530 Z 95*
11-20-95
Vol. 60 No. 223
Monday
November 20, 1995
-------
-------
Proposed Rules
57747
Federal Register
Vol. 60, No. 223
Monday, November 20, 1995
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,266, 268,271, and
302
[SWH-FRL-6327-2]
RIN2050-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 rep'ortable 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
-------
57748 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2. Summary of Definition of Solid Waste
and Othor 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§ 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 § 266.lOO(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 BOAT
Treatment Standards
B. Treatment Standards for the Newly
Proposed Listed Petroleum Refining
Wastes
1. Identification pf Wastes
2. Proposed Treatment Standards
3. Determination of BOAT
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 j
B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities
Vni. 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 i
4. Cost Effectiveness of Population Risk
Reduction i •
5. Other Benefits Considered
XL Paperwork Redaction Act
I. Legal Authority
Today's regulations are being
proposed under the authority of sections
2002(a) and 300;i(b)(l) and (e)(2) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), and 6921(b) and
(e)(l), (commonly referred to as RCRA),
and section 102(a) of the
Comprehensive jEnvironmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
9602(a).
n. Background
A. Schedule Suit
In 1989, the Environmental Defense
Fund (EOF) suecl the Agency, in part, for
failing to meet the statutory deadlines of
section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA (EOF v.
Browner; Civ. No. 89-0598 D.D.C.). To
resolve most of the issues in the case,
EOF 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 l.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' from
catalytic cracking, crude storage tank
sludge, catalyst from catalytic
hydrotreating, process sludge from
sulfur complex and HkS 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 HaS 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.
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-l.
' WhHo tfao consent docroo USDS the term "sludge"
to refer to any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residual,
tho torm is defined more narrowly for RCRA
Subtitle C (§2G0.10). Throughout today's proposal
the Agency has used the term "sediment" to denote
solid, semi-solid, or Jiquid residuals deposited from
industrial process liquids.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57749
TABLE 11-1 .—LIST OF CURRENTLY REGULATED RCRA WASTES AND CERCLA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Hazardous substance
K048 — Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum refining industry
K049 Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining industry
K050 — Heat exchange bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry
F037 — Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/solids sludge
F038 — Petroleum refinery secondary (emulsified) oil/water/solids separation sludge
Statutory
RQ pounds
(kg)
1(.454)
1(.454)
1(.454)
1 (.454)
1(.454)
1 (.454)
Final RQ
pounds (kg)
10(4.54)
10(4.54)
10(4.54)
10(4.54)
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 scjlid
waste and therefore from regulatiqn
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
-------
57750 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
wasto regulations. Also, 40 CFR
2B1.3(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)(l)(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 HjSC^ alkylation.
• Sludge from EfcSCu alkylation.
* HF alkylation sludge.
• Spent caustic from liquid treating.
* Catalyst and fines from catalytic
cracking.
• Catalyst from sulfur complex and
HzS removal facilities.
• Sludge from sulfur complex and
HzS 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 xvith respect to the hazards
posed by the 14 residuals identified in
the consent decree, the Agency also
conducted a parallel effort to analyze
die 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)ifor 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 IHE.
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 standard^ 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 no'nprecious 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.l 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.
/. 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
waste water 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 HP 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. RGRA 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
-------
57752 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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: Glaus
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-l identifies the residuals'in
the consent decree, describes their
coverage in the listing determinations
proposed in today's rulemaking, and the
action proposed.
TABLE 111-1 .—CONSENT DEGREE RESIDUALS
Residuals Identified in the consent decree
Coverage in today's rulemaking
Crude oil storage tank sludge
Unleaded storage tank sludge
Clarified slurry oil sludge from catalytic cracking
Catalyst from catalytic hydrotreating
Catalyst and fines from catalytic cracking
Catalyst from catalytic hydrorefining
Catalyst from catalytic reforming .....
Catalyst from HZSO4 alkylation
Sludge from HzSC-4 alkylation
Sludge from HF alkylation
Off-spec product arid fines from thermal processes
Spent caustic from liquid treating
Process sludge from sulfur complex and H2S removal facilities
Catalyst from sulfur complex and l-kS removal facilities
Crude oil storage tank sediment.
Unleaded gasoline storage tank sediment.
Clarified slurry oil (CSO) storage tank sediment and/or in-line filter/sep-
aration solids.
