[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16747-16753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8816]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-5807-5]
RIN 2050-AD88
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Petroleum Refining Process Wastes; and Land Disposal
Restrictions for Newly Hazardous Wastes; Notice of Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available
for public comment data and information relating to its Notice
published in the Federal Register on November 20, 1995 (60 FR 57747).
That Notice proposed to amend EPA regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by designating as hazardous wastes
certain petroleum refining waste streams and proposed not to list other
petroleum waste streams. The Notice also proposed to broaden existing
RCRA exemptions for recycling of oil-bearing residuals and proposed to
apply universal treatment standards under the Land Disposal
Restrictions program to the wastes proposed for listing.
Comments submitted by interested members of the public on the
proposal have convinced EPA that the rulemaking record could be
considerably improved by adding data and subjecting analysis of that
data to public comments. Today's document, therefore, presents for
public comment modeling analyses using different assumptions than used
for the proposal, additional analyses of waste characteristics and
disposal practices, and other evaluations of the potential impact of
different modeling assumptions on the risk assessment results. This
document also corrects a number of technical errors that were contained
in the original proposal.
Pursuant to a consent decree in Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v.
Browner (Civ. No. 89-0598 D.D.C.), EPA has committed to issuing this
Notice of data availability before making the final regulatory
determination on whether the subject petroleum refining residuals
should be listed as hazardous wastes. The consent decree requires the
final rule to be issued by April 30, 1998. The Agency solicits comments
on all aspects of the new information sources described in this Notice.
All comments on the new information received by the close of the
comment period will be considered by the Agency when making a final
regulatory determination. Comments will be accepted and considered only
on the new data mentioned in today's Notice and specifically identified
under the docket number given in this document.
DATES: The Agency is reopening the comment period only for the limited
purpose of obtaining information and views on the new data and analyses
described in this Notice. Comments on the additional data will be
accepted through June 9, 1997. Due to the short deadline for the final
rule, EPA does not plan to grant any extensions of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their
comments referencing docket number F-97-PRA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the
Arlington, VA, address listed below. Comments may also be submitted
electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to:
rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments in electronic format should also
be identified by the docket number F-97-PRA-FFFFF. All electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. If comments are not submitted
electronically, EPA is asking prospective commenters to voluntarily
submit one additional copy of their comments on labeled personal
computer diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a word processing format
that can be converted to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to specify on
the disk label the word processing software and version/edition as well
as the commenter's name. This will allow EPA to convert the comments
into one of the word processing formats utilized by the Agency. Please
use mailing envelopes designed to physically protect the submitted
diskettes. EPA emphasizes that submission of comments on diskettes is
not mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to
any commenter.
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I,
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. For information on accessing paper
and/or electronic copies of the document, see the Supplementary
Information section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For information on specific aspects of the
report, contact Maximo Diaz, Jr. or Robert Kayser, Office of Solid
Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
[[Page 16748]]
[E-mail addresses and telephone numbers: Diaz.max@epamail.epa.gov,
(703) 308-0439; Kayser.robert@epamail.epa.gov, (703) 308-7304)].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents in the docket for this
Notice are also available in electronic format on the Internet. Follow
these instructions to access these documents.
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id
FTP: ftp.epa/gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/gopher/OSWRCRA.
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a
response to comments document placed in the official record for this
rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically
other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be
garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as
discussed above.
Background
RCRA section 3001(e), 42 U.S.C. 6921(e) requires EPA to make a
determination whether to list certain specified wastes under RCRA
section 3001(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6921(b)(1). These include petroleum
refining wastes. The effect of such a listing would be to subject the
wastes to regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Pursuant to a consent decree between EPA and the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF), EPA has agreed to a schedule for promulgating a listing
determination for fourteen petroleum residuals that the Agency had not
previously considered listing.
EPA issued its proposed determination regarding the petroleum
residuals on November 20, 1995 (60 FR 57747). EDF and EPA have
negotiated a modification to the Consent Decree, in which the Agency
has agreed to promulgate the final listing determination on or before
April 30, 1998. EPA also agreed to issue today's Notice of data
availability.
