De-
oiling activities, whether in situ or ex situ, are considered recycling
and thus are not subject to RCRA Subtitle C permitting requirements.
The Agency anticipates that de-oiling usage will increase if this
proposal is promulgated, reducing the cost of managing crude oil
storage tank sediment as a listed waste.
B. Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment and/or In-Line Filter/Separation
Solids
Waste minimization efforts for CSO storage tank sediment were
reported as equipment/technology modifications and the installation of
in-tank mixers. Approximately 28 percent of CSO tanks have mixers.
Like the crude oil storage tank sediment, approximately 42 percent
of the CSO storage tank sediment and filter/separation solid streams
are de-oiled. Once removed from the tank, the sediment is filter-
pressed or centrifuged with the recovered CSO being sent to the slop
oil system or the catalytic cracking unit. Refiners reported recycling
2.4 percent to the catalytic cracker, coker, distillation unit, or
asphalt production. CSO tank sediment was also used on-site as road
material (2%) and transferred off-site for use as a fuel (8%).
C. Catalyst From Hydrotreating
Spent hydrotreating catalyst volumes were reported to be reduced
through process/procedure modifications and by on-site regeneration and
reuse. Refiners reported transferring approximately 77 percent off-site
for metals reclamation or regeneration. Over 2 percent was reused on-
site as replacement catalyst for another unit. Recycling choices for
hydrotreating, hydrorefining, and SCOT-like catalyst are
affected by the metals' market.
D. Catalyst From Hydrorefining
The volume of spent hydrorefining catalysts was reported to be
reduced through process/procedure modifications and by on-site
regeneration and reuse. Refiners reported transferring approximately 83
percent off-site for metals reclamation or regeneration.
For source reduction and recycling information for the residuals of
concern in which a no list decision was made, please refer to the
``Listing Background Document for the 1992-1996 Petroleum Refining
Listing Determination'' available in the docket.
The Agency is soliciting any additional information on source
reduction and recycling techniques for all of the residuals of concern.
The types of waste minimization information the Agency desires includes
process modifications, raw materials substitution, closed loop
recycling, and commercially available alternative catalysts. Any
information on the financial incentives for the implementation of these
alternatives is also requested.
V. Applicability of the Land Disposal Restrictions Determinations
A. Request for Comment on the Agency's Approach to the Development of
Land Disposal Restrictions
RCRA requires EPA to make a land disposal prohibition determination
for any hazardous waste that is newly identified or listed in 40 CFR
Part 261 after November 8, 1984, within six months of the date of
identification or final listing (RCRA Section 3004(g)(4), 42 U.S.C.
6924(g)(4)). EPA is also required to set ``* * * levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the
waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized'' (RCRA Section
3004(m)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(1)). Land disposal of wastes that meet
treatment standards thus
[[Page 57783]]
established by EPA is not prohibited. Each waste being proposed for
listing in this rule would be subject to all the land disposal
requirements the same day their respective listing becomes effective.
A general overview of the Agency's approach in performing analysis
of how to develop treatment standards for hazardous wastes can be found
in greater detail in section III.A.1 of the preamble to the final rule
that set land disposal restrictions (LDR's) for the Third Third wastes
(55 FR 22535, June 1, 1990). The framework for the development of the
entire Land Disposal Restrictions program was promulgated November 7,
1986 (51 FR 40572).
While the Agency prefers source reduction/pollution prevention and
recycling/recovery over conventional treatment, inevitably, some wastes
(such as residues from recycling and inadvertent spill residues) will
be generated. Thus, standards based on treatment using Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) will be required to be
developed for these wastes, if a final rule listing them as hazardous
is promulgated.
Treatment standards typically are established based on the
performance data from the treatment of the listed waste or wastes with
similar chemical and physical characteristics or similar concentrations
of hazardous constituents. Treatment standards are established for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms on a constituent-specific basis. The
constituents selected for regulation under the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program are not necessarily limited to those identified as
present in the listings proposed in this action, but include those
constituents or parameters that will ensure that the technologies are
operated properly.
Data on waste characteristics and current management practices for
wastes proposed in this action have been gathered as part of the
administrative record for this rule. The Agency has completed its
evaluation of these data for the purpose of developing specific Land
Disposal Determinations.
B. Treatment Standards for the Proposed Newly Listed Petroleum Refining
Wastes
EPA is proposing to apply universal treatment standards (UTS) to
the Petroleum Refining Wastes proposed for listing in today's
rulemaking. EPA is also proposing that 40 CFR 268.45 provisions apply
to hazardous debris materials cross contaminated with these petroleum
refining wastes.
1. Identification of Wastes
K170--Clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations.
K171--Spent hydrotreating catalysts from petroleum refining
operations (This listing does not include ceramic support media).
K172--Spent hydrorefining catalysts from petroleum refining
operations (This listing does not include ceramic support media).
EPA is proposing to regulate specific constituents from each of
these hazardous wastes. A list of the hazardous constituents proposed
for regulation and the proposed treatment limits or technology can be
found in Table V-1 (limits), Table V-2 (limits) as well as Table V-3
(technology) at the end of this preamble discussion and the proposed
regulatory Table 268.40. These wastes are generated during the
management of clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment or in-line
filter/separation solids (K170), and management of spent catalysts from
catalytic hydroprocessing operations (K171-K172). If EPA makes a final
decision to list crude oil storage tank sediment as hazardous (K169),
the constituents and standards given in Table V-1 would apply to this
waste.
2. Proposed Treatment Standards
After reviewing the available characterization data and the
available information on waste management practices for those petroleum
wastes proposed for listing, EPA has determined that it is technically
feasible to apply UTS to these wastes. Available information show that
these wastes can be managed in treatment and reclamation units that
routinely manage similar or as difficult to treat hazardous wastes that
are currently prohibited from land disposal practices. It is believed
that those wastes proposed for listing can be commingled with similar
hazardous wastes prior to treatment or reclamation. In addition, some
of these wastes may show corrosive, ignitable, reactive, and toxicity
characteristics that can be managed in combustion treatment units or
deactivation units that routinely manage hazardous wastes that show
similar characteristics. Like some petroleum wastes currently subject
to the land disposal restrictions, some of these petroleum wastes
proposed for listing have also been managed in reclamation units that
enable the recovery oil or fuel values from these wastes prior to
disposal. The BDAT background document provides information on EPA's
rationale for applying UTS to these wastes. Also see LDR Phase II final
rule, 59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994, for further discussion of UTS.
EPA also requests comments on the performance of other thermal and
non-thermal treatment or recovery technologies demonstrated on wastes
similar to these petroleum refining wastes and the applicability of
such technologies to these petroleum wastes. EPA has provided in the
BDAT Background Document a review of other thermal and non-thermal
technologies that could be optimized to meet the proposed UTS limits.
Since EPA is proposing a concentration limit, the use of other
technologies capable of achieving the proposed treatment standards is
allowed except for those treatment or reclamation practices
constituting land disposal or impermissible dilution.
In addition, EPA is proposing that the provisions in the 40 CFR
268.45 are also applicable for the treatment and disposal of hazardous
debris cross-contaminated with K169 (if listed), K170, K171, and K172.
Hazardous debris treated in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR
268.45 may be allowed for land disposal in a Subtitle C or D facility,
and waste residues will have to meet the applicable UTS limits proposed
today. See 57 FR 37277, August 18, 1992, for additional information on
the applicability, scope, and content of the hazardous debris
provisions.
3. Determination of BDAT
a. Nonwastewaters. For nonwastewater forms of these petroleum
wastes, the proposed treatment standards of each of the organic
constituents are based on the combustion of wastes believed as
difficult to treat as K170 (and K169, if listed). Table V-1, at the end
of this section, provides a list of 13 organic constituents proposed
for regulation.
Table V-1 shows that out of these 13 organic constituents proposed
for regulation, there are 10 constituents that are routinely monitored
as UTS constituents in specific petroleum refining wastes already
prohibited from land disposal. The 10 specific UTS constituents are
benz(a)anthracene, benzene, chrysene, ethylbenzene, fluorene (usually
in wastewater forms of petroleum refining wastes), xylenes (measured as
the sum of o-, m-, and p- isomers), naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene,
and toluene. These constituents are also proposed for regulation in
K170-K172 because EPA believe they can be found at concentrations of
concern in each waste under listing
[[Page 57784]]
consideration and in K169, should EPA decide to list it as hazardous.
Like the 10 constituents identified above, EPA has also identified
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and ideno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene
at levels of regulatory concern. In addition, it appears that the
regulation of just the 10 constituents may fail to ensure adequate
treatment of benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene. For example, these three constituents often
require higher temperatures to volatilize than the one required for the
other 10 constituents proposed for regulation. These three constituents
also show higher bond dissociation energies than needed for
dissociating the other 10 hazardous compounds. As a result, EPA
believes that the regulation of benzo(g,h,i) perylene,
dibenz(g,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene is appropriate.
There were other UTS constituents present in K169-K172 that were
above UTS limits, but EPA has determined that the 13 constituents
proposed for regulation can ensure that they too are provided with
adequate treatment. EPA believes that non-UTS constituents present in
K169-K172 would also be regulated by the UTS constituents proposed for
regulation in each one of the waste of concern.
EPA is requesting, however, comments on other appropriate indicator
or surrogate constituents that would enable the regulation of non-UTS
polynuclear aromatic and non-UTS aromatic hydrocarbons present in K172.