Non-precious metal hydrotreating catalysts.
Equilibrium catalysts and catalyst fines were evaluated as individual
subcategories based on differences in particle sizes and manage-
ment practices.
Non-precious metal hydrorefining catalysts.
Includes spent catalysts and fines.
Spent sulfuric acid.
Same.
Neutralization sludges.
Same.
Same.
Sludges from amine-based sulfur removal systems, including turn-
around sludges and filter cartridges.
Glaus 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. 2dll77
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (AMCI), the B.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 ioperations. 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-sitei and reinserted on-site
into the petroleum refining process
(including the coker), provided that the
residues were noi: speculatively
accumulated or stored in a manner
involving land placement.
Subsequent decisions have
established that the decision in AMCI
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) (AMCII). 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 (llth Cir. (1993); Owen
Electric Steel v. Browner, 37 F. 3d 146
(4th Cir. 1994)). So can secondary
materials generated on-site, stored hi
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, posi-AMC I
decisions make clear that the statute
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57753
affords EPA great latitude to set the
jurisdictional parameters of RCRAi 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 denning 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.
(§261.4(a)(12)).
(1) Definition of Recovered Oil.
Recovered oil, as defined in
§ 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, § 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 § 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.
-------
57754 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20,: 1995 / Proposed Rules
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-
Boaring 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-
B earing 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 cokor 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 bpcause 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 to1 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
2 See October 8,1993 and October 13,1993 letters
from Mark A. Smith (Unocal) to James R. Berlow.
characteristics of a hazardous waste.
This is consistent with .the thrust of
RCRA,§ 3004(q)(2)(A) which subjects
certain petroleum refinery wastes .
converted into petroleum coke to
regulation if the resulting coke exhibits
a characteristic.
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-beaxing 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 taiik 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 /Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
5775 S
prodiiced strictly from crude oil
residuum.3
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 § 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 AMCII, 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.
AMCII, 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
§ 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
§ 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
3 See February 2,1993 data submission from
Mobil Oil Corporation.
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
(§ 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 § 3004(q)(2)(A). EPA
requests comment on the adequacy of
the TCLP for this purpose.
Materials That Are Deemed To Be
Inherently Waste-Lake. 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
§ 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 § 261.12(a)(13) for
recovered oil that is generated by certain
-------
57756 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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 spcculatively
before being recycled and that (if
insertion is into the coker) coke product
does not exceed characteristically
hazardous levels).
Tho 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 snared petrochemical/petroleum
refining wastewater treatment systems.4
Tho 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
premiss that the oil-rich materials in
question contain the same constituents
as normal refining process streams).
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.
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 exclusipn 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 olen'n
content and potential fouling due to
polymerization) and specific gravity.
Second, the Agencyhasreceived
sampling and analytical data that
supports industry's premise that
recovered oil from petrochemical and
petroleum refining operations is similar
••May 3,1095 letter from Michael Shapiro (EPA)
to Ralph ). Colloll, Jr. (API).
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). |
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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 fflg/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
-------
57758
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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
tho 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
tho risk borne by the population or
population segment being studied.
Those 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,
tho 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 hi 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 ishow 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 ofV^aste 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 choic;e 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 othet 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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, andKOSl. 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, hi
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 tike 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
-------
57760 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
particular, a very high percentage (more
than 80 percent of the total volume) of
thoso wastostreams either were reused,
reclaimed, or recycled or were disposed
of using landfilling or land treatment
(moro man 50 percent of the remaining
volume), suggesting that there are
financial and practical incentives to
handle wastes using the methods
reported. Those 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
wasto as this can penalize
unnecessarily, without a concomitant
benefit in actual risk reduction, the vast
majority of generators who dispose of
tho bulk of the wastes generated in less
risky ways. For example, if one plant
reported one metric ton of a
wastostream as used as dust
suppressant, but thousands of tons of
that wastestream were reported as
land filled 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
oro some reported management
practices that were not formally
evaluated using predictive risk
assessment models after EPA judged
thorn 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
those 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. i
iii. Management hosts. 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 jthat 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 thefee 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 industijy 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 caiistic), 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
HI.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 KQW 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 Wafer 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
-------
57762 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
"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
Ono 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 sexvage 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,
carbamale pesticides, dyes and
pigments) but has not based any final
fisting 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 lp-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 usedjto 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 lll-2.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES—CRUDE OIL STORAGE TANK SEDIMENT
Constituents of concern
On-site land treat-
ment*
Central
tendency
High end
Off-site land treat-
ment*
Central
tendency
s High end
Waste characterization
Avg. cone.