In the proposal, EPA considered whether the petroleum refining
residuals met the criteria for listing a waste as hazardous as set out
in 40 C.F.R. 261.11. EPA evaluated the potential toxicity of the
constituents present in the wastes, the fate and mobility of the
constituents, likely exposure routes, and the current waste management
practices. EPA conducted a quantitative risk assessment where such an
assessment was appropriate. The Agency proposed to list three of the
wastes based on a determination that the wastes may pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when
improperly managed. These wastes are: Clarified Slurry Oil Tank
Sediment and/or In-line Filter/Separation Solids, Spent Catalyst from
Hydrotreating, and Spent Catalyst from Hydrorefining. EPA proposed not
to list the remaining 11 wastes.
EPA received approximately 2000 pages of comments from 52 parties,
many raising a variety of complex technical issues. After reviewing the
comments, EPA decided it was appropriate to undertake a variety of
analyses not previously available to the public to assess the impact of
using alternative assumptions in the Agency's risk assessment. Although
these additional analyses are a logical outgrowth of the comments
received and additional Notice and public comment is, therefore, not
required, EPA has nevertheless decided that this Notice of data
availability is a useful exercise and will help to strengthen the
record for the Agency's decisions.
The remainder of this Notice is divided into two general parts. The
first deals with new data and analyses prompted by public comments
claiming EPA's analysis was either incorrect or incomplete; the second
deals with portions of the record that public comments indicated were
not clear and require better explanation.
Additional Information
As a result of reviewing the public comments, EPA reexamined the
modeling approaches used for both groundwater and nongroundwater
exposure risks in making the listing determinations in the November
1995 Notice, completed a variety of additional modeling analyses,
examined a number of alternative modeling assumptions, and gathered and
evaluated additional relevant data. EPA also obtained additional data
and performed additional analyses in response to comments for some of
the other decisions described in the November 1995 Notice. A complete
list of all new materials placed in the docket is available from the
RCRA Docket at the address and telephone number listed above. A summary
of the new data and analyses follows.
Supplemental Background Document; Groundwater Pathway
Risk Analysis; Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination--
EPA has prepared a new document, with this title, that presents
alternative approaches to the groundwater modeling used to evaluate
risks from landfills. The alternative approaches are: A revised ``high-
end'' analysis; a probabilistic Monte Carlo analysis; an analysis of
potential risks presented by codisposal of petroleum wastes in the same
landfill; an analysis of potential risks arising from a contingent
management listing; consideration of noningestion risks related to
groundwater use; and the potential for the RCRA Toxicity Characteristic
(TC), promulgated under 40 CFR 262.24, to reduce risks for some wastes.
Supplemental Background Document; Nongroundwater Pathway
Risk Assessment; Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing
Determination--EPA prepared a new document, with this title, that
presents modeling analyses for pathways other than groundwater for land
treatment disposal. These analyses incorporate several modifications to
the assumptions used for the proposal including: Limiting unit
characteristics of the onsite units used in risk modeling to units that
are not permitted hazardous waste units; removing from modeling
consideration the volumes of hazardous wastes that could not be sent to
a nonhazardous land treatment unit; changes to the models used to
estimate release and transport of contaminated soil to offsite
receptors; and incorporating the soil biodegradation of constituents
after they travel offsite. The document also presents results from an
analysis of potential risks due to codisposal of multiple petroleum
wastes in the same land treatment unit. In addition, this document
contains a detailed description of the model selected to estimate risks
from noningestion exposures (inhalation and dermal absorption) arising
from residential use of groundwater (see also the Background Document
for groundwater pathway risk analysis for results of this modeling).
Supplemental Background Document; Listing Support
Analyses; Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination--EPA
prepared a document, with this title, that presents a variety of
additional data and analyses in the following areas:
[[Page 16749]]
--Analyses Regarding Leaching of Oily Waste--Comments questioned
whether the method used by EPA (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure or TCLP) substantially underestimates the mobility of
constituents in oily wastes sent to landfills because of problems with
the method (e.g., filters clog), and because constituents may be
released in an oily phase, as well as dissolved in aqueous leachate.
EPA presents several analyses related to the potential for oil in the
petroleum residuals to affect chemical analysis and risk assessment.
The data presented consist of: compiled field and laboratory data on
the appearance and oily nature of the residuals; the oil and grease
content reported by petroleum refineries in wastes that were sent to
landfills for disposal; additional analysis of archived samples for
metal constituents using an alternative leaching method mentioned by a
commenter, the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP); and the
calculation of leaching efficiency for organic constituents in the
wastes EPA sampled.