Available data show that some non-UTS aromatic and non-UTS polynuclear
aromatic constituents measured in K172 may have larger boiling points
than the one of those constituents proposed for regulation. EPA
examined the feasibility of setting one or various UTS polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons as proposed constituents for regulation in K172
but none of the UTS polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon constituents were
above their applicable UTS limits. Other structural and functional UTS
constituents such as phthalate and halogenated organics were also given
consideration but EPA felt they may not serve as good performance
indicator constituents for the destruction of non-UTS aromatics and
non-UTS polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
For metals in nonwastewater forms, EPA is proposing the regulation
of arsenic, nickel, and vanadium in K171 and K172. EPA is also
proposing to regulate antimony in K172. EPA has determined that High
Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR) and stabilization are BDAT for
nickel, vanadium, and antimony and that vitrification is BDAT for
arsenic. Table V-2, at the end of this section, summarizes the metals
proposed for regulation and the applicable UTS limits.
Catalysts are routinely cleansed of organic contaminants via
physical and thermal processes in order to regenerate the activity of
the catalyst. Spent catalysts are also sent off site for the
reclamation of molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium. The reclamation
techniques practiced on these spent materials are based on
pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, or combinations of these
techniques. Generally, recovered metals such as vanadium, molybdenum,
and nickel/cobalt solutes are sold as products. A by-product of alumina
is also produced and it is sold to cement kilns as one of the main
process feeds to formulate portland cement. Nickel oxides are also
recovered and reclaimed further in a nickel specialty HTMR facility.
Residues from hydrometallurgical practices should be able to meet the
proposed levels by stabilization. EPA thus requests comments on the
TCLP and total concentration of those post-reclamation spent catalyst
residues. Combusted or thermally desorbed spent catalyst should also be
amenable to stabilization.
Vanadium is a BDAT constituent that is present in the crude oil and
it is deposited in the spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts
as an impurity. Vanadium concentrations in K171 and K172 are above the
UTS for vanadium. EPA is thus proposing the regulation of this
constituent.
Like vanadium, the presence of arsenic, antimony, and nickel in the
spent catalyst is likely the direct result of entrained impurities from
the crude oil. However, nickel can also be present as one of two or
more components of the catalyst. Except for arsenic in K171, the
concentrations of these metals are greater than their UTS concentration
limits and EPA is requesting comments on their regulation.
EPA is also proposing to regulate arsenic in K171. Available data
show that arsenic may reach up to 4.9 mg/L, as measured by the TCLP, in
untreated nonwastewater forms of K171. This concentration is below the
UTS and the hazardous characteristic level of arsenic wastes (D004).
EPA believes, however, that the total concentrations of arsenic may
increase in residues from the regeneration and reclamation of K171. It
is likely that reclamation practices that involve reducing conditions
for the recovery of valuable metals can leave behind arsenic species
that are more mobile and thus, likely to exceed UTS and the
characteristic limit for arsenic. EPA is thus proposing UTS limits for
arsenic in K171. EPA is also requesting comments on the regulation of
arsenic in K171 and in particular, data characterizing the residues
from the reclamation and regeneration of hydrotreating and
hydrorefining catalysts.
EPA also examined the need for regulating metals in K169, if it
were listed as hazardous, and in K170. Based on the available data, EPA
considered proposing the regulation of barium and chromium in K169, if
listed, and the regulation of nickel in K170. However, EPA feels that
regulation of metals in these two wastes may not be warranted at this
time.
For instance, available data show that barium may be up to 2.4 ppm
(as measured by the TCLP) in K169. This barium level is below barium's
UTS limit of 7.6 ppm (as measured by the TCLP) as well as the TCLP
hazardous characteristic limit of 100 ppm (as measured by the TCLP).
Chromium is another metal constituent present in K169 in
concentrations up to 310 mg/kg (as measured by a total constituent
analysis). K169 wastes did not have chromium concentrations above the
UTS or characteristic levels. The total concentrations of barium and
chromium are likely to increase, however, in combusted residues of
K169. It is also likely that the mobility of chromium could increase
above UTS limits in combusted K169 wastes. This premise is based on the
observed behavior of chromium, and other metals, in K048-K052 treated
by incineration and solvent extraction. EPA feels, however, that the
regulation of barium and chromium may not be necessary at this time.
Combusted residues of hazardous petroleum wastes currently prohibited
from land disposal are routinely treated via stabilization in order to
meet UTS levels for arsenic, chromium, and nickel prior to disposal. If
K169 and K170 were promulgated as hazardous, these wastes will
presumably be commingled with K048-K052, F037, and F038, and other
characteristic wastes prior to treatment in combustion devices or prior
to reclamation in recycling units. Therefore, the stabilization of
petroleum refining wastes residues from the combustion or recycling of
hazardous petroleum wastes should also provide metals in K169 and K170
with effective treatment. EPA requests comments on this determination
and premise.
In addition, EPA has examined available data to assess the need for
regulating other hazardous
[[Page 57785]]
characteristics in K169-K172. EPA believes that the ignitable and
corrosive characteristics in K169, K170, K171, or K172 can be
effectively controlled via the regulation of organics. These wastes are
routinely managed in thermal processes that destroy organics and thus,
leave behind residues free of the ignitable characteristic and other
corrosive causing constituents. EPA has already proposed a list of
organics that may provide these hazardous characteristics with
effective treatment.
However, EPA is proposing to regulate the sulfide reactive
characteristic in K171 and K172 via a treatment standard of
deactivation to remove the reactive sulfide characteristic. First,
these two wastes contain significant concentrations of reactive
sulfides. The concentrations of iron sulfides and other metal sulfides
complexes impart pyrophoric/self-heating properties to these two spent
catalyst wastes. In addition to the D003 (reactivity), these wastes are
also reported and managed as wastes that exhibit D001 (ignitability)
and other hazardous constituent characteristics (primarily D004 and
D018).
It appears that existing thermal processes that enable the
regeneration and reclamation of spent catalysts may be effective in
removing the reactive characteristic from these wastes. One thermal
process, roasting, is designed to remove organic and sulfide impurities
from these spent catalysts prior to the hydrometallurgical recovery of
valuable metals. Another thermal process, calcination, reclaims
molybdenum oxides from a byproduct of molybdenum triosulfides. Offgases
from these thermal operations undergo further treatment and abatement
prior to undergoing an environmental discharge. EPA requests comments
that can support a determination that residues from HTMR, calciners,
and roasters as well as other hydrometallurgical trains already meet
the proposed deactivation standard for reactive iron/metal sulfides in
K171 and K172.
Some residues from the regeneration and reclamation of K171 and
K172 such as those from storage, feed processing, and other reclamation
trains may still show the same sulfide reactive characteristic as the
untreated wastes. These wastes can presumably be reclaimed on-site and
available information suggests that this has been practiced. If not,
EPA is proposing to regulate the sulfide reactivity in these wastes via
a treatment standard expressed as Deactivation to Remove Reactive
Sulfides. EPA is also requesting comments on whether the regulation of
organics may also provide with effective treatment the reactive
sulfides in K171 and K172. Additional discussion on the deactivation
standard to remove the reactive sulfide characteristic is provided in
``Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for
Newly Listed or Identified Wastes from Petroleum Refining.'' Available
in the docket for today's proposal. See also Table V-3 and 268.40.
b. Wastewaters. Today's proposal emphasizes, for the most part, the
listing of nonwastewater forms of petroleum wastes. EPA thus lacks data
on the characterization of wastewater forms of these wastes. EPA
anticipates, however, that if the proposed listings were finalized; the
generation of wastewater forms of these wastes can occur during the
management of leachates and groundwaters resulting from RCRA Corrective
Orders and from the management of residues from units that store,
treat, or reclaim these wastes in tanks or land disposal units.
EPA is proposing that the existing UTS for wastewaters in 268.40,
are also applied to those wastewater forms described above. In order to
apply UTS, EPA is proposing that the same list of hazardous
constituents proposed for regulation in nonwastewater forms of these
petroleum wastes is also adopted for wastewater forms of these wastes.
The proposed UTS for each organic constituent are based on treatment
technologies such as biological (aerobic or anaerobic) treatment
systems, steam stripping, wet air oxidation, carbon adsorption,
chemical assisted clarification or by a train of two or more of these
wastewater treatment technologies.
The proposed treatment standards for metals in wastewater forms are
based on lime addition followed by sedimentation and filtration for
arsenic and antimony; chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation
for nickel; and in electrochemical treatment followed by chemically
assisted clarification for vanadium. See Table V-1, Table V-2, and
Table V-3 for a summary of the proposed regulated constituents and the
applicable UTS limits.
C. Capacity Determination for the Proposed Newly Identified Petroleum
Refining Process Wastes
1. Introduction
In the land disposal restrictions (LDR) determinations, the Agency
must demonstrate that adequate commercial capacity exists to manage the
waste with BDAT standards before it can restrict the listed waste from
further land disposal. The Agency performs capacity analyses to
determine the effective date of the LDR treatment standards for the
proposed listed wastes.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis methodology focuses on the
amount of waste currently land disposed that will require alternative
treatment as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that are not
land disposed (e.g., discharges under NPDES or to a POTW, or treatment
in an exempt tank) are not included in the quantities requiring
additional treatment as a result of the LDRs. Also, land-disposed
wastes that do not require alternative treatment (e.g., those that are
currently treated using an appropriate technology) are excluded from
the required capacity estimates. Land-disposed wastes requiring
alternative treatment or recovery capacity that is available on-site or
within the same company as the generator are also omitted from the
required commercial capacity estimates. The resulting estimates of
required commercial capacity are then compared to estimates of
available commercial capacity. If adequate commercial capacity exists,
the waste is restricted from further land disposal. If adequate
capacity does not exist, RCRA section 3004(h) authorizes EPA to grant a
national capacity variance for the waste for up to two years or until
adequate alternative treatment capacity becomes available, whichever is
sooner.
To perform capacity analyses, the Agency needs to determine the
volumes of the listed wastes that will require treatment prior to land
disposal. The volumes of waste requiring treatment depend, in turn, on
the waste management practices employed by the listed waste generators.
