- 91-007
Friday
November 2, 1900
40 CFR Parts 261, 271 and 302
Hazardous Waste Management Systems:
identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Final Rule
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
46354 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday.. November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,271, and 302
IFRL-38Q7-1J
BIN 2050-AB70
Hazardous Waste Management
Systems: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation—Petroleum
Refinery Primary and Secondary Oil/
Water/Solids Separation Sludge
Listings (F037 and F038)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today promulgating
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
to add two wastes to the list of
hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31.
These wastes, designated F037 and F038,
are generated in the separation of oil/
water/solids from petroleum refinery
process wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters.
EPA is also amending Appendix VII of
40 CFR Z61 to add the organic and., ; ,.,
inorganic constituents for which) tjies.e v -
wastes are listed. In addition, EPA is
adding these wastes to-the listof: • ,
hazardous substances rtjiderthe., -.'**" '
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) and setting their "'
reportable quantities.-at the 'statutory » ~
love! of one pound. , .
EPA is taking this action because;'" '
those wastes, when improperly treated.
stored, transported, disposed of, or
otherwise managed, are potentially
capable of posing a substantial hazard
to human health or the environment.
Today's rulemaking will extend RCRA
and CERCLA coverage to all oil/water/
solids separation sludges and floats
generated from wastewaters from
petroleum refineries regardless of the
type of device used to separate the
wastes from the process wastewaters
and oily cooling wastewaters and
regardless of where treatment takes
place.
Tho effect of listing these wastes will
be to subject them to the hazardous
waste regulations of 40 CFR 124, 262
through 266,270, and 271 of this Chapter:
the notification requirements of section
3010 under RCRA; and the notification
requirements of section 103 under
CF.RCI.A.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective May 2,1991. •
ADDRESSSEK The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket *
Number F-90-PTSF-FFFFF and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket, Room
M2427, 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460. The docket is open from 9
a,m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, ,
except Federal holidays. To review
' docket materials, the public must make
an appointment by calling (202) 475-
9327. The public may copy a maximum
of 100 pages of material from any one
regulatory docket at no cost; additional
copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
rulemaking contact the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346Ar
(202) 382-3000. For technical
information, contact John Austin, Office
of Solid Waste (WH-562), VS.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M .
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
telephone at (202) 382-4789. For further
information on the CERCLA portions of
this rule, contact Barbara Hostage,
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (WH7548), U.S, Environmental
Protection Agdncy, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; (202) 382-2198.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
^Outline ,
^.'Background
II. Summary of Today's Rule .
; v A.'Indus}ry-Qyerview
1. Industry Description
2. Petroleum Refining Wastewater
. Treatment
B. Scope*bf the Listings '.
• C. Basis of Listing
'' 1. Toxic Nature of the Constituents
, 2. Concentration of Toxic Constituents In
Wastes
3.'Fate and Transport of Toxic Constituents
in the Environment • ,
4. Potential forBioaccumulation
5. Types of Mismanagement
• 6. Quantities of Waste Generated
7. Severity of Damage
8. Other Environmental Regulations
9. Other Factors "
10. Conclusion
III. Interaction With Other Regulations
A. Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes '
B. Minimum Technology Requirements for
Surface Impoundments
C. Land Disposal Restrictions
. D. "Mixture" and "Derived From" Rules-
E. Corrective Action
IV. Response to Comments
A. Scope of the Listings
1. Incidental versus Intentional Generation
2. Applicability to Stormwater Retention
Basins . .