--Potential for Additive Risks From Multiple Sources--Comments
suggested that the groundwater and nongroundwater risks should be added
together to reflect the total potential risks for the wastes evaluated.
In this notice, EPA is summarizing data in the record to assess the
proximity of onsite nonhazardous landfills and land treatment units at
each facility surveyed to examine the potential for combined exposures
to releases from both types of units.
--The Potential Impact of Oil-Bearing Residuals Exclusion on Coke
Product--EPA proposed to exclude from the definition of solid waste
oil-bearing residuals from certain petroleum industry sources that are
inserted back into the refining process (including the petroleum coker
unit), provided certain conditions are met. EPA cited industry data
showing that such oil-bearing residuals (e.g., listed sludges) are
similar to normal feedstock material. Some public comments disagreed
with excluding these residuals from the definition of solid waste and
argued that this action would allow the unregulated disposal of
``toxics along for the ride'' due to the transfer of constituents in
the wastes to products, such as coke. In evaluating comments on the
proposed rule, EPA realized it had omitted from the original docket an
analysis concerning the potential impacts that recycling petroleum
wastewater treatment sludge into coke production might have on metals
loading in the coke product. The purpose of this document is to provide
the analysis conducted in support of the proposed rule, revised to
reflect more current data.
--Comparison of Product Coke to Off-Spec Product and Fines From Thermal
Processes--Comments questioned why EPA did not assess risks from coke
fines placed on piles of coke product, arguing that the waste does not
become a product simply because it is placed on the pile and combined
with another material. In this Notice, EPA has clarified the existing
record, as noted below, but has also added additional information
comparing the characteristics of coke fines and coke product.
--Active Lives of Landfills Used for Disposal of Petroleum Refining
Wastes--Comments suggested that the active life for a landfill used by
EPA in its modeling (20 years) was too short. In this Notice, EPA
presents relevant data compiled from the industry survey, and
calculations for the active lives of onsite landfills.
--Characterization of On-site Land Treatment Units--Some comments
claimed that EPA had modeled land treatment units that were already
regulated as hazardous waste units under RCRA, and as such, the release
scenarios modeled were unlikely. In this Notice, EPA examines the
regulatory status of on-site land treatment units and has compiled
statistics on unit areas for nonhazardous units that managed the
petroleum wastes under evaluation. These statistics are used in the
revised nongroundwater analysis (see Supplemental Background Document;
Nongroundwater Pathway Risk Assessment).
--Potential Impact of the Headworks Exemption--EPA proposed to modify
the definition of hazardous waste to exempt wastewaters containing one
of the wastes proposed for listing (clarified slurry oil storage tank
sediment and/or in-line filter/separation solids), if the discharge of
the wastewaters are regulated under the Clean Water Act. This is the
so-called ``headworks exemption''. EPA took this action because some
refineries manage residuals derived from this waste in their wastewater
treatment facility during process vessel cleaning or tank washing. If
this waste is listed as hazardous waste, this would cause all
downstream wastewaters and treatment sludges to be derived from this
waste and thus, carry the same waste code as the original waste (see
261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Little to no risk reduction benefit would be achieved
from regulating this material as a hazardous waste.
Comments on this headworks exemption for CSO Sediment noted that it
should also include wastewater from the other two wastes EPA proposed
for listing (Spent Catalyst from Hydrotreating and Spent Catalyst from
Hydrorefining). The comments pointed out that some petroleum refineries
use water to cool and wash out the spent catalyst when the materials
are removed from the catalytic units. Highly pressurized water is
sometimes used to drill out catalyst that cannot be easily removed. EPA
did not consider this practice when proposing the headworks exemption
for the CSO sediment, and believes that the same rationale for
proposing the exemption for wastewaters containing CSO sediment applies
to wastewater containing the two spent catalyst wastes.
If the listing of the spent catalyst wastes are made final, these
drill and drainage waters would be derived-from hazardous wastes. Thus,
facilities that engage in this practice would risk having all down
stream wastewater treatment solids considered derived from hazardous
wastes, if these wastewaters are discharged to the treatment system.
This was not EPA's intent. Therefore, EPA is clarifying that the
exemption proposed for 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C) will also include wastewater
containing the two spent catalyst wastes (K171 and K172), as well as
the CSO sediment (K170). The Agency evaluated the potential impact of
including wastewater from these two wastes in the headworks exemption,
and believes that including them would not result in any significant
risks in the downstream wastes. In the docket to this Notice, EPA
presents additional analysis to evaluate the impact of such an
exemption for wastewaters containing the three wastes proposed for
listing.