Data on waste management practices for these wastes were collected
during the development of this proposed rule. However, as the
regulatory process proceeds, generators may decide to minimize or
recycle their wastes or otherwise alter their management practices.
Thus, EPA will update and monitor changes in management practices
because these changes will affect the final volumes of waste requiring
commercial treatment capacity. Therefore, EPA needs information on
current and future waste management practices for these wastes,
including the volumes and types of wastes that are recycled, wastes
that are mixed with or co-managed with other waste, and residuals that
are generated by the various management practices applicable to newly
listed and identified wastes (e.g., treatment residuals).
The availability of adequate commercial treatment capacity for
these wastes determines whether or not a
[[Page 57786]]
waste is granted a capacity variance under RCRA Sec. 3004(h). EPA
continues to update and monitor changes in available commercial
treatment capacity because the commercial hazardous waste management
industry is extremely dynamic. For example, national commercial
treatment capacity changes as new facilities come on-line and as new
units and new technologies are added at existing facilities. The
available capacity at commercial facilities also changes as facilities
change their commercial status (e.g., changing from a fully commercial
to a limited commercial or captive facility). To determine the
availability of capacity for treating these wastes, the Agency needs to
consider currently available data, as well as the timing of any future
changes in available capacity.
Thus, to perform the necessary capacity analyses as a result of the
LDR standards, the Agency needs reliable data on current waste
generation, waste management practices, available alternative treatment
capacity, and planned treatment capacity. Therefore, the Agency
requests data on the annual generation volumes and characteristics of
waste by each waste code, including wastewater and nonwastewater forms,
soil or debris contaminated with these wastes, and waste that is
stored, treated, recycled, or disposed due to any change of management
practices. The Agency also requests data on the current treatment
capacity of facilities capable of treating these wastes, facility and
unit permit status related to treatment of the proposed listed wastes
and any plans the facilities may have in the future to expand or reduce
existing capacity. Furthermore, the Agency requests comments from
companies that may be considering developing new hazardous waste
treatment capacity. Specifically, the Agency requests information on
the determining factors involved in making decisions to build new
treatment capacity.
Of particular interest to the Agency are waste characteristics,
such as pH level, BTU, anionic character, total organic carbon content,
constituent concentrations, and physical form, that may limit the
availability of certain treatment technologies. For these reasons, the
Agency specifically requests data and comments on waste characteristics
that might limit or preclude the use of any treatment technologies.
For previous LDR determinations, the Agency performed capacity
analyses using data from national surveys including the 1987 National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities (the TSDR Survey), the 1987 National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators (the Generator Survey), and the Biennial Reporting
System (BRS). However, these surveys were not used or not the primary
sources used to determine the volumes of proposed listed wastes
requiring treatment, since these wastes were not included in the
surveys. Additionally, these surveys may not contain adequate
information on currently available capacity to treat newly identified
wastes because the data do not reflect current capacity and do not
include facility expansions or closures that have occurred since the
data were obtained.
2. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
A brief summary of the capacity analysis performed to support this
rule is presented below. For additional detailed information, please
refer to the ``Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land
Disposal Restrictions: Newly Identified Petroleum Refining Process
Wastes (Proposed Rule)''.
For this capacity analysis, EPA examined data on waste
characteristics and management practices that have been gathered for
the purpose of the petroleum refining hazardous waste listing
determinations in the 1992 RCRA Section 3007 survey. The Agency has
analyzed the capacity-related information from the survey responses and
identified the following annualized quantities of newly identified
wastes requiring commercial treatment: 11,100 tons of K170, 2,400 tons
of K171, and 6,500 tons of K172; if the Agency decides to list crude
oil storage tank sediment as hazardous (K169), the annualized volume of
this waste requiring treatment would be 6,300 tons. The available data
sources indicate that there are no quantities of K170-K172 (and K169,
if listed) wastewaters that will require alternative commercial
treatment, and therefore this volume is assumed to be zero. EPA
estimates that 20,000 tons per year of K170-K172 will be managed off-
site and require alternative commercial treatment (this would increase
to 26,300 tons if K169 is listed). Also, the final affected waste
volume requiring alternative commercial treatment may be subject to
change due to the final listing determinations. The capacity analysis
will be revised accordingly. This quantity may be smaller due to
increased recycling activities. The Agency requests comments on current
and future management practices and the volumes managed for K170-K172,
and K169, if listed.
EPA is proposing to apply UTS to these wastes and the treatment
standards for nonwastewaters containing organic constituents are based
on combustion. The Agency estimated that the commercially available
sludge and solid combustion capacity is 91,000 tons per year and
sufficient to treat the proposed listed wastes. The Agency recognizes
that the treatment residuals from these wastes may require additional
treatment capacity (e.g., stabilization) to achieve the UTS for metal
constituents. The Agency estimated that there is more than one million
tons per year of commercial stabilization capacity. EPA also identified
several metal recovery technologies that are commercially available and
some of these technologies are being used currently by the petroleum
refining industry to recycle K171 and K172. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to not grant a national capacity variance for these proposed listed
wastes. EPA is soliciting any updated or additional information that is
pertinent to this determination. Since EPA is proposing a treatment
concentration level for these wastes, the Agency does not exclude the
use of other technologies capable of meeting the proposed treatment
standard. EPA also requests comments on other commercially available
thermal and non-thermal treatment or recovery capacity to meet UTS for
the proposed listings.
For soil and debris contaminated with the proposed listings, the
vast majority of the soil is already in-place (e.g., soil contaminated
as a result of spills, etc., which has not been moved and soil
associated with land treatment units). EPA's promulgated final rule
addressing corrective action management units (CAMUs) and temporary
units (TUs) (58 FR 8658, February 16, 1993) is likely to reduce the
volume of wastes and soil subject to the land disposal restrictions by
reducing the volume of waste and soil excavated and also by reducing
the volume of waste managed off-site. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
not grant a national capacity variance to hazardous soil and debris
contaminated with the newly listed wastes covered under this proposal.
EPA is requesting comments and data on hazardous soil contaminated with
K170-K172 (and K169, if listed) that may be managed off-site. Based on
the questionnaire, there are no data showing the mixed radioactive
wastes with the proposed listings. EPA is proposing to not grant a
national capacity variance for mixed radioactive wastes, i.e.,
radioactive wastes mixed with K169 ( if listed), K170, K171, or K172.
EPA is soliciting
[[Page 57787]]
comments on any information pertinent to these determinations.
Table V-1.--Proposed BDAT Standards for Organics in K169*, K170, K171, & K172
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Constituents proposed for
maximum for maximum for any regulation
any 24 hr. grab sample -----------------------------------
composite ------------------
Constituent ----------------
Total Total K169 * K170 K171 K172
composition composition (mg/
(mg/L) kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benz(a)anthracene......................... 0.059 3.4 x x x N/A
Benzene................................... 0.14 10 x x x x
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene...................... 0.0055 1.8 x x N/A N/A
Chrysene.................................. 0.059 3.4 x x x N/A
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene..................... 0.0055 8.2 N/A x N/A N/A
Ethylbenzene.............................. 0.057 10 x x x x
Fluorene.................................. 0.059 3.4 N/A x N/A N/A
Indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene................... 0.0055 3.4 x x N/A N/A
Naphthalene............................... 0.059 5.6 x x x N/A
Phenanthrene.............................. 0.059 5.6 x x x N/A
Pyrene.................................... 0.067 8.2 x x x N/A
Toluene................................... 0.080 10 x x x x
Xylenes (total)........................... 0.32 30 x x x x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A--Not Applicable
* The proposed regulated constituent and UTS limits will apply, if EPA decides to list K169 as a hazardous waste
in the final rule.
Table V-2.--Proposed BDAT Standards for Metals in K171 & K172
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Constituents
maximum for maximum for proposed for
any 24 hr. any grab regulation
composite sample -----------------
Constituent --------------------------------
Total
composition (TCLP) (mg/L) K171 K172
(mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony...................................................... 1.9 2.1 N/A x
Arsenic....................................................... 1.4 5.0 x x
Nickel........................................................ 3.98 5.0 x x
Vanadium...................................................... 4.3 0.23 x x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-3.--Proposed BDAT Standards for Reactive Sulfides in K171 & K172
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEACTIVATION (DEACT) * to remove reactive sulfide characteristic (iron
sulfides and other metal sulfide metals/complexes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See section 268.40 for a list of applicable technologies that used
alone or in combination can achieve this standard. See also in 268.42,
Table 1--Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology--Based
Standards.
VI. Environmental Justice and Population Risk
A. Applicability of Executive Order 12898
EPA is committed to address environmental justice concerns and is
assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response to
Executive Order 12898 ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' and to
concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task
Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to
waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and
address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3-17).
Using 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data, the Agency created profiles of
the populations surrounding petroleum refineries in the United States,
as well as the smaller subset of facilities using land treatment or
landfilling to manage the residuals proposed for listing in today's
notice or estimated to have marginal risk. Statistics were generated
regarding total population, population density (persons per square
mile), white population, and population of color. Table VI-1 compares
these population profiles with the overall national profile.
[[Page 57788]]
Table VI-1.--Population Profiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
profile
Population surrounding
National profile facilities
population surrounding U.S. landfilling or
profile petroleum land treating
refineries * proposed listing
residuals *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population.......................................... 249,402,000 651,757 195,693
White population.......................................... 209,180,000 408,280 151,955
Percent white............................................. 83.9 62.6 77.6
Population of color....................................... 40,222,000 243,477 43,738
Percent people of color................................... 16.1 37.4 22.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Population count does not double count persons living within 1 mile of more than one refinery.
The population profiles show that the populations in the vicinity
of landfills and land treatment units that have been reported to manage
the three residuals proposed for listing in today's notice are somewhat
more likely to be minority populations than the National distribution.