3. Alternative Definitions -
B. Data Adequacy.
1. Sampling Protocols
2. Data Variability and Class
Representativeness
C. Demonstration of Hazard
• 1. Hazard of Currently Listed Wastes
2. Differences in Management Practical
3. Inadequate Ground Water Data for
Hazard Assessment
.4. Establishment of Pass/Fail Criteria
D. Implementation Issues
1. Effective Date of Listing
2. Water Quality Impacts
3. New Versus Amended Listings
4. Impact of Land Disposal Restrictions
Determinations
. V. Compliance and Implementation
A. State Authority
1. Applicability of Rules in Authored
•States
2. Effect on State Authorizations
a-Effective Date '
C. Section 3010 Notification
D. Generators and Transporters
E. Facilities Subject to Permitting
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit
Requirements
2. Interim Status Facilities
3. Permitted Facilities
F. Compliance options for specific units
1. Tank systems
2. Surface impoundments
3. Other units
4. Closure
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Industry Overview and Profile of
Affected Facilities
1. The U.S. Petroleum Refining Industry
2. Profile of Affected Refineries
3. Baseline Waste Management Practices
and Assumed Compliance Scenarios
B. Economic Costs and Impacts
I. Nationwide Economic Costs
2. Industry Impacts
3. Product Prices
4. International Trade
C. Benefits of Primary Sludge Listing
1. General Assessment of Hazardous
Potential
2. Quantitative Damage Estimates
3. Regulatory Benefits
D. Summary of Analytical Limitations and
Qualifications
1. Factors That Tend To Overestimate
' ' Benefits
2. Factors That May Underestimate
Benefits
VH. Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening
Assessment
• A. Definition of Affected Small Entities
B. Impact Screening Analysis
Vril. CERCLA Designation and Reportable
Quantities '
,IX Paperwork Reduction Act
X. list of Subjects
I, Background
With the promulgation of today's
listings, the EPA reaches the last stage
in a ten-year Agency commitment to list
•as hazardous waste under section 3001
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, all
. sludges generatedin the primary
treatment of process wastewaters ana
oily cooling wastewaters in the
petroleum refining industry. The
objective of this protracted dialogue
with the public and regulated
community has -been to- ensure
-------
Federa Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 /Friday. November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 4635S
equivalent regulatoiy treatment for all
sludges of similar composition. As EPA
has explained from the beginning of this
process, the sludges proposed for listing
as hazardous are those generated from
primary, not secondary wastewater
treatment. The search for language to
express'this intention and the effort to
"dispel confusion about the scope of the
listings, however, has proved a
- challenging exercise for the Agency,
Todays decision to list primary
treatment sludges does not constitute a
decision not to list wastes from
secondary wastewater treatment. The
Agency maintains that secondary
biological sludges were not within the
scope of the proposed listings. Such
sludge may warrant listing, but EPA has
not fully studied it nor provided notice
of any intended listings of the secondary
(biological) sludges. The limited data
(noticed in 53 FR12162) and engineering
knowledge available to the Agency
suggest that there are differences in the
composition and level of constituents in
secondary (biological) sludges, when
compared to primary treatment sludges.
OnMay 19,1980, as part of its final
and interim final regulations
implementing section 3001 of RCRA,
EPA published a list of hazardous
wastes (40 CFR 261.32 Subpart D), which
included five wastes generated by the
petroleum refining industry (see 45 FR
33123). Among these were the following:
—"Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Float
from the Petroleum Refining Industry"
(K048); and
—"API Separator Sludge from the
Petroleum Refining Industry" (K051).
The other three petroleum refining
wastes included slop oil emulsion solids
(K049), .heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge (K050), and leaded tank bottoms
(K052). These five listings were
promulgated in final form on November.
12.1980 (45 FR 74884).
The K048 and K051 wastes are
generated in units used for the primary
treatment of process wastewater and
oily cooling wastewaters at petroleum
refineries. Petroleum refining industry
wastewater is treated in two phases:
primary treatment and secondary
(biological) treatment.
Primary treatment is distinguished by
the physical and/or chemical separation
of oil, water and solids from the
wastewater stream. Primary treatment is
conducted in two stages: (1) Primary
(gravitational) oil/water/solids
separation, and (2) secondary
(emulsified) oil/water/solids
separation.1
Secondary biological treatment
follows primary treatment Secondary
treatment relies on microorganisms to
digest and degrade dissolved oil and
soluble biodegradable wastewater
pollutants to levels suitable for. reuse or
discharge. While there may be some
incidental biological degradation during
, primary treatment 2, secondary
treatment-is distinguished from primary
treatment by active .measures to
promote and increase naturally •
occurring biological activity. Active
biological treatment requires agitation of
the wastewater to ensure an oxygen-rich
environment for efficient microbial
degradation of pollutants. Biological
units include activated sludge units,
trickling filters, rotating biological
contactors and other units employing
active measure to increase biological
processes. .