High cone.
Low cone.
# of pts.
Notes
Home Gardener
Benzo (a) pyrene
Dibenz (a,h), anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Indeno (1, 2, 3-cd) pyrene
Benzo (b) flooranlhene
Total Carcinogen Risk*"
2E-9
9E-10
AC •<(-»
2E-10
3E-10
4E-9
9E-7
3E-7
7F—R
7E-8
1E-7
1C— O
2E-9
7E-10
3E— 10
1E-10
3E-10
1E-7
3E-8
9E-9
8E-9
1E-8
op 7
12.3
2.1
11.5
15.0
11.4
26.0
O.(
31.0
15.0
29.0
6.6
3.0
5.9
3 Of 6
1 nf fi
1 Of 6
2 Of 6
2 of 6
J(2), 1
jm i
1
j(D
J(1), 1,2
Adult Resident
Benzo (a) pyrene
Dibenz (a, h) anthracene
Total Carcinogen Risk'"
4E-9
2E-9
8E-9
7E-7
5E-7
1E-6
3E-9
2E-9
6E-9
9E-8
6E-8
2E-7
12.3
2.1
26.0
O./
6.6
3 of 6
1 r\t ft
J(2), 1
JM\ i
limits,"«" indicates number of samples that are "J" values.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
"^ includes risks from other PAHs not tabulated- The risks for the PAHs not presented in this table are lower than those
All concentrations are in mg/kg.
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES, CRUDE OIL STORAGE TANK SEDIMENT
Constituents of
concern
On-site land treat-
ment
Central
tend-
ency
High
end
Off-site land treat-
ment
Central
tend-
ency
High
end
Off-site landfill
Central
tend-
ency
High end
Waste characterization
Avg. cone.
High cone.
Low
cone.
# of pts
Notes
Groundwater
Benzene
<1E-6
<1E— 6
<1E-6
<"IF— R
AF 7
.bo
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 § 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 10~5)
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
6 See "Communications with State Authorities on
Requirements for Land Treatment Units," U.S. EPA
1995.
the high-end risk from land treatment to
below the 10 ~6 level.
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
H.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
§ 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
-------
57764 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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
§ 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 m.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 cpncern.
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.iSee 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 aiid were considered ,
which suggest the factual 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 o^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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TABLE ,,,-3,-WASTE CHARACTERS AND R,SK EST,MATES:
SLURRY OIL TANK SEDIMENT AND/OR IN-LINE FILTER/SEPARATION
[Assumes no run-off controls]
Constituents of concern
On-site land treatment*
Central
tendency
Benzo(a) pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
3-Methylcholanthrene ...
Benzo(a)anthracene
7, 12-Dimethylbenz
(a)anthracene.
Benzo(b)f!uoranthene
/Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(total).
Total Carcinogen Risk***
1E-7
8E-8
2E-7
3E-8
3E-7
1E-8
7E-7
High end
1E-5
6E-6
1E-5
2E-6
3E-5
1E-6
6E-5
Off-site land treatment"
Central
tendency
HOM
5E-7
3E-7
7E-7
Ih— /
1E-6
5E-8
3E-6
High end
Wast
Avg. cone.
High cone.
e characterization
1 T '
Low cone. it of pts.
= GARDENER
7E-6
3E-6
6E-6
1E-6
4E-5
5E-7
5E-5
132.0
37.0
23.8
203.0
331.0
76.8
230.0
49.0
27.0
390.0
1,200.0
110.0
52.0
360.0
27.0
J
4 of 4 .
1 of 4 .
1 Of 4 .
2 of 4 .
1 of 4 .
4 of 4
I
Notes
J(1).
J(1), 1.
J(3),2.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene .
3-Methylcholanthrene .
7, 12-Dimethylbenz
(a)anthracene.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Total Carcinogen Risk*** ...
2E 7
2E-7
3E-7
7E-7
2E-8
2E-6
1F R
1F ^
1F c;
5E-5
1F—R
9E-5
ADULT RESIDENT
Notes:
2.