The effect of these listings, if finalized, will be to place these
wastes under additional controls and reduce potential exposures to the
surrounding populations.
B. Potential Effects
Today's proposed rule covers a number of wastes produced from
petroleum refining facilities. The proposed rule involves not one
particular site, but will possibly affect many facilities nationwide.
Because of the locations of some of these facilities, the potential
exists for impacts to minority or low-income communities. Today's rule
is intended to reduce risks of hazardous and characteristic wastes as
proposed, and to benefit all populations. As such, this rule is not
expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to
minority or low-income communities versus non-minority or affluent
communities.
The Agency is soliciting comment and input from all stakeholders,
including members of the environmental justice community and members of
the regulated community. The Agency encourages all interested parties
to provide comments or further information that might be necessary on
the data, analysis, and findings contained in this proposal. The Agency
is interested in receiving additional information and/or comment on the
following:
Information on facilities that have evaluated potential
ecological, human health (taking into account subsistence patterns and
sensitive populations) impacts to minority or low-income communities.
Information on facilities that have conducted human health
analyses identifying multiple and cumulative exposures (populations at
risk) from leaks, emissions, and waste management.
Information on releases (leaks, emissions) that have
occurred in the community and their health and environmental effects;
and possible effects of exposure to the chemicals in the community.
Information on hazardous materials stored, used, and
transported in the community.
C. Population Risk
The Agency calculated population risks for individuals living in
the vicinity of sites at which each of the three residuals proposed for
listing in today's rule are managed. The populations surrounding each
of the refineries and off-site land treatment and landfill units were
enumerated using Census Bureau summary data for radii of 1, 2, and 5
miles. Further description of the population identification is
presented in the ``Listing Background Document for the 1992-1996
Petroleum Refining Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's
rule (see ADDRESSES).
Population risks were estimated for the following subpopulations:
(1) adult residents and home gardeners exposed to PAHs in crude oil
storage tank sediments, or clarified slurry oil storage tank sediments
and/or filter/separation solids that are land treated, (2) consumers of
ground water exposed to benzene and arsenic in hydrotreating and
hydrorefining catalysts that are landfilled, and (3) consumers of
ground water exposed to benzene from crude oil storage tank sediments
that are landfilled. In estimating population risks from exposure of
home gardeners and adult residents to PAHs, EPA evaluated exposures in
which effective run-off controls were in place and exposures in which
no run-off occurs. Under circumstances with effective run-off controls,
home gardeners were estimated to be exposed by inhaling airborne
particulates to which PAHs are adsorbed and ingesting soil, fruits, and
vegetables contaminated by direct deposition of PAH-contaminated
particulates; adult residents ingested only PAH-contaminated soil.
Under circumstances where run-off occurs, additional contamination of
soil, fruits, and vegetables with PAHs was estimated from erosion of
PAH-contaminated soil from the land treatment site.
For the purpose of estimating population risks assuming effective
run-off controls are in place at land treatment units, a radius of five
miles from the land treatment unit was used as the distance within
which concentrations of PAHs in air were averaged and exposed
populations were enumerated. The Agency selected a radius of five miles
for air pathways based on modeling results that indicated a dramatic
decrease in concentrations of PAHs beyond this distance. For the
purpose of estimating additional population risks assuming effective
run-off controls are not in place, a distance of 300 meters from the
land treatment unit was used as the distance within which populations
were enumerated. This distance corresponds to the distance used for
estimating central tendency individual risks from exposure of the home
gardener and adult resident from all applicable exposure pathways.
For the purpose of estimating population risks for consumers of
ground water, The Agency selected a one-mile radius down-gradient of
the site to estimate 9-year average concentrations over the width of
the plume. Exposures and risks to receptors located at distances
greater than one mile were not considered because the exposure
concentrations decrease as distance increases and there is a very long
time period required for constituents to reach receptors outside a one-
mile radius.
Steps for estimating non-ground water population risks assuming
that no run-off occurs include: (1) Estimating the
[[Page 57789]]
total population within 5 miles of the waste management unit; (2)
determining the percentage of the total population that is the exposed
population (e.g., the percentage of the total population that practices
home gardening); (3) estimating the average concentration of PAHs in
air, soil, fruits, and vegetables within 5 miles; (4) estimating the
total lifetime average individual cancer risk based on the average
media concentrations within 5 miles; and (5) estimating the total
lifetime cancer incidence based on the product of the exposed
population within 5 miles and the total lifetime cancer risk.
Steps for estimating the non-ground water population risks assuming
that run-off occurs include: (1) Estimating average individual cancer
risks to home gardeners and adult residents at a distance of 300 meters
of the land treatment unit; (2) estimating the total population within
a 300-meter downgradient of the land treatment unit based on the
population density within a 1-mile radius and assuming uniform
population density; (3) estimating the percentage of the total
population within 300 meters that are home gardeners and adult
residents; and (4) estimating the total lifetime cancer incidence based
on the product of the exposed population within 300 meters and the
total lifetime cancer risk. Additional details on estimating population
risks for non-ground water pathways are provided in ``Assessments of
Risks from the Management of Petroleum Refining Wastes: Background
Document.''
The steps used by the Agency to estimate population risks for
consumers of ground water include: (1) Conducting ground water modeling
to estimate 9-year average concentrations over the width of the plume
up to one mile down-gradient of the waste management unit at 400-meter
intervals; (2) calculating the corresponding average individual risk
from this average concentration; and (3) calculating the population
served by the plume in each 400-meter interval. Additional details are
provided in the ``Background Document for Groundwater Pathway
Analysis.''
1. Results
The Agency conducted analyses of population risks for non-
groundwater pathways for crude oil tank sediment and CSO sediment/
solids. EPA also conducted analyses of population risks for groundwater
pathways in crude oil tank sediment, hydrotreating catalyst, and
hydrorefining catalyst. For both non-groundwater and groundwater
pathways, the results suggested that the incremental risk in terms of
cancer cases avoided would be near zero. However, the Agency believes
that the high-end risks to individuals for these wastes support listing
them as hazardous.
For non-groundwater exposure pathways to PAHs from land treatment
units without run-off controls, the Agency estimated central tendency
risks for crude oil tank sediment to be 3 x 10-9 for up to 274
home gardeners and 6 x 10-9 for up to 721 adult residents for off-
site units. For the same scenario, the central tendency risks for CSO
sediment/solids were 3 x 10-9 for up to 90 home gardeners, and
6 x 10-6 for up to 235 adult residents. For on-site land
treatment, central tendency risks from PAHs in crude oil tank sediment
were 4 x 10-9 for up to 120 home gardeners, and 8 x 10-9 for
up to 316 adult residents. For on-site land treatment of CSO sediment/
solids, central tendency risks from PAHs were 7 x 10-7 for up to
76 home gardeners, and 2 x 10-6 for up to 200 adult residents.
For the groundwater exposure pathway from landfills, the Agency
estimated the total number of people exposed to constituent
concentrations above health-based levels (at the 10-6 level) for
off-site landfills. The number of individuals exposed above health-
based levels for benzene in crude oil storage tank sediment,
hydrotreating catalyst, and hydrorefining catalyst is 17, 300, and 3,
respectively. The number of people exposed above health-based levels
for arsenic in hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalyst is 12 and 25,
respectively. For on-site landfills, the number of individuals exposed
above health-based levels was less than one for all three wastes.
VII. Compliance Dates
A. Notification
Under the RCRA section 3010 any person generating, transporting, or
managing a hazardous waste must notify EPA (or an authorized State) of
its activities. Section 3010(a) allows EPA to waive, under certain
circumstances, the notification requirement under section 3010 of RCRA.
If these hazardous waste listings are promulgated, EPA is proposing to
waive the notification requirement as unnecessary for persons already
identified within the hazardous waste management universe (i.e.,
persons who have an EPA identification number under 40 CFR 262.12). EPA
is not proposing to waive the notification requirement for waste
handlers who have neither notified the Agency that they may manage
hazardous wastes nor received an EPA identification number. Such
individuals will have to provide notification under Sec. 3010.
B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities
Because HSWA requirements are applicable in authorized States at
the same time as in unauthorized States, EPA will regulate the newly
identified wastes listed under HSWA until States are authorized to
regulate these wastes. Thus, once this regulation becomes effective as
a final rule, EPA will apply Federal regulations to these wastes and to
their management in both authorized and unauthorized States.
VIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States
have primary enforcement responsibility.
Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
amended RCRA, a State with final authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of the Federal program in that
State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized
State, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities located in
the State with permitting authorization. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State was
obligated to enact equivalent authority within specified time-frames.
New Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State
until the State adopted the requirements as State law.
By contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA (including the
hazardous waste listings proposed in this notice) take effect in
authorized States at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized States. EPA is directed to implement those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of permits,
until the State is granted authorization to do so. While States must
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the Federal HSWA requirements apply in authorized States
in the interim.
[[Page 57790]]
B. Effect on State Authorizations
Because this proposal (with the exception of the actions proposed
under CERCLA authority) will be promulgated pursuant to the HSWA, a
State submitting a program modification is able to apply to receive
either interim or final authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or
3006(b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's requirements. The
procedures and schedule for State program modifications under 3006(b)
are described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA
interim authorizations are currently scheduled to expire on January 1,
2003 (see 57 FR 60129, February 18, 1992).
Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA's State authorization regulations (40
CFR Part 271) requires that states with final authorization modify
their programs to reflect federal program changes and submit the
modifications to EPA for approval. The deadline by which the States
must modify their programs to adopt this proposed regulation, if it is
adopted as a final rule, will be determined by the date of promulgation
of a final rule in accordance with section 271.21(e)(2). If the
proposal is adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40 CFR 271.1 will be
amended accordingly. Once EPA approves the modification, the State
requirements become RCRA Subtitle C requirements.