Subsequent to the May 19.1980,
proposed listings of the petroleum
refining wastes, the Agency received a
petition from Envirex, Inc., requesting
that the Agency amend the K048 and
K051 listings because they were
underinclusive and specific to particular
types of equipment, i.e., the DAF and
API separators. Envirex asked that EPA
amend the listings to list as hazardous
all those petroleum refining sludges
resulting from primary or secondary oil/
water/solids separation regardless of
the equipment or process used in the
separation step because all such sludges
would be similar in composition.
Envirex cited EPA's Effluent Guidelines
Development Document for the
petroleum refining category 3 as support
for the contention that other processes
and equipment produced a similar solids
residue.
After evaluating the rulemaking
petition, the Agency proposed (on
November 2,1980, at 45 FR 74893) that
the K051 and K048 listings be amended
to read, respectively: "Primary oil/
water/solids separation sludge in the
petroleum refining industry"; and
"Secondary (emulsified) oil/water/
solids separation sludge in the
petroleum refining industry." EPA
tentatively concluded that the K051 and
K048 listings were too narrow and that
they omitted other petroleum wastes,
1 The preamble uses the terms "primary oil/
water/solids separation" and "secondary oil/
water/solids separation" to distinguish these stages
of primary treatment (sedimentation, flocculation)
from secondary biological treatment. For farther
discussion «ee April 13,1988 Notice of Data
Availability in this rulemaking. S3 FR 12162,12184-
65.
2 To the extent that biological matter is present in
the wastewater during primary treatment biological
activity will occur, though at a iow level.
3 Development Document for Effluent Limitations.
Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point.Soqrce Category {EPA 440/1-82/014)
October, 1982^
generated in processes and equipment
other than API separators and DAF
equipment, with composition similar to
the listed wastes. Consequently, the
Agency proposed to amend the listings
to reflect the hazardous character of the
wastes and to include all oily separation
sludges generated in the physical or
chemical treatment of petroleum
refinery wastewaters, regardless of the
specific type of separation unit or
process used.
Commenters on the 1980 proposal
raised a number of concerns
emphasizing two major issues. First
they believed the proposed amendment
to the K048 listing was unclear and, as a
result, the proposal could be read to
apply equally to secondary (biological)
treatment sludges, and not just to.
primary treatment systems using
primary and secondary oil/water/solids
separation equipment and processes.
Second, commenters believed that the
Agency had not demonstrated that the
various categories of units potentially
subject to the expanded listing
contained lead and chromium—the
hazardous constituents on .which the
listings were based—at levels of
concern.
To address these issues, the Agency
embarked on a comprehensive review of
petroleum refining wastewater .
treatment processes and a waste
characterization effort to further
substantiate the bases for the .expansion
of the listings. For example, EPA
gathered data on the levels of toxic
inorganic and organic hazardous
constituents that would be found in the
wastes subject to the proposed listing.
As part of this effort, the Agency also
conducted extensive work to improve
the precision and accuracy of methods
for the analysis of organic constituents
in oily wastes.
On November 8,1984, the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) were enacted. Section
3001(e)(2), one of the many provisions
added by HSWA, directed EPA to make
a decision on whether to list as
hazardous, several wastes, including
refining wastes. HSWA also prohibits
the land .disposal of certain hazardous
wastes that have not been treated to
specified levels. It requires the Agency
to set levels or methods of treatment
that substantially diminish the toxicity
of the .waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the .waste so .that
threats to human health and the
environment are minimized. Hazardous
wastes that meet the treatment
standards are not prohibited and'may .