9E-7
7E-7
1E-5
3E-6
6E-8
6E-6
6E-6
5E-6
6E-6
6E-5
4E-7
8E-5
132.0
37.0
23.8
331.0
76.8
230.0
49.0
27.0
1,200.0
110.0
52.0
27.0
—
4 of 4
1 of 4
1 of 4
1 of 4
4 of 4
concentration ;
from the average
,..STe,nano: h.'9h-end factors of distance to receptor duration
*" •*• PAHS -
oosure
J(3)2.
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 § 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 \ 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
-------
57766
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposecniules_
attempt to model wastes discharged to
the wastowator treatment system,
disposed of in Subtitle C units, or
recovered for use on-site, because
wastowater 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
aro 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
those non-refinery sludges and is not, at
this time, making a determination
i
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
§ 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 ni.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.
VABLE HW.-WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK EST.MATES-KI 71 -SPENT CATALYST FROM HYDROTREAT.NG
Waste characterization
GROUNDWATER
Benzene
9E-7
8E-7
9E-6
8E-6
2E-7 ;| 1E-5
2E-7 1E-5
I.
7.9
1.1
39.0
4.9
0.05
1.5
6 of 6
2 Of 6.
J(D-
J(gJefarnoles were estimated concentrations below quantitation limits, "#"
All concentrations are TCLP leachate values in mg/L.
indicates number of samples that are "J" values.
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 othejr 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
'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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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, DOOl-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
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°C (392°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 § 3007
questionnaire, about 40 percent of this
wastestream is characteristically
hazardous, and a significant portion is
classified as ignitable under RCRA.
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 IE—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 tunes
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). hi 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.
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.
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.
8 Ibid.
9 See May 19,1995 letter from John N. Glover
(CRI-MET) to William F. Brandes (EPA).
10 See "Survey of Spent Petroleum Catalyst
Regenerators and Reclaimers," U.S. EPA 1995.
-------
57768 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 111-5.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES—K172—SPENT CATALYST FROM HYDROREFINING
Constituents of concern
On-site landfill
Central
tendency
High end
Off-site landfill
Central
tendency
High end
Waste characterization
Avg. cone.
High cone.
Low cone.
No. of pts
Notes
GROUNDWATER
Arsenic
1E-6
4E-6
1E-5
4E-5
2E-7
8E-7
2E-5
6E-5
1.5
13.7
4.2
34.0
0.1
0.2
3 Of 3.
3 of 3.
AM 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
usod 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.
Tho 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 § 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, DOOl-ignitable, or D004-
arsonic. 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 m.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 hydrorennin'g 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
of8E-7.
The Agency beliteves 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. foria 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. Discussio'h. 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)(7j) 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 (§ 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
waste waters.
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.
-------
57770 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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
bo 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
uso 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
spont 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
aro 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
roportable spills or releases associated
with the handling and receipt of
caustics used in this manner over the
past ten years. Base'd on the manner in
which these materials are routinely
handled and processed, this recycling
practice more closejy 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 " less than one for the
toxicants detected,in this residual.
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 o|f 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
producl (e.g., non-salable products
genera during process upsets, start
ups, s7 ' downs, turnarounds, or other
condit.oiis); 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 lines. 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
1' The hazard quotient is a ratio of exposure to
the RFC or RfD, and is used as a measure of
noncancer risk.
..
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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
-------
57772 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Subtitle D landfills, and 1.1 percent was
managed in Subtitle C landfills. 10.4
percent of the volume was reported to
bo managed in surface impoundments,
and almost 10 percent reportedly was
not collected, but vented into the
atmosphere in states where aggressive
omissions 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 (loss 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
largo 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 tij 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 111-7.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES: HF ALKYLATION SLUDGE
Coosliiufiflts of con-
cern
On-jilo land treatment
Control
tendency
High end
Off-site land treatment
Central
tendency
High end
On-site
landfill
Central
tendency
High end
Off-site landfill
Central
tendency
High end
Waste characterization
Avg.
con.
High
cone.
Low
cone.
# of pts
Notes
GROUNDWATER
<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 teachatB 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 (o.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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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, hi 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
HaS Removal Facilities
a. Summary, EPA is proposing to not
list as hazardous sludge from sulfur
complex and HaS 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 HzS 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 HaS removal facilities.