States with authorized RCRA programs already may have regulations
similar to those in this proposed rule. These State regulations have
not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed to
determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
would not be authorized to implement these regulations as RCRA
requirements until State program modifications are submitted to EPA and
approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21. Of course, States with existing
regulations that are more stringent than or broader in scope than
current Federal regulations may continue to administer and enforce
their regulations as a matter of State law.
It should be noted that authorized States are required to modify
their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal standards that are
more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal standards.
Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to impose standards more stringent
than those in the Federal program. For those Federal program changes
that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program,
States are not required to modify their programs. See 40 CFR 271.1(i).
This proposed rule, if finalized, is neither less stringent than nor a
reduction in the scope or the current Federal program and, therefore,
states would be required to modify their programs to retain
authorization to implement and enforce these regulations.
IX. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
All hazardous wastes listed under RCRA and codified in 40 CFR
261.31 through 261.33, as well as any solid waste that exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of an RCRA hazardous waste (as defined in
Sections 261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. See CERCLA Section 101(14)(C). CERCLA
hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along
with their reportable quantities (RQs). RQs are the minimum quantity of
a hazardous substance that, if released, must be reported to the
National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA Sec. 103.
The Agency is proposing to list the wastes in this action as CERCLA
hazardous substances in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4. In addition, the
Agency proposes two alternative methods to adjust their one-pound
statutory RQs. The first method, one traditionally utilized by the
Agency, adjusts the RQ based on the lowest RQ of the most toxic
substance present in each waste. The second method, as a part of the
Agency's effort to review and re-evaluate its methods for CERCLA
designation and RQ adjustment, adjusts the one-pound statutory RQ based
upon the Agency's characterization and physical properties of the
complex mixtures which comprise the wastes to be designated as K169 (if
listed), K170, K171 and K172. The Agency invites comment on both
methods, and may, based upon these comments and further information,
decide to go forward with either method.
A. Reporting Requirements
Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or
facility from which a hazardous substance has been released in a
quantity that is equal to or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the
National Response Center of the release as soon as that person has
knowledge thereof. The toll-free number of the NRC is 1-800-424-8802;
in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the number is (202) 267-
2675. In addition to this reporting requirement under CERCLA, section
304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA) requires owners or operators of certain facilities to report
releases of extremely hazardous substances and CERCLA hazardous
substances to State and local authorities. EPCRA section 304
notification must be given immediately after the release of a RQ or
more to the community emergency coordinator of the local emergency
planning committee for any area likely to be affected by the release,
and to the State emergency response commission of any State likely to
be affected by the release.
Under section 102(b) of CERCLA, all hazardous wastes newly
designated under RCRA will have a statutory RQ of one pound unless and
until the RQ is adjusted by regulation under CERCLA. In order to
coordinate the RCRA and CERCLA rulemakings with respect to new waste
listings, the Agency is also proposing adjustments to the one-pound
statutory RQs for these wastestreams.
B. Basis for RQs and Adjustments
EPA's methodology for adjusting the RQs of individual hazardous
substances begins with an evaluation of the intrinsic physical,
chemical, and toxic properties of each hazardous constituent. The
intrinsic properties examined--called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic
toxicity, mammalian toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, chronic
toxicity, and potential carcinogenity.
Generally, for each intrinsic property, EPA ranks hazardous
substances on a scale, associating a specific range of values on each
scale with an RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. The data
for each hazardous substance are evaluated using the various primary
criteria; each hazardous substance may receive several tentative RQ
values based on its particular intrinsic properties. The lowest of the
tentative RQs becomes the ``primary criteria RQ'' for that substance.
After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are further
evaluated for their susceptibility to certain degradative processes,
which are used as secondary adjustment criteria. These natural
degradative processes are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis
(BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment,
degrades rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of the BHP
processes, its RQ (as determined by the primary RQ adjustment criteria)
is generally raised by one level. Conversely, if a hazardous substance
degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, the original
substance is assigned an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous
substance, which may
[[Page 57791]]
be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the original substance.
Table IX-1 presents the reportable quantity of each of the constituents
of concern in the wastes to be identified as hazardous.
Table IX-1.--Reportable Quantities of Constituents of Concern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous RQ pounds
waste No. Constituent of concern (Kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K169 * Benzo(a)pyrene........................... 1(0.454)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene................... 1(0.454)
Benzo(a)anthracene....................... 10(4.54)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene................... 100(45.4)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene..................... 1(0.454)
Chrysene................................. 100(45.4)
Benzene.................................. 10(4.54)
K170 Benzo(a)pyrene........................... 1(0.454)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene.................... 1(0.454)
Benzo(a)anthracene....................... 10(4.54)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene..................... 1(0.454)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene..................... 5000 (2270)
Chrysene................................. 100(45.4)
3-Methylcholanthrene..................... 10(4.54)
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene........... 1(0.454)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene................... 100(45.4)
K171 Benzene.................................. 10(4.54)
Arsenic.................................. 1(0.454)
K172 Benzene.................................. 10(4.54)
Arsenic.................................. 1(0.454)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If EPA makes a final decision to list crude oil storage tank sediment
(K169) as hazardous, these RQs would apply.
The RQ adjustment methodology for mixtures of hazardous substances,
used to adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous wastestreams, differs
somewhat from the methodology applied to individual hazardous
substances. The procedure for assigning RQs is based on an analysis of
the hazardous substance constituents of the wastestreams. The
constituents of each RCRA hazardous wastestream are identified in 40
CFR 261, Appendix VII. The RQ of each constituent within the
wastestream is determined, and the lowest RQ value of these
constituents is established as the RQ for the wastestream. Because one
or more of the constituents of concern in each waste has a final RQ of
one pound, the Agency is proposing to assign one pound as the adjusted
RQ for each of the newly designated wastestreams under this option.
The preceding discussion only describes the Agency's methodology
for assigning RQs to the wastestreams. This discussion does not address
whether particular releases of the wastestreams are reportable under
various scenarios. The person in charge of a facility from which a
release of any of the wastestreams occurs may apply the mixture rule on
a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular release of the
wastestream must be reported under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304. Essentially, the Agency's mixture rule (see 40 CFR 302.6(b))
provides that, if the quantity of each of the hazardous constituents in
a particular wastestream is known, reporting is required only when an
RQ or more of a constituent is released,
It is important to note that this provision only applies to the
individual wastestream for which the quantities of all the constituents
are known. RCRA wastes may be treated as mixtures only if all hazardous
components and their concentrations in the mixture are known. Knowledge
that the average quantities of hazardous constituents in a wastestream
with the same RCRA identification number (e.g., K170) are below their
respective hazardous constituent RQs is not a sufficient basis for
applying this provision of the mixture rule to all wastestreams with
that identification number. In addition, the Agency's mixture rule also
provides that, if the quantity of one or more of the hazardous
constituents is unknown, reporting is required where the total amount
of the waste equals or exceeds the RQ for the hazardous constituent
with the lowest RQ (CFR 302.6(b)(1)(ii)).
C. Alternative Method
The above proposal is for adjusting RQs utilizing the standard
CERCLA methodology. In this rulemaking, the Agency also requests
comment on the following alternative method for adjusting the RQs of
the wastes in this proposal.
The Agency believes it has fully characterized the wastes to be
identified as K169 (if listed), K170, K171 and K172, and based upon the
maximum concentration observed, the Agency has calculated the amount of
each waste necessary to contain the reportable quantity of each
constituent of concern.
Table IX-2.--Pounds Required to Contain RQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds required Adjusted RQ
Waste Constituent Max ppm RQ (lb) to contain RQ (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K169 * Benzo(a)pyrene............ 26 1 38,462 5000
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.... 3.7 1 270,270 5000
Benzo(a)anthracene........ 31 10 322,581 5000
[[Page 57792]]
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.... 15 100 6,666,667 5000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene...... 29 1 34,483 5000
Chrysene.................. 42 100 2,380,952 5000
Benzene................... 220 10 45,455 5000
K170 Benzo(a)pyrene............ 230 1 4,348 1000
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.... 49 1 20,408 5000
Benzo(a)anthracene........ 390 10 25,641 5000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene...... 110 1 9,090 5000
Benzo(k)fluoranthene...... 110 5000 45,454,545 5000
Chrysene.................. 860 100 116,279 5000
3-Methylcholanthrene...... 27 10 370,370 5000
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthra 1200 1 833 100
cene.
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.... 26 100 38461.5 5000
K171 Benzene................... 500 10 20,000 5000
Arsenic................... 1600 1 625 500
Self-heating solid........ ............ 100 ............... 100
K172 Benzene................... 100 10 100,000 5000
Arsenic................... 730 1 1,370 5000
Self-heating solid........ ............ 100 ............... 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If EPA makes a final decision to list crude oil storage tank sediment (K169) as hazardous, these RQs would
apply.
In this alternative method, the calculated amounts would determine
the adjusted RQs. Specifically, for K169 wastes (if listed), over 5,000
pounds would be required to contain the RQ of any of the constituents
of concern. Thus, under this alternative methodology, the Agency would
adjust the RQ for K169 to 5,000 pounds, if K169 is finalized as a
hazardous waste. For K170, over 800 pounds would be required to contain
one pound of 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (the constituent of concern
with the highest concentration in this waste). Therefore, because 800
falls between the two possible RQ increments of 100 and 1000, under
this alternative methodology, the Agency would adjust the RQ for K170
to 100 pounds. In the case of K171 and K172, quantities of these wastes
in excess of 5000 pounds would also be required to contain the RQ of
benzene or arsenic. However, these wastes frequently are spontaneously
combustible materials. Because the RQ for wastes exhibiting the
characteristic of ignitability is 100 pounds, the Agency would adjust
the final RQ for K171 and K172 to 100 pounds.