be disposed in a land disposal facility
-------
46356 Federal 'Register / V6L 55. too. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules kftd'Regulations
mooting the requirements of subtitle C of
RCRA. Under EPA regulations, the
treatment standards are based oh the
performance of the best demonstrated
available technologies (BDAT) to treat
the waste. For a waste identified or
listed after HSWA was enacted, HSWA
provides that the .Agency has 6 months
to determine whether to prohibit the
waste from one or more methods'of land
disposal and promulgate BDAT •
standards simultaneously with any .
prohibitions. RCRA 3004(g)(4),
3004(m)(l).'«
Based on the Agency's data gathering
effort, a Notice of Data Availability was '
published in the Federal Register on
February 11,1985 (50 FR 5637],
presenting data collected from 1981 to
1904 from petroleum refining
wastewater treatment systems. The
compositional data identified the types
and concentrations of organic and metal
constituents detected in sludges and
floats from the following types of units
and sources:
• storm runoff ponds
primary settling ponds
flocculation tanks
sumps
emulsion tanks
induced air flotation tanks
evaporation ponds
equalization ponds
primary clarifiers
cleaning chemical pits
ponds with an oil skimmer
The data showed that sludges from
these various sources contain lead and
chromium at levels similar to the levels
found in sludges from DAF units (K048)
and API separators (KC51). In addition,
benzene and toluene were detected in
the sludges at concentrations as high as
4,600 and 11,000 ppm, respectively (dry
weight basis). Specific polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, and pyrene
were also detected at maximum .
concentrations ranging between 600 and
1.700 ppm (dry weight basis).
Commenters were uncertain about the
scope of the listing-description
"secondary (emulsified) oil/water/
solids separation sludge" and indicated
confusion about its applicability to
secondary (biological) treatment
sludges. The Agency also-reaffirmed
that the scope of any final listings. EPA
explained that the final listings would
apply only to wastes from primary
tvaslewater treatment processes (which
nclude both primary and secondary oil/
water/solids separation units), and not
to wastes from secondary (i.e.,
biological) wastewater treatment '
processes, such as biological oxidation
sludges. In addition, EPA identified
activated sludge and trickling filters as
specific examples of biological
wastewater treatment processes that ••
generate sludges that were not proposed
for listing. The notice also solicited
comments on the replacement of the
K048 and K051 listings with a single,
consolidated listing of "sludge from
primary wastewater 'treatment in the':
petroleum refining industry."
The Agency received comments on
. the 1985 Notice of Data Availability
stating that the scope of the listing
continued .to be unclear and
controversial. Much of the debate
centered on the inclusion of
"incidentally" generated sludge in the
listing.5 These comments reflect the
challenges the Agency has faced in
crafting the listing definitions finalized
today so as to distinguish clearly the
second step of primary wastewater
treatment from secondary treatment.
Specifically, many refineries use a series
of settling/oxidation ponds in their
wastewater treatment system. Whether
these ponds are primary wastewater
treatment units performing secondary
oil/water/solids separation or are
secondary (biological) treatment units
depends on (a) the efficiency of the
primary treatment units preceding the
ponds, and (b) the refinery's
effectiveness in keeping suspended and
emulsified oil out of the units.
As a result of the comments received
in the 1985 Notice, the Agency
conducted additional sampling and
analysis in order to characterize the
differences between settling/oxidation
ponds used for secondary oil/water/
solids separation and those performing
secondary, (biological) treatment. EPA
sought to identify an indicator •
parameter to correlate the wastewater
treatment system's transition from oil/
water/solids separation to
.predominantly biological treatment..
Such an indicator would clearly
distinguish biological—and therefore
non-listed—secondary treatment sludge
* Under RCRA section 3004(g](5), EPA must
trnhibit o method of hazardous waste disposal
nless the Administrator finds the method will be
rotcciIve of human health and the environment for
• long ,13 the waste remains hazardous.