More than 8,500 metric tons of sludge
from sulfur complex and HzS 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
12 Other residuals of interest to the Agency from
the HaS removal and sulfur complex include several
residuals described elsewhere in today's notice
(catalyst from Glaus 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).
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
HzS 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 Glaus unit catalyst and
spent SCOT® like tail gas catalyst. A
Glaus unit converts H.2.S 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 Glaus unit to HzS using a
cobalt/molybdenum catalyst. The H2S
either is concentrated using amine
solutions and sent back to the Glaus
unit, or is converted directly into
elemental sulfur. The Agency has
evaluated Glaus and SCOT® like
catalysts separately because they differ
in the point of generation and their
composition also differs somewhat (the
Glaus catalyst is alumina, while the
SCOT® catalyst's active metals are
cobalt and molybdenum).
1. Glaus Catalyst. The alumina Glaus
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
-------
57774 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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 Glaus catalysts. These are
expected to bo representative, because
there are essentially no process
variations with the Glaus 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
Glaus 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 troater turnarounds and topping
activities. Tail gas treating, as typified
by the SCOT® process, is used to
remove sulfur dioxide from Glaus 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 catalyst? are generally much
less contaminated than hydrotreating
catalysts because thtey 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
Corj'JIuofiU ol con-
com
On-sito land treatment
Central
tendency
High end
Off-site land treatment
Central
tendency
High end
On-site landfill
Central
tendency
High end
Off-site landfill
Central
tendency
High end
Waste characterization
Avg.
cone.
High
cone.
Low
cone.
# of pis
Notes
GROUNDWATER
Bonzcno
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)
J(«) Sampies wore estimated concentrations below quantilation limits, "#" indicates number of samples that are "J" values.
AX concentrations are TCLP loochaie 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
aro 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 wastexvater treatment plant. The
results of the 1992 § 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 onj-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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57775
this risk is not significant enough to
warrant a listing because itis 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
-------
57776 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Ihcso 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
coramic 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
dibonzofuran were detected in samples
of tho 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
woro found to be considered by
rccyclers to still have precious metals
value and are shipped to smelters for
further metals recovery. As such, they
would bo 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).
Tho 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. EP^ 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 hWnan 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 salts.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.
Agency data indicate that 608 metric
tons were generated. in!992bylO
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 oh-site acid
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.
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
§ 261.11 (a)(3) (incorporating the
language of RCRA section 1004(5)(B))
and § 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)
-------
57778 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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 bo 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
(soo 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
wasto 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 sucii 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 § 261.2(e)(l)), 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 § 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 (§ 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
§ 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
-------
57780 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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.
/. 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
§ 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 spentjpetroleum 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 § 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 necessairy 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 § 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:
§ 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57781
of the characteristics of hazardous
waste:
* *
(E) Ceramic support media separated
from one of the following wastes listed
in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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:
§261.3(a)(2)(iv) * * *
(C) One of the following wastes listed
in § 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
-------
57782 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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
cop'rol.
.10 petroleum refining industry and
others have been working with EPA for
several years to explore pollution
prevention opportunities as part of this
fisting 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 xvas 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
§ 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 rnixers. 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-Une 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)(l), 42 U.S.C.
6924(m)(l)). Land disposal of wastes
that meet treatment standards thus
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 EL A.I 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 (BOAT) 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-l (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-l, at the end of this
section, provides a list of 13 organic
constituents proposed for regulation.
Table V-l 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
-------
57784 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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(l,2,3,-
cdjpyrene at levels of regulatory
concern. In addition, it appears that the
regulation of just the 10 constituents
may fail to ensure adequate treatment of
bonzo(g,h,i)perylene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
indono(l,2,3,-cd)pyrene. For example,
these throe constituents often require
higher temperatures to volatilize than
the one required for the other 10
constituents proposed for regulation.
Those three constituents also show
higher bond dissociation energies than
needed for dissociating the other 10
hazardous compounds. As a result, EPA
boliovos that the regulation of
bonzo(g,h,i) perylene,
dibonz(g,h)anthracene, and
indono(l,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 hi 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 boih'ng 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 h'mits. Other
structural and functional UTS
constituents such as phthalate and
halogcnatcd 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 portlarid cement. Nickel
oxides are also recovered and reclaimed
further in a nickel specialty HTMR
facility. Residues frpm
hydrometallurgicali 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 bqlow 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday. November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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
inKl71andKl72.