X. Regulatory Requirements and Economic Analysis
The material covered in this section is described in detail in the
background document entitled ``Cost and Economic Impact of Listing
Hazardous Wastes from the Petroleum Refining Industry'', dated
September 21, 1995, to be found in the EPA docket for this listing.
A. Regulatory Requirements
1. Executive Order 12866
E.O. 12866 requires that a determination be made as to whether this
proposed regulatory action is ``significant.'' While the proposal does
not have an estimated annual effect of $100 million on the economy,
interfere with actions planned by another agency, or materially alter
budgetary impacts on parties named in the E.O., it does raise novel
legal and possibly policy issues. Therefore, the Agency considers the
action ``significant'' under the Executive Order and has gone beyond
the minimal requirements for economic analysis required for ``non-
significant'' rules, as explained in the discussion of economic
analysis (Section B, parts 3-5, below).
2. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
This Act requires federal agencies to give full consideration to
the effect a proposed rulemaking may have on ``small entities.''
Section 603 of the Act requires that a screening analysis be performed
to determine whether ``small businesses, organizations and governmental
jurisdictions'' are impacted.
For the economic analysis performed for the Petroleum Refinery
NESHAP, it was determined (under Title IV, Section 410H of the Clean
Air Act) that a petroleum refinery is classified as a small business if
it has less than 1500 employees or if its production is less than
50,000 barrels of oil per day. Based upon this production criterion, 63
refineries were determined to be small businesses in 1992. For SIC
2911, Petroleum Refining, Small Business Administration (SBA) rules
define small businesses as those firms processing less than or equal to
75,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Based upon this SBA cutoff, 49
refineries or approximately 30% of all refineries operating at the
close of 1992 are considered ``small entities.''
Since either of the above measures denote a sizable percentage of
``small entities,'' an industry impact analysis was conducted and the
findings are presented in Section B.2. below.
3. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Today's proposed rule may require reporting, notification or record
keeping subject to OMB approval under Section 3504(b) of the PRA.
Facilities will have to comply with Subtitle C recordkeeping with
respect to the waste streams proposed for listing. Costs are included
in compliance costs for this proposed listing insofar as they could be
estimated by EPA.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L
104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments,
and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally
must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis,
for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result
in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a
[[Page 57793]]
written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under Section 203 of the URMA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that today's proposed rule does not contain a
federal mandate that will result in an expenditure of $100 million or
more in any one year. The upper bound of the range of potential annual
expenditure is well under $100 annually, as shown in Section B, below.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
B. Economic Analysis
1. Costs of Compliance
EPA has assessed the costs associated with the regulation of each
of the three waste streams proposed to the listed in today's proposal.
These are: clarified slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids, hydrotreating catalyst and hydrorefining
catalyst. EPA has examined four cost alternatives; (1) Subtitle C
landfill costs alone, (2) off-site incineration of tank sediments/off-
site incineration and vitrification of catalysts, (3) a combination of
on- and off-site incineration depending on the specific refinery,
together with recycling/reclamation of catalysts, and (4) a contingent
management composite alternative involving Subtitle D landfill for the
CSO tank sediment and filter/separation solids together with recycling/
reclaiming of catalysts.
The last named is clearly the least costly option of the options
examined. It is important to note that the costs shown for all
alternatives are not to be taken as precise. At the low end,
especially, they are barely measurable in an industry of this size.
Each alternative is discussed below.
a. Alternative (1)--Subtitle C Landfill Costs Alone. After
excluding the quantities exempt from regulation on the basis of the
definition of solid waste, by ongoing reclamation, by headwaters
exemption, and by the quantity already in compliance, as reported in
the Sec. 3007 survey previously referred to, the quantities impacted
and the related Subtitle C annual costs of compliance are presented in
Table X-1.
Table X-1.-- Annual Cost of Compliance
[1992$, millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
(1992$,
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sediment and In-line
Filter/Separation Solids.................................. 2.8
Hydrotreating Catalyst..................................... 1.3
Hydrorefining Catalyst..................................... 1.5
Add: RCRA Administrative costs............................. 0.5
------------
Total Annual Costs \1\................................. 6.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The additional annual cost of compliance for potentially listing
crude oil storage tank sediments is $2.2 million.
Costs per ton for Subtitle C compliance are also taken from the
survey data as reported by the refineries. In that some uncertainty
existed both for costs and for quantities, EPA tested the significance
of variation in cost and in quantity by calculating the effect of a
+/-25% adjustment in estimated costs, and a +/-50% adjustment in
quantities, as reasonable bounding values. The range of total annual
compliance costs using these worst case limits was $3.3 to $12.1
million in '92 dollars. ('92 dollars are used in that this was the date
of the industry survey. Escalation to '95 or '96 dollars is of course
possible, but would not change anything in the analysis.)
b. Alternatives (2) and (3)--Costs Including On- and Off-Site LDR
Costs. If the costs associated with land disposal restrictions are
included, the figures are as given below. The off-site alternative may
be considered an unlikely upper bound in that those refiners finding it
economical to continue on-site incineration of tank sediments in
combination with recycling and reclaiming of catalysts will continue to
do so, unless forced to off-site incineration and vitrification of the
catalysts by added permitting costs.
Table X-2.--Annualized Costs for Proposed Refinery Waste Listings Under
Two LDR Scenarios
[1992$, millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off site On-site
incineration incineration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sediment
and In-line Filter/Separation Solids....... 22.5 16.8
Hydrotreating Catalyst...................... 5.0 2.4
Hydrorefining Catalyst...................... 11.6 3.9
RCRA Administrative Costs................... 0.5 0.8
---------------------------
Total Annual Costs with LDR \1\......... 39.7 23.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The additional annual costs with LDR for potentially listing crude
oil storage tank sediments is $21.6 million for off site incineration
and $16.7 million for on-site incineration.
c. Alternative (4), Contingent Management--Subtitle D Landfill for
the Storage Tank Sediments and CSO Filter/Separation Solids, and
Recycling/Reclaiming of Catalysts. The costs shown include a credit for
the revenues that would derive from waste minimization and reentry as
added feedstocks for the two tank sediments, and the far lower (than
Subtitle C) Subtitle D landfill costs. The negative number for the CSO
tank sediment and filter/separation solids reflects the added net
revenues in context of no added disposal costs.
It is important to reiterate that for an industry of this size,
costs at this low level are difficult to measure. These costs should
not be taken to be precise; they are estimates only and are small
compared to the revenue/cost stream for the industry as a whole.
Table X-3.--Annualized Costs for Alternative (4)
[1992$, millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
costs
(1992$,
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSO Storage Tank Sediment and In-line Filter/Separation
Solids................................................... (0.5)
Hydrotreating Catalyst.................................... 2.3
Hydrorefining Catalyst.................................... 3.9
RCRA Administrative Costs................................. 0.6
-------------
Total Alternative 4................................... 6.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The additional annual costs of option 4 for potentially listing
crude oil storage tank sediments is $17.4 million.
d. The Cost Reducing Potential of Offsetting Savings. As noted in
Section 5, below, (``Other Benefits Considered,''
[[Page 57794]]
Subsection 5.e), EPA estimated the revenue impact of recycling
previously listed waste into cokers, in accordance with the changes to
the current recycling exemptions described elsewhere in this preamble.
These wastes include primary separation sludge (F038), secondary
separation sludge (F039), dissolved air flotation float (K048), slop
oil emulsion solids (K049), and API separator sludge (K051). As
described in Section 5, such a practice is estimated to generate
between $13 million and $26 million annually, depending on the volume
not currently being recycled and other factors. Refineries would have
to be individually evaluated to more accurately calculate this effect.
Also, the costs associated with temporary on-site storage and
processing, and transportation to a coker if a given refinery did not
have a coker, would reduce this savings.
EPA has not directly applied this potential offset to any of the
alternatives costed above, but it is important to note that this
recycling practice, if directly associated with this proposed
rulemaking, could combine to make the estimated cost of the rule as a
whole approach zero under the contingent management option.
2. Economic Impact Analysis
EPA used a partial equilibrium model of the petroleum refining
industry to estimate the effects of compliance on refiners. The model
is the same as was used for the EPA NESHAP air contaminant analysis,
for consistency. The major analytical variables are: market demand and
supply (pre- and post compliance) for both domestic and foreign
markets, market supply shifts, trade relationships as a function of
elasticities, plant closures and other impacts, changes in economic
welfare (consumer and producer surplus) and labor and energy effects.
Baseline (pre-compliance) inputs and a complete model description may
be found in the EPA docket for this proposed listing.
It is important to note that the use of this model represents a
very sophisticated approach to the measurement of what are not high
compliance costs relative to the size of this industry. More simplified
approaches were considered, including analysis of standard financial
ratios pre- and post compliance. EPA's judgement is that the use of a
model as a computational device has three major advantages: (1)
comparability with the NESHAP analysis, (2) comprehensiveness as
measured against all known effects as compared to the simpler
approaches and (3) a built in ability to sensitivity test quickly and
easily as desired. The only disadvantage is one shared with the simpler
approaches; a possible inability to measure small impacts on a large
industry. The results are not to be construed as precise, but rather as
approximate indicators of impact.
As shown in Table X-4, impacts on major variables are all less than
one tenth of one percent, with almost no measurable impact on plant
operations. As shown, plant closure potential is estimated as minimal.
Hence, pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), ``the Administrator certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
entities.''