5 Today's preamble contains references to
"intentionally" and "incidentally" generated
sludges. Commenters used these terms.to
distinguish sludges that were deposited in a device
designed to remove oil and solid wastes
"intentionally" (the Commenters cited an API
separator in this regard) from those sludges that
were deposited "incidentally" in devices designed
for another function (the Commenters cited sump
and flow equalization sludges as examples). As this •
preamble makes clear, the Agency views the
distinction as irrelevant for purposes, of the listing
because of the absence of any demonstration thai
sludge composition is different: ' ' ' '
from'primary treatment sludge. The
Agency evaluated a number of
alternatives 'to incorporate this type of
indicator parameter in the listing •
definition (a) to distinguish between "
secondary separation sludges and ' ;
secondary treatment (biological) sludges-
and (b) to ensure that wastewater
treatment units that were clearly •
performing biological oxidation would
not be regulated as hazardous waste
treatment units by this listing.
The American Petroleum Institute
(API),'.whose membership includes a
significant number of petroleum
refineries likely to be affected by
today's action, expressed considerable
interest in this approach to resolving,
confusion over the scope of the listing.
At the Agency's request, API provided
information on phenolic removal
efficiencies (percent removal of total
phenolic compounds in the wastewater)
achieved in different types of
wastewater treatment units.
Specifically, API provided data that
suggested that a total phenolic removal. .
efficiency of 80 percent or higher for a .
given unit would indicate that biological
treatment of the wastewaters had -
occurred. Because only minima} levels .
, of biological treatment occur in primary
treatment units,6 API believed this test
xvould offer a clear indication of when
secondary (biological) treatment had
commenced in a particular system.
Thus, API suggested that EPA
distinguish listed primary separation
wastes from secondary biological
sludges by phenolic .removal efficiency.
Believing that the API proposal had
merit, the Agency initiated another
sampling program in the fall of 1987 to
validate the phenolic removal efficiency
data provided by API. As part of that •
sampling effort, the Agency also
collected information on the oil, water,
and solids contents of the sludges. The
Agency published a Notice of Data
Availability on April 13,1988, describing
the data collected (53 FR 12182). The
.1988 Notice also restated the Agency's
definitions of primary oil/water/solids
and secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludges and of segregated
stormwater units. EPA again sought to
explain the scope of the proposed
listings by restating its intention in the
• proposed listings to extend regulatory
coverage to all primary wastes with
composition similar to wastes generated
; from processes and equipment other
than API separators and DAF equipment
• Primary treatment units separate oil/water/
solids through physical and chemical processes and
any biological activity is Incidental to active
separation processes. ' "
-------
• 1
f !,»-
Federal .Register / Veil 55. No, 213 / Friday. November 2> 1990 / Rules and-Regulations
46357
(K051 and K048). The Agency also
reaffirmed that only sludges, and floats
generated in the primary and secondary
oil/water/solids separation stage of.
primary wastewater treatment were
subject to the proposed listings.'
The Agency recognized that some of
the commenters in certain cases still had
difficulty under the language of its
proposed listings in distinguishing
secondary separation sludge units from
secondary (biological) units.7 The
Agency explained that it had not
itemized the factors distinguishing the
two because the distinction was clear at
most refineries.. In the" case of
inadequate primary treatment, primary
treatment might be prolonged so as to
make it difficult to pinpoint clearly those
units in which biological treatment was
taking place. , .
Failure to remove oils and emulsions
prolongs the pnmary'treatment process since
the presence of significant quantities of oil in
the wastewaters inhibits bacterial growth
and delays the onset of biological treatment.
As a consequence, multiple units covering
many acres may be used for primary
treatment. Past and present data demonstrate
that regardless of the number of acres and/or
units dedicated to primary treatment, all
units will continue to generate sludges which
are similarly composed to the currently listed
wastes. Because only the primary treatment
units are covered by the original proposal, it
is critical that individual refineries have a
clear picture of where biological treatment
continences in their systems, 52 FR12165,
Because of this uncertainty, EPA .
considered two approaches that relied
on alternative indicator parameters for
describing units that generate sludge
similar to the already listed wastes. '
The first approach was to develop
definitions based on die. suggestion of
, API to identify biological treatment units
as measured by phenolic removal
efficiency. The second approach defined
biological treatment in terms of the"
percent oil content of the sludges
computed on st dry weight basis (i-te^
moisture free basis). The objective of