Comments also claimed that, as written, the headworks exemption for
CSO Sediment (K170) would allow the discharge of more than merely
wastewaters, and that refineries could also manage their original tank
sludges in wastewater treatment systems. It was not EPA's intent to
foster the discharge of all CSO sediments to wastewater treatment
systems. The Agency envisions that after the tanks had been cleaned,
facilities would wash the tanks out to remove the last residues and
make the tanks suitable for inspection. Therefore, EPA is soliciting
comments on clarifying the headworks exemption
[[Page 16750]]
for wastewaters containing the three petroleum wastes proposed for
listing (K170, K171, and K172) so as to limit the exemption to dilute
wastewaters. EPA is considering adding language to the proposed
exemption clarifying that the exemption applies to wash waters from the
clean out of units that contained CSO sediments (K170), Spent
Hydrotreating Catalyst (K171), or Spent Hydrorefining Catalyst (K172).
Data Impacting Proposed Universal Treatment Standards--EPA
is including additional waste stabilization data in the docket to this
Notice submitted to EPA for the calculation of treatment standards for
antimony, nickel and vanadium as applied to two petroleum refining
wastes that were proposed for listing (K171--Spent Catalysts from
Hydrotreating, and K172--Spent Catalysts from Hydrorefining). See two
documents in the docket entitled: Final Revised Calculation of
Treatment Standards for Stabilization Using Data Obtained from Rollins
Environmental's Highway 36 Commercial Waste Treatment Facility and
GNB's Frisco, Texas Waste Treatment Facility; Memorandum from Howard
Finkel, ICF Inc., to Anita Cummings, USEPA, March 1997; and High
Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) Treatment Standards for Metals in
Nonwastewater.
Clarifications and Corrections
The Agency is also taking this opportunity to clarify several
points in the proposed rule.
Headworks Exemption
Comments on the headworks exemption stated that the proposal did
not adequately justify this action. In this Notice, EPA shows that the
proposed rule does, in fact, provide justification for this exemption
in the Risk Assessment section III.F.2.(c). Specifically, in section
III.F.2.(c)(2) entitled ``Disposal in Wastewater Treatment Plants,''
EPA discusses reasons why such disposal was not considered to warrant
risk modeling, primarily due to existing regulatory coverage and the
treatment and dilution that occurs in wastewater treatment plants (see
60 FR 57759). Furthermore, the Agency is including in this Notice
additional analysis it has undertaken to further describe the dilution
and treatment that is expected to occur for this practice. This
analysis is presented in the docket for this Notice (see Potential
Impact of the Headworks Exemption, in the Supplemental Background
Document; Listing Support Analyses; Petroleum Refining Process Listing
Determination).
Jurisdictional Explanation of Off-Specification Product and Fines From
Thermal Processes Used as Product
EPA proposed not to list as hazardous Off-Specification Product and
Fines from Thermal Processes. EPA's rationale for this is that the
majority of off-specification product and fines are managed as coke
product and thus are either not within the jurisdiction of RCRA or are
exempt from RCRA regulation. Comments on this action stated that the
proposal did not adequately explain the statutory or regulatory basis
for the purported lack of jurisdiction over coke fines managed on a
pile. EPA notes that the proposed rule does provide justification.
However, further clarification is provided below.
In responding to the commenter, the Agency must first clarify that
only particle size distinguishes coke fines from other coke product.
The majority of coke is removed from the coker by hydraulic drilling.
Coke fines are the smaller pieces of coke generated during this
process.
Second, a jurisdictional distinction exists between coke fines that
are produced from non-hazardous materials and coke fines produced from
hazardous wastes (waste-derived fines). Fines generated from non-
hazardous materials are simply coke product, as would be expected since
they are produced from the same coking drum. These fines are combined
with other coke in a product pile where the material is stored prior to
sales. Thus, EPA's belief that coke fines not derived from hazardous
waste are beyond RCRA jurisdiction is based on the coke fines being
coke product.
In the case of waste-derived fines, so long as the fines are
legitimate coke product, they are exempt from RCRA regulation unless
the material exhibits a characteristic, 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(v). (See
also RCRA section 3004(q)(2)(A)). EPA does not believe coke fails any
hazardous waste characteristic, but invites comment if anyone has data
to the contrary. Since the fines used as product are exempt, this
material is outside the jurisdiction of the RCRA regulations.