Table X-4.--Impacts on Major Variables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower bound Midpoint Upper bound
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Price Increase (All
products).................... 0.03% 0.08% 0.076%
Annual Production Decrease.... 0.03% 0.06% 0.59%
Plant Closures--Estimated..... 0-2 0-2 0-2
Jobs Lost..................... 0.03% 0.06% 0.59%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cost Effectiveness of Individual Risk Reduction
a. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment. Benzene groundwater risks for
this waste exceed 10-5 (all risks referred to in this section are
discussed in detail in other sections of this preamble) and total
10-6 for some pathways for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). At a cost of approximately $17.5 million under Alternative (4)
these risks will be reduced if not eliminated. (Note: EPA has not
translated these risk reductions into illness avoidance equivalents and
monetary streams--see ``Other Benefits Considered,'' below.)
b. Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sediment and In-Line Filter/
Separation Solids. EPA is estimating significant indirect individual
risks for PAHs in land treatment. The high-end adult resident
individual lifetime cancer risks attributed to PAHs total 9 x 10-5
and 8 x 10-5 for on-site and off-site land treatment,
respectively. These are very high individual environmental risks. At
essentially zero cost for the contingent management option (or $16.8
million with reasonable LDR costs included) these major risks will be
reduced if not eliminated.
c. Spent Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts. Risks for these
catalysts are due to benzene at the 10-5 lifetime cancer level.
Again, the total annual cost to reduce or eliminate this risk is $6.2
million for all refineries under either the LDR or the contingent
management scenario. This material is reused after treatment and there
are no significant LDR costs. (Note: the practice of reclaiming is
common now. The proposed listing would affect only amounts not now
being reclaimed.)
4. Cost Effectiveness of Population Risk Reduction
EPA evaluated several approaches to measuring population risk as a
function of multi-path exposure analysis. This is discussed in section
VI.C. of this preamble. As with the individual risks, the exposed
population risks would be minimized or disappear altogether if the
relatively low cost measures specified above are taken.
EPA did not attempt to transform these cost effectiveness
comparisons into monetary or commensurable measures both because of the
uncertainties in such transformations and the absence of a statutory
requirement to do so under either Executive Order 12866 or the UMRA
(See Section A, above) as a function of the annual costs associated
with the proposed listing. See also the discussion of other benefits,
following.
5. Other Benefits Considered
As the analysis for today's proposed rule progressed, the Agency
began to consider certain of the traditional benefits associated with
RCRA rulemaking. It is well established that quantification of these
benefits, in a manner acceptable to stakeholders and to the scientific
community as a whole, is very difficult. In fact, for the most part,
there is no agreement on the utility of quantification of these
benefits in a decision making sense, especially with
[[Page 57795]]
respect to long lasting soil and ground water contamination.
Still, because of the high visibility of the refinery industry and
the potential for stakeholder reaction on both sides of this issue, EPA
examined a range of benefits beyond the straightforward cost/
effectiveness tradeoffs noted above, but did not attempt to transform
these (as with the cost effectiveness measures noted above) into
commensurable or monetary measures both because of the uncertainties
involved and the absence of a clear statutory requirement to do so.
(The UMRA does not require it and while Executive Order 12866 may be
interpreted to do so, the Agency elected to not undertake such analysis
at this time due to the relatively low cost of the proposed rule.)
Thus it is important to consider, given this relatively low cost,
that the benefit factors enumerated below may have special relevance.
a. Additional Potential Benefits and Tradeoffs. (1) Jobs and
Transaction Costs. The regulation of the cited waste steams may serve
to encourage further reclaiming activity. To the extent this occurs,
the capacity of this industry may increase, with concurrent increases
in employment. Economic multiplier effects should be added in, as a
function of plant locations. Further, refineries may be able to save
tipping fees in some cases, and may even be paid something for wastes
now disposed of at a cost to the refinery. Further recycling (e.g., de-
oiling) of the nonmetallic-bearing wastes may also be considered both
for economic reasons (product yield enhancement) and for waste
minimization reasons.
(2) Landfill Cost Tradeoffs. Reclaiming and recycling may decrease
landfill costs, but land disposal restrictions relating to the fraction
of the waste stream that cannot be recycled or reclaimed may offset
these.
(3) Land Value Benefits. While it is indisputable that land values
are an inverse function of contamination, no clear cut rules for
measuring these effects have been derived. Notions of contingent
valuation, particularly in marginal cases, continue to be researched in
the scientific community. For today's proposed listing, no analysis of
this was conducted. This would be of relevance both to residential and
commercial property in the vicinity of refineries. If this were done,
it would be necessary to attempt to differentiate between effects
attributable to these wastes and effects attributable to other causes.
(4) Ecological and Natural Resource Benefits. Ecological benefits
will derive from the proposed listing. EPA has attempted to define and
measure such benefits often over the years, most recently in the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) proposal. For HWIR, linkages
between effect levels (human health as well as ecological) and exposure
concentrations were developed (for air, soil, surface water, plants and
animal products). The methodology embodied a ``back-calculation'' to
determine permissible concentrations of contaminants at a predetermined
risk level. As difficult as this is, a variant might be attempted for
today's proposed rule, given adequate time and resources.
(5) Benefit From Extracting Oil Content From Prior Listings. EPA is
proposing to expand the ability of petroleum refineries to recycle back
into the process certain currently listed wastestreams: F037, F038,
K048, K049, and K051. In each case, the oiled component of wastewater
sludge could be fed back to a coker. A detailed analysis of the
potential for savings (more accurately put, the potential for added
feedstock resulting in revenue and for waste management cost avoided)
was not possible in the time available given the mandated schedule, but
EPA believes these benefits may be significant relative to the cost of
the proposed listings. Offsetting these savings would be any cost
associated with on-site storage and handling, and the cost associated
with transport to cokers for refineries without cokers.
A survey of refineries would have to be undertaken to determine how
widespread this practice is now. However, in general terms and based
upon quantities taken from the 1993 Biennial Report System for the five
wastes, at $18.00 per barrel nominal value, EPA estimates that the
benefit of this practice is between $13 million and $26 million. This
could substantially offset any cost associated with this proposed
listing.
However, the Agency based these estimates on a number of
assumptions that would need further assessment. EPA notes that there
are uncertainties associated with such estimates and requests comment
on the benefits associated with this action.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new information collection
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Facilities will have to comply with the
existing Subtitle C recordkeeping and reporting requirements for newly
listed wastestreams.
To the extent that this rule imposes any information collection
requirements under existing RCRA regulations promulgated in previous
rulemakings, those requirements have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2050-
120 (ICR no. 1573, Part B Permit Application and Modification); 2050-
120 (ICR 1571, General Facility Standards); 2050-0028 (ICR 261,
Notification of Regulated Waste Activity); 2050-0034 (ICR 262, Part A
Permit Application); 2050-0039 (ICR 801, Hazardous Waste Manifest);
2050-0035 (ICR 820, Generator Standards); and 2050-0024 (ICR 976,
Biennial Report).
Release reporting required as a result of listing wastes as
hazardous substances under CERCLA and adjusting the reportable
quantities (RQs) has been approved under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has been assigned
OMB control number 2050-0046 (ICR 1049, Notification of Episodic
Release of Oil and Hazardous Substances).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste treatment and
disposal, Recycling.
40 CFR Part 266
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste management,
Boilers and industrial furnaces.
40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste management,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Land Disposal Restrictions,
Treatment Standards.
40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous material transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 302
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Hazardous chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation,
[[Page 57796]]
Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: October 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend
Chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. Section 261.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(C),
and adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(E) to read as follows.
Sec. 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) One of the following wastes listed in Sec. 261.32, provided
that the wastes are discharged to the refinery oil recovery sewer
before primary oil/water/solids separation-- heat exchanger bundle
cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K050), and clarified slurry oil tank sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from petroleum refining operations (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K170); or
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) Ceramic support media separated from one of the following
wastes listed in Sec. 261.32--Spent hydrotreating catalyst (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K171), and Spent hydrorefining catalyst (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K172).
* * * * *
3. Section 261.4 is amended to revise paragraph (a)(12) and to add
paragraphs (a)(13) and (a)(14) to read as follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
(a) * * *
(12) Any hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials that are
generated by SIC codes: 1311, 1321, 1381, 1382, 1389, 2911, 4612, 4613,
4922, 4923, 4789, 5171 and 5172 and are inserted into the petroleum
refining process (SIC Code 2911) (including, but not limited to,
distillation, catalytic cracking, fractionation, or thermal cracking
units (i.e., cokers)) along with normal process streams, unless the
material is placed on the land, or speculatively accumulated before
being so recycled. Such secondary materials inserted into thermal
cracking units are excluded provided that the coke product also does
not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste.
(13) Recovered oil from an associated organic chemical
manufacturing facility which is to be inserted into the petroleum
refining process (SIC Code 2911) along with normal process streams,
unless the material is placed on the land, or speculatively accumulated
before being so recycled. An ``associated organic chemical
manufacturing facility (SIC Code 2869) is either a physically co-
located facility or a facility under common ownership with the refinery
at which the recovered oil is inserted into the petroleum refining
process.
(14) Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining liquid
treating processes used as a feedstock to produce cresylic or
naphthenic acid unless the material is accumulated speculatively as
defined in Sec. 261.1(c).
* * * * *
4. Section 261.32 is amended by adding in alphanumeric order (by
the first column) the following wastestreams to the subgroup `Petroleum
refining' to read as follows.
Sec. 261.32 Hazardous waste from specific sources.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry and EPA
hazardous waste Hazardous waste Hazard
No. code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
*
K170............. Clarified slurry oil tank sediment and/or (T)
in-line filter/separation solids from
petroleum refining operations.
K171............. Spent Hydrotreating catalyst from (I, T)
petroleum refining operations (This
listing does not include ceramic support
media.).
K172............. Spent Hydrorefining catalyst from (I, T)
petroleum refining operations (This
listing does not include ceramic support
media.).
* * * *
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5. Appendix VII to part 261 is amended by adding the following
wastestreams in alphanumeric order (by the first column) to read as
follows.
Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA hazardous waste No. Hazardous constituents for which listed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
*
K170................... Benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, 3-methylcholanthrene,
7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene.
K171................... Benzene, arsenic.