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
(BOAT) 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, hi 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 nitration 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
BOAT 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
-------
5778G
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
waste Is granted a capacity variance
under RCRA § 3004(6). 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
wastowater 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, tne
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 capacityianalysis, 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57787
comments on any information pertinent
to these determinations. •
TABLE V-1.—PROPOSED BOAT STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS IN K169*, K170, K171, & K172
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a h)anthracene
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 2 3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrehe
Toluene
Xvlenes (total)
Wastewaters
maximum for
any 24 hr. com-
posite
Total composi-
tion (mg/L)
0.059
0.14
0.0055
0.059
0.0055
0.057
0.059
0.0055
0.059
0.059
0.067
0.080
0.32
Nonwastewaters
maximum for any
grab sample
Total composi-
tion (mg/kg)
3.4
10
1.8
3.4
8.2
10
3.4
3.4
5.6
5.6
8.2
10
30
Constituents proposed for regu-
lation
K169*
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
X
K170
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K171
X
X
N/A
X
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
K172
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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 BOAT STANDARDS FOR METALS IN K171 & K172
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Nickel ;
Vanadium :.
Wastewaters
maximum for
any 24 hr. com-
posite
Total composi-
tion (mg/L)
1.9
1.4
3.98
4.3
Nonwastewat-
ers maximum
for any grab
sample
(TCLP) (mg/L)
2.1
5.0
5.0
0.23
Constituents
proposed for
regulation
K171
N/A
X
X
X
K172
X
X
X
X
TABLE V-3.—PROPOSED BOAT
STANDARDS FOR REACTIVE SUL-
FIDESIN K171 &K172
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
DEACTIVATION (DEACT)* to remove reac-
tive 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.
-------
57788 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI-1.—POPULATION PROFILES
Tola! population
Whilo population •
Percent white
Percent people of color j • ••••
National popu-
lation profile
249,402,000
209,180,000
83.9
40,222,000
16.1
Population profile
surrounding U.S.
petroleum refin-
eries *
651 ,757
408,280
62.6
243,477
37.4
Population profile
surrounding fa-
cilities landtilling
or land treating
proposed listing
residuals*
195,693
151,955
77.6
43,738
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
ana 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
tho 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 exposureito 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 ,Wles. 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 pil 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 froni 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 /.Proposed Rules 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 3x10 ~9
for up to 274 home gardeners and
6x10 ~9 for up to 721 adult residents for
off-site units. For the same scenario, the
central tendency risks for CSO
sediment/solids were 3x10 ~9 for up to
90 home gardeners, and 6x10~6 for up
to 235 adult residents. For on-site land
treatment, central tendency risks from
PAHs in crude oil tank sediment were
4x10 ~9 for up to 120 home gardeners,
and 8xlO-9 for up to 316 adult
residents. For on-site land treatment of
CSO sediment/solids, central tendency
risks from PAHs were 7x10 ~7 for up to
76 home gardeners, and 2x10~6 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 hydrorefming 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 § 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.
VEIL 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.
-------
57790 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
B. Effect on State Authorizations
Because this proposal (with the
exception of the actions proposed under
CERCLA authority) will be promulgated
pursuant to the HSVVA, a State
submitting a program modification is
ablo 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.
Those 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 retainj authorization to
implement and enforce these
regulations.
EC. 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 § 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 then- one-pound statutory RQs.
The first method, one traditionally
utih'zed 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 cojnprise 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, B.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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57791
be one or more levels lower than the RQ of the constituents of concern in the
for the original substance. Table IX—1 wastes to be identified as hazardous.
presents the reportable quantity of each
TABLE iX-1 .—REPORTABLE QUANTITIES OF CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
Hazardous
waste No.