Therefore, EPA did not evaluate risks posed by such product uses of
coke fines. In any event, EPA has data which indicate that the use of
hazardous waste as feed material to the coker would result in little,
if any, change to the qualities and the properties of the coke and
fines produced. These coke fines would have essentially the same
composition as fines generated from non-hazardous feed materials. The
waste-derived fines are combined with other coke in a product pile for
storage prior to sales and are coke product.
As noted in the Additional Information section of this Notice, the
docket contains additional analyses related to the similarity of coke
fines to existing coke product, and the potential impact of recycling
hazardous waste to the coker. EPA invites comments on these analyses.
Corrections to Proposal
EPA inadvertently inserted some risk estimates in the preamble to
the proposed rule that did not accurately reflect the risk calculations
given in the background documents to the rule. To correct the record,
EPA is including in today's Notice a comparison of the groundwater
risks from landfill disposal that were published in the preamble to the
proposed rule (see 60 FR 57747; November 20, 1995) with the correct (at
that time) risk estimates given in the docket (``Background Document
for Groundwater Pathway Analysis'', August 1995); this comparison is
given in Table I. EPA also omitted from the preamble a risk estimate
for one waste (Off-Specifications Product and Fines from Thermal
Processes) that exceeded the 10-6 level. Table I also includes the
risk estimates for this waste that were given in the background
document to the proposal (See Appendix C in ``Background Document for
Groundwater Pathway Analysis'').
Revised Risk Estimates
Table II summarizes the revised risk estimates for the groundwater
pathway for onsite and offsite landfill disposal, and contains the
results for the revised high-end analyses, the Monte Carlo analyses,
and the risks that would occur if constituents (benzene and arsenic) in
the wastes were capped at the level specified in the TC. Note that all
revised analyses for benzene represent the combined groundwater risk
from ingestion and noningestion pathways (i.e., showering).
Revised risk estimates for nongroundwater pathways for onsite and
offsite land treatment are given in Table III, and reflect the
modifications noted earlier in this Notice and described in detail in
the docket (``Supplemental Background Document; Nongroundwater Pathway
Risk Assessment''). The total carcinogenic risks are shown for various
exposed populations and the methodologies used are fully explained in
the supplemental background document.
The revised risk analyses for the groundwater and nongroundwater
pathways complement and confirm the
[[Page 16751]]
original analyses given in the proposed rule. EPA believes that the
additional analyses completed for these wastes support the listing
determinations contained in the proposed rule, and is not proposing any
new listing decisions based on the new analyses.
Off-Specification Product and Fines From Thermal Processes
While the preamble to the proposed rule did not contain a risk
level for Off-Specification Product and Fines, the background document
showed the risk results relied on by the Agency in the proposal as 1
x 10-5. As shown in Table II, the revised high-end analysis for
this waste yields risks that vary from 5 x 10-6 to 2 x
10-5, depending on the approach used. The varying approaches used
by EPA to calculate the risks in Table II are described in more detail
in the docket (``Supplemental Groundwater Pathway Analyses''). The
high-end risks for this waste are within the Agency's initial risk
level of concern (see the proposed rule and the listing policy
described in an earlier rulemaking for the Dyes and Pigments industry,
66 FR 66072, December 22, 1994, and the proposed rule for petroleum, 60
FR 57747).
However, the estimated groundwater risk for this waste was based on
entirely one chemical (benz(a)anthracene) that was detected in only one
out of six aqueous leachate (TCLP) samples at a level 8-fold below the
quantitation limit. (The quantitation limit is the lowest concentration
that can be reliably achieved for specific samples within acceptable
limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operations.)
The higher risk (2 x 10-5) arises when the value below the
quantitation limit is used along with two other high-end parameters.
The lower risk estimate (5 x 10-6) results if the one measured
TCLP concentration is assumed to be one of the two high-end parameters.
The highest risk from the Monte Carlo analysis is 5 x 10-6 at
the 95th percentile. This means that in the numerous simulation runs
(10,000), the risks were found to be below this level 95% of the time.