K172................... Benzene, arsenic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57797]]
* * * * *
PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
6. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and 3014 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6934).
7. Section 266.100 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 266.100 Applicability.
(b) * * *
(5) Catalyst recovery furnaces if the only hazardous wastes burned
are spent hydrotreating catalyst from petroleum refining operations
(EPA Hazardous waste No. K171), and/or spent hydrorefining catalyst
from petroleum refining operations (EPA Hazardous waste No. K172).
* * * * *
PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
8. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912 (a), 6921, and 6924.
9. Section 268.31 is revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
Subpart C--Prohibitions on Land Disposal
Sec. 268.31 Waste specific prohibitions-petroleum refining wastes.
(a) Effective [Date of Six Months from the Publication Date of the
Final Rule for Listing as hazardous one or more of the proposed
petroleum refining wastes in this rule.], the waste specified in 40 CFR
261 as EPA Hazardous Wastes Numbers K170, K171, and K172, soils and
debris contaminated with these wastes, and radioactive wastes mixed
with these hazardous wastes, are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Between [Date of Six Months from the Publication of the Final
Rule for Listing as hazardous one or more of the proposed petroleum
refining wastes in this rule.], hazardous wastes K170, K171, and K172;
radioactive wastes mixed with EPA Hazardous waste numbers K170, K171,
and K172, and soil and debris contaminated with these wastes, may be
disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements specified in Sec. 268.5(h)(2).
(c) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply
if:
(1) The waste meet the applicable treatment standards specified in
subpart D of this part;
(2) Persons have been granted an exemption from a prohibition
pursuant to a petition under Sec. 268.6, with respect to those wastes
and units covered by the petition;
(3) The waste meet the applicable treatment standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under Sec. 268.44;
(4) Hazardous debris that have met treatment standards in
Sec. 268.40 or in the alternative treatment standards in Sec. 268.45;
or
(5) Persons have been granted an extension to the effective date of
a prohibition pursuant to Sec. 268.5, with respect to these wastes
covered by the extension.
(d) To determine whether a hazardous waste identified in this
section exceeds the applicable treatment standards specified in
Sec. 268.40, the initial generator must test a sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste, depending on whether the treatment
standards are expressed as concentrations in the waste extract or the
waste, or the generator may use knowledge of the waste. If the waste
contains constituents (including underlying hazardous constituents in
characteristic wastes that have been diluted to remove the
characteristic) in excess of the applicable Universal Treatment
Standard levels of Sec. 268.48, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of part 268 are applicable, except as
otherwise specified.
Subpart D--Treatment Standards
10. Section 268.40 is amended by revising paragraph (e), and in the
Table of Treatment Standards adding in alphanumerical order entries for
K170, K171, and K172 to read as follows. The appropriate footnotes to
the Table of Treatment Standards are republished without change.
Sec. 268.40 Applicability of treatment standards.
* * * * *
(e) For characteristic wastes subject to treatment standards in the
following table ``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes,'' all
underlying hazardous constituents (as defined in Sec. 268.2(i)) must
meet Universal Treatment Standards, found in Sec. 268.40, Table UTS,
prior to land disposal.
* * * * *
Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated hazardous Wastewaters:
Waste description constituent concentration in Nonwastewaters:
Waste code and treatment/ -------------------------------- mg/L \3\; or concentration in mg/kg \5\
regulatory technology code unless noted as ``mg/L
subcategory \1\ Common name CAS \2\ No. \4\ TCLP'' or technology code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
K170........... Clarified slurry Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059 3.4
oil sludge from
petroleum
refining
operations.
Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14 10
Benzo(g,h,i)peryl 191-24-2 0.0055 1.8
ene.
Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059 3.4
Dibenz(a,h)anthra 53-70-3 0.0055 8.2
cene.
Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057 10
Fluorene......... 86-73-7 0.059 3.4
Indeno(1,2,3,- 193-39-5 0.0055 3.4
cd)pyrene.
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059 5.6
Phenanthrene..... 81-05-8 0.059 5.6
[[Page 57798]]
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067 8.2
Toluene (Methyl 108-88-3 0.080 10
Benzene).
Xylene(s) (Total) 1330-20-7 0.32 30
K171........... Spent Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059 3.4
hydrotreating
catalyst from
petroleum
refining
operations (This
listing does not
include ceramic
support media.).
Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14 10
Chrysene......... 218-01-9 0.059 3.4
Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057 10
Naphthalene...... 91-20-3 0.059 5.6
Phenanthrene..... 81-05-8 0.059 5.6
Pyrene........... 129-00-0 0.067 8.2
Toluene (Methyl 108-88-3 0.080 10
Benzene).
Xylene(s) (Total) 1330-20-7 0.32 30
Arsenic.......... 7740-38-2 1.4 5 mg/L (TCLP)
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98 5.0 mg/L (TCLP)
Vanadium......... 7440-62-2 4.3 0.23 mg/L (TCLP)
Reactive sulfides N/A DEACT DEACT
K172........... Spent Benzene.......... 71-43-2 0.14 10
hydrorefining
catalyst from
petroleum
refining
operations (This
listing does not
include ceramic
support media.).
Ethyl benzene.... 100-41-4 0.057 10
Toluene (Methyl 108-88-3 0.080 10
Benzene).
Xylene(s) (Total) 1330-20-7 0.32 30
Antimony......... 7740-36-0 1.9 2.1 mg/L (TCLP)
Arsenic.......... 7740-38-2 1.4 5 mg/L (TCLP)
Nickel........... 7440-02-0 3.98 5.0 mg/L (TCLP)
Vanadium......... 7440-62-2 4.3 0.23 mg/L (TCLP)
Reactive Sulfides N/A DEACT DEACT
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261.
Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between
applicability of different standards.
\2\ CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a
combination of a chemical with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
\3\ Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L are based on analysis of composite samples.
\4\ All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in
detail in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1--Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.
\5\ Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards
expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in
accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265 subpart O, or based upon
combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A
facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All
concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.
* * * * *
NOTE: NA means not applicable.
* * * * *
12. Appendix VI to Part 268 is amended by revising the text
preceding the table to read as follows:
Appendix VI to Part 268--Recommended Technologies To Achieve
Deactivation of Characteristics in Sec. 268.40
The treatment standard for many subcategories of D001, D002, D003,
and D011-D043 wastes as well as for K044, K045, K047, K171, and K172
wastes is listed in Sec. 268.40 as ``Deactivation and meet UTS.'' EPA
has determined that many technologies, when used alone or in
combination, can achieve the deactivation portion of the treatment
standard. Characteristic wastes that also contain underlying hazardous
constituents (see Sec. 268.2) must be treated not only by a
``deactivating'' technology to remove the characteristic, but also to
achieve the universal treatment standards (UTS) for underlying
hazardous constituents. The following appendix presents a partial list
of technologies, utilizing the five letter technology codes established
in 40 CFR 268.42, Table 1, that may be useful in meeting the treatment
standard. Use of these specific technologies is not mandatory and does
not preclude direct reuse, recovery, and/or the use of other
pretreatment technologies, provided deactivation is achieved and, if
applicable, underlying hazardous constituents are treated to achieve
the UTS.
* * * * *
PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROGRAMS
13. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
[[Page 57799]]
Subpart A--Requirements for Final Authorization
14. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal
Register, and by adding the following entries to Table 2 in
chronological order by effective date in the Federal Register, to read
as follows:
Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
[Insert date of publication of final Listing Wastes from the [Insert Federal Register page numbers]. [Insert effective date of final rule]
rule in the Federal Register]. Petroleum Refining
Processes, Land Disposal
Restrictions for Newly
Identified Wastes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Table 2.--Self-Implementing Provisions of the Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
[Insert date 90 days from date of Prohibition on land disposal 3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004 (m)............ [Insert date of publication of final
publication of final rule]. of newly listed and rule].
identified wastes. [Insert FR page numbers].
[Insert date 2 years from date of Prohibition on land disposal 3004(m)................................ Do.
publication of final rule]. of radioactive waste mixed 3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004(m) Do.
with the newly listed or Do.
identified wastes, including
soil and debris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
17. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and
1361.
Option 1
Sec. 302.4 [Amended]
18. Table 302.4 in Sec. 302.4 is amended by adding the following
new entries to read as follows under option 1. The appropriate
footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished without change.
Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Final RQ
Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory synonyms ------------------------------------------------------------------------
RQ Code RCRA waste No. Category Pounds (Kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
K170.............................. ..................... .................... 1* 4 K170 X 1(0.454)
Clarified slurry oil tank
sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from
petroleum refining
operations.
K171.............................. ..................... .................... 1* 4 K171 X 1(0.454)
Spent hydrotreating catalyst
from petroleum refining
operations.
K172.............................. ..................... .................... 1* 4 K172 X 1(0.454)
Spent hydrorefining catalyst
from petroleum refining
operations.
[[Page 57800]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.
* * * * * * *
4--Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
1*--Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.
* * * * * * *
Option 2
19. Table 302.4 in Sec. 302.4 is amended by adding the following
new entries to read as follows under option 2. The appropriate
footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished without change.
Table 302.4.--List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Final RQ
Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory synonyms ------------------------------------------------------------------------
RQ Code RCRA waste No. Category Pounds (Kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
K170.............................. ..................... .................... 1* 4 K170 B 100 (45.4)
Clarified slurry oil tank
sediment and/or in-line
filter/separation solids from
petroleum refining
operations.
K171.............................. ..................... .................... 1* 4 K171 B 100 (45.4)
Spent hydrotreating catalyst
from petroleum refining
operations.
K172.............................. ..................... .................... 1* 4 K172 B B100 (45.4)
Spent hydrorefining catalyst
from petroleum refining
operations.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below.
* * * * * * *
4--indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
1*--indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.
* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-27693 Filed 11-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