K169*
K170
K171
K172
Constituent of concern
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ;
Chrysene
3-Methylcholanthrene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Arsenic
Benzene
Arsenic ;
RQ
pounds
(Kg)
1 (0 454)
1 (0 454)
1 0(4 54)
1 00(45 4)
1 (0 454)
1 00(45 4)
1 0(4 54)
1 (0 454)
1 (0 454)
10(454)
1 (0 454)
5000
(2270)
100(454)
1 0(4 54)
1 (0 454)
1 00(45 4)
1 0(4 54)
1 (0 454)
1 0(4 54)
1 (0.454)
*lf 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)(l)(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 die wastes to be identified
as K169 (if listed), K170, K171 and
K172, and based upon tie 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
Waste
K169*
Constituent
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Max ppm
26
37
31
RQ (ib)
1
1
10
Pounds re-
quired to con-
tain RQ
38 462
270 270
322.581
Adjusted
RQ (Ib)
5000
5000
snnn
-------
57792 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX-2.—POUNDS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN RQ—Continued
Waste
K170
K171
K172
Constituent
Benzo{b)fluoranthene f» •••••
7 12 Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Arsenic
Self-heating solid
Max ppm
15
29
42
220
230
49
390
110
110
860
27
1200
26
500
1600
100
730
RQ (Ib)
100
1
100
10
1
1
10
1
5000
100
10
1
100
10
1
100
10
1
100
Pounds re-
quired to con-
tain RQ
6,666,667
34,483
2,380,952
45,455
4,348
20,408
25,641
9,090
45,454,545
116,279
370,370
833
38461.5
20,000
625
100,000
1,370
Adjusted
RQ (Ib)
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
100
5000
5000
500
100
5000
5000
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
tho adjusted RQs. Specifically, for K169
%vastes (if listed), over 5,000 pounds
would he required to contain the RQ of
any of the constituents of concern.
Thus, under this alternative
methodology, the Agency would adjust
tho RQfor 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 die 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
those 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 tho RQfor wastes exhibiting
tho 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
Tho 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.0.12866 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 $100 annually, as shown in
Section B, below. Thus, today's rule is
not subject to the requirements of
Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
B. Economic Analysis
I. Costs of Compliance
EPA has assessed the costs associated
with the regulation of each of the three
waste streams proposed to the listed in
today's proposal. These are: clarified
slurry oil storage tank sediment and/or
in-line filter/separation solids,
hydrotreating catalyst and hydrorefining
catalyst. EPA has examined four cost
alternatives; (1) Subtitle C landfill costs
alone, (2) off-site incineration of tank
sediments/off-site incineration and
vitrification of catalysts, (3) a
combination of on- and off-site
incineration depending on the specific
refinery, together with recycling/
reclamation of catalysts, and (4) a
contingent management composite
alternative involving Subtitle D landfill
for the CSO tank sediment and filter/
separation solids together with
recycling/reclaiming of catalysts.
The last named is clearly the least
costly option of the options examined.
It is important to note that the costs
shown for all alternatives are not to be
taken as precise. At the low end,
especially, they are barely measurable in
an industry of this size.
Each alternative is discussed below.
a. Alternative (1)—Subtitle C Landfill
Costs Alone. After excluding the
quantities exempt from regulation on
the basis of the definition of solid waste,
by ongoing reclamation, by headwaters
exemption, and by the quantity already
in compliance, as reported in the § 3007
survey previously referred to, the
quantities impacted and the related
Subtitle C annual costs of compliance
are presented in Table X—1.
TABLE X-1.— ANNUAL COST OF COMPLIANCE :
[1992$, millions]
Clarified Slurry Oil Storage Tank Sedi-
ment and In-line Filter/Separation
Solids
Hydrotreating Catalyst
Hydrorefining Catalyst
Add: RCRA Administrative costs
Total Annual Costs1
Costs (1992$,
millions)
28
1.3
1.5
0.5
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 $12.1 million in '92 dollars. ('92
dollars are used in that this was the date
of the industry survey. Escalation to '95
or '96 dollars is of course possible, but
would not change anything in the
analysis.)
b. Alternatives (2) and (3)—Costs
Including On- and Off-Site LDR Costs. If
the costs associated with land disposal
restrictions are included, the figures are
as given below. The off-site alternative
may be considered an unlikely upper
bound in that those refiners finding it
economical to continue on-site
incineration of tank sediments in
combination with recycling and
reclaiming of catalysts will continue to
do so, unless forced to off-site
incineration and vitrification of the
catalysts by added permitting costs.