After evaluating the additional analyses for Off-Specification
Product and Fines, EPA does not consider the risk significant for a
number of reasons. EPA believes that the higher risk is an overestimate
because it is based on the detection in one out of six samples well
below the quantitation limit. Thus, EPA has low confidence in this TCLP
value and the subsequent modeling based on this number. Further
analysis using the detected concentration as one of the two high-end
parameters shows that the risk level drops to 5 x 10-6. The water
solubility of this chemical is also very low, indicating that its
aqueous concentration is likely to be very low. In addition, this
chemical is tightly adsorbed to organic material in soils and sediment,
indicating that the constituent is relatively immobile in groundwater.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this waste would present a
significant risk in a groundwater scenario. For all of these reasons,
EPA continues to believe that this waste should not be listed.
Land Disposal Restrictions--Revised Treatment Standards for Spent
Catalysts From Hydrotreating (K171) and Hydrorefining (K171)
In the November 20, 1995 proposed rule, EPA proposed to apply the
universal treatment standards (UTS) to the Petroleum Refining wastes
proposed for listing (60 FR 57783). Commenters to that proposal have
stated their inability to stabilize K171 and K171 nonwastewaters to the
proposed 0.23 mg/L TCLP standard for vanadium. However, the commenters
failed to provide data adequate for the calculation of an alternative
treatment standard. Rather, the commenters provided data for the
attempted stabilization of a catalyst that had not undergone extraction
consistent with normal vanadium recovery. Data on stabilization alone
does not reflect proper treatment for this waste; therefore, EPA does
not consider these data adequate to modify the treatment standards.
Subsequently, the Agency has obtained additional data suitable for the
calculation of treatment standards. The Agency has used this new
stabilization data, as well as data from high temperature metal
recovery (HTMR), to recalculate treatment standards for these wastes.
(See the docket for the two documents identified in the Additional
Information section earlier in this Notice.) Based on these
calculations, the proposed UTS standards as applied to K171 and K172
for antimony, nickel, and vanadium would be revised to reflect the
higher of the standards calculated for stabilized wastes and HTMR
residues. The antimony standard would be decreased from 2.1 mg/L TCLP
to 0.07 mg/L TCLP, the nickel standard would be increased from 5.0 mg/L
TCLP to 13.6 mg/L TCLP, and the vanadium standard would be increased
from 0.23 mg/L TCLP to 1.6 mg/L TCLP. The Agency is today noticing the
data used to calculate these proposed revisions to the UTS standards as
applied to the petroleum refinery wastes. The Agency requests any
additional treatment data to re-evaluate or re-calculate the treatment
standards based on EPA's BDAT Protocol (see USEPA, ``Final Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures and Methodology'', Office
of Solid Waste, October 23, 1991). In the upcoming Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase IV rulemaking, the Agency will discuss in detail the
proposed use of the available data for developing Universal Treatment
Standards on a national basis.
Dated: March 28, 1997.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
Table I.--Comparison of Original Federal Register Groundwater Risk Assessment Values With Background Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register \1\ Background document \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent Off-site
On-site landfill Off-site landfill On-site landfill landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spent Catalyst From Hydrotreating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.......................... 9E-06 1E-05 3E-05 4E-05
Arsenic.......................... 8E-06 1E-05 2E-05 3E-05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spent Catalyst From Hydrorefining
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.......................... 1E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3E-05
[[Page 16752]]
Arsenic.......................... 4E-05 6E-05 7E-05 1E-04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.......................... NA \3\ 3E-05 NA 5E-07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unleaded Gasoline Storage Tank Sediment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.......................... <1 e-06="" 2e-06="" 6e-7="" 4e-06="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" hf="" alkylation="" sludge="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene..........................="" 6e-07="" 3e-06="" 8e-07="" 3e-06="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" off-specification="" product="" and="" fines="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzo(a)anthracene...............="" nr="" \4\="" nr="" 3e-07="" 1e-05="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" see="" 60="" fr="" 57747,="" november="" 20,="" 1995.