TABLE X-2.—ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR PRO-
POSED REFINERY WASTE LISTINGS UNDER
Two LDR SCENARIOS
[1992$, millions]
Clarified Slurry Oil Stor-
age Tank Sediment
and In-line Filter/Sepa-
ration Solids
Hydrotreating Catalyst
Hydrorefining Catalyst
RCRA Administrative
Costs
Total Annual Costs
with LDR <
Off site in-
cineration
225
5.0
11.6
05
39.7
On-site in-
cineration
16.8
2.4
3.9
08
23.9
1 The additional annual costs with LDR for potentially list-
ing 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]
CSO Storage Tank Sediment and In-
line Filter/Separation Solids
Hydrotreating Catalyst
Hydrorefining Catalyst
RCRA Administrative Costs
Total Alternative 4
Annualized
costs (1992$,
millions)
(0.5)
2.3
3.9
0.6
6.3
1 The additional annual costs of option 4 for potentially list-
ing 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,"
-------
57794 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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 AH separator sludge
(K051). As described in Section 5, such
a practice is estimated to generate
between $13 million and S26 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
rulomaking, 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.G. 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
Jobs Lost
Lower bound
0.03%
0.03%
0-2
0.03%
Midpoint
0.08%
0.06%
0-2
0.06%
Upper bound
0.076%
0.59%
0-2
0.59%
3. Cost Effectiveness of Individual Risk
Reduction
o. Crude Oil Storage Tank Sediment.
Benzene groundwater risks for this
waste exceed I0~s (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)
those 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 9x10 ~5 and
8x10 ~s 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 (ICRno. 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,
-------
57798 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wasta Waste description and treatment/
code regulatory subcategory1
Common name
CAS2 No.
Wastewaters:
concentration in
mg/L3; or tech-
nology code4
Nonwastewaters:
concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/L
TCLP" or tech-
nology code
Pyrene 129-00-0 0.067 8.2
Toluene (Methyl Benzene) 108-88-3 0.080 10
Xylene(s) (Total) 1330-20-7 0.32 30
K171 Spent hydrotreating catalyst from Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.059 3.4
petroleum refining operations
(This listing does not include ce-
ramic 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 Benzene) 108-88-3 0.080 10
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 hydrorefining catalyst from Benzene 71-43-2 0.14 10
petroleum refining operations
(This listing does not include ce-
ramic support media.).
Ethyl benzene 100-41-4 0.057 10
Toluene (Methyl Benzene) 108-88-3 0.080 10
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 Tho wasto 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.
8 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical
wilh H'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.
* 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.
6 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 substitution1 units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A fa-
cility 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
tho table to read as follows:
Appendix VI to Part 268—
Recommended Technologies To
Achieve Deactivation of
Characteristics in §268.40
The treatment standard for many
subcategorios of D001, D002, D003, and
D011-D043 wastes as well as for K044,
K045, K047, K171, and K172 wastes is
listed in §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 § 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
h'st 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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 57799
SubpartA—Requirements for Final publication in the Federal Register, and §271.1 Purpose and scope.
Authorization by adding the following entries to Table * * * * - *
•14. Section 271.10 is amended by 2,in chronological order by effective (j) * * .
adding the following entry to Table 1 in da. e m the Federal ReSlster'to read as
chronological order by date of follows:
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register ref-
erence
Effective date
[Insert date of publication Listing Wastes from the Petroleum Refining Processes, Land [Insert Federal Register [Insert effective date of
of final rule in the Fed- Disposal Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes. page numbers]. final rule]
eral Register].
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implementing provision
RCRA citation
Federal Register ref-
erence
[Insert date 90 days from Prohibition on land disposal of newly listed and identified 3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004 [Insert date of publica-
date of publication of wastes. (m). tion of final rule].
final rule]. [Insert FR page num-
bers].
[Insert date 2 years from Prohibition on land disposal of radioactive waste mixed with 3004(m) Do.
date of publication of the newly listed or identified wastes, including soil and de- 3004(g)(4) (C) and Do.
final rule]. bris. 3004(m) Do.
***** PART 302—DESIGNATION, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604;
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
NOTIFICATION
17. The authority citation for part 302 •
continues to read as follows:
Option 1 •
§302.4 [Amended]
18. Table 302.4 in § 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
Hazardous substance
CASRN
Regulatory
synonyms
RQ
Statutory
Final RQ
waSo. Category
K170
Clarified slurry oil tank sediment
and/or in-line filter/separation
solids from petroleum refining
operations.
K171
Spent hydrotreating catalyst
from petroleum refining oper-
ations.
K172
Spent hydrorefining catalyst from
petroleum refining operations.
1*
1*
4 K170
4 K171
4 K172
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
X 1(0.454)
-------
-------
-------
------- |