="" \2\="" 2see="" ``petroleum="" refining="" waste="" listing="" determination,="" background="" document="" for="" groundwater="" pathway="" analysis,''="" docket="" document="" identification="" no.="" f-95-prlp-s0007.="" \3\="" not="" applicable.="" \4\="" none="" reported="" in="" federal="" register.="" table="" ii.--comparison="" of="" groundwater="" risks="" for="" petroleum="" residuals="" in="" landfills="" \1\="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" revised="" risks="" \2\="" tc-capped="" risks="" \3\="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" constituent="" high-end="" risk="" \4\="" monte="" carlo="" risk="" \5\="" (95th%)="" high-end="" risk="" monte="" carlo="" risk="" (95th%)="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" off-site="" on-site="" off-site="" on-site="" off-site="" on-site="" off-site="" on-site="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" clarified="" slurry="" oil="" tank="" sediment="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene......................="" 3e-06="" 3e-06="" 1e-06="" 3e-07="" na="" na="" na="" na="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" hydrotreating="" catalyst="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene......................="" 5e-05="" 8e-05="" 1e-05="" 8e-06="" 1e-05="" 2e-05="" 4e-06="" 4e-06="" arsenic......................="" 7e-05="" 6e-05="" 1e-05="" 7e-06="" na="" na="" na="" na="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" hydrorefining="" catalyst="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene......................="" 4e-05="" 4e-05="" 8e-06="" 8e-06="" 2e-05="" 2e-05="" 6e-06="" 6e-06="" arsenic......................="" 7e-04="" 4e-04="" 1e-04="" 1e-04="" 4e-04="" 4e-04="" 1e-04="" 1e-04="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" crude="" oil="" storage="" tank="" sediment="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene......................="" 3e-05="" na="" 5e-06="" na="" 2e-05="" na="" 3e-06="" na="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" unleaded="" gasoline="" storage="" tank="" sediment="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene......................="" 5e-06="" 2e-06="" 2e-06="" 6e-07="" 3e-06="" 1e-06="" 1e-06="" 6e-07="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" hf="" alkylation="" sludge="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene......................="" 6e-06="" 6e-06="" 2e-06="" 2e-07="" na="" na="" 2e-06="" 2e-07="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" off-specification="" product="" and="" fines="" from="" thermal="" processes="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzo(a)-anthracene..........="" 5e-06="" \6\="" 3e-06="" \6\="" 4e-06="" \7\="" 1e-07="" na="" na="" na="" na="" 2e-05="" 2e-05="" 5e-06="" .............="" .............="" .............="" .............="" .............="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" risk="" presented="" as="" carcinogenic="" risk.="" \2\="" the="" revised="" risk="" includes="" an="" indirect="" risk="" from="" showering="" (6.05="" x="">-5 risk per 1 mg/L benzene).
\3\ Input leaching rates were capped at TC regulatory levels for maximum allowable TCLP values for disposal in Subtitle D landfills (0.5 mg/L for
benzene and 5.0 mg/L for arsenic). ``NA'' means either the TC level was not exceeded, or no TC level exists for a chemical.
\4\ Risks were estimated using high-end values for two most sensitive parameters, while the remaining parameters are kept at median values.
[[Page 16753]]
\5\ Risks were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation runs; at the 95th percentile level, calculated risks were found to be below this level 95% of the
time.
\6\ The lower risk was obtained by using the one detected value (a ``J-value'' below the quantitation limit) as one of the two high-end parameters.
\7\ The lower risk was obtained by using only the J-value in the Monte Carlo simulation runs.
Table III.--Non-Groundwater Risks for Petroleum Residuals in Land Treatment Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site land treatment unit high-end total carcinogen risk Off-site land treatment unit high-end total carcinogen
--------------------------------------------------------------- risk
Individual waste streams -----------------------------------------------------------
Home gardener Adult Subsistence Subsistence Home Adult Subsistence Subsistence
resident farmer fisher gardener resident farmer fisher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified Slurry Oil Tank 1E-04 2E-05 2E-04 4E-05 3E-05 1E-05 2E-05 3E-05
Sediment.
Crude Oil Tank Sediment...... 3E-07 1E-07 4E-07 2E-07 2E-07 8E-08 2E-07 1E-07
Unleaded Gasoline Tank 4E-07 9E-08 2E-07 1E-07 3E-07 9E-08 4E-07 1E-07
Sediment.
Sulfur Complex Sludge........ 1E-07 3E-08 6E-08 3E-08 5E-08 1E-08 4E-08 1E-08
HF Alkylation Sludge......... 3E-08 7E-09 1E-08 8E-09 3E-08 7E-09 4E-08 9E-09
Sulfuric Acid Alkylation 2E-09 1E-09 3E-10 2E-09 5E-10 3E-10 3E-10 7E-10
Sludge.
Off-Spec Product & Fines..... 6E-08 3E-08 7E-08 4E-08 6E-08 2E-08 9E-08 4E-08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-8816 Filed 4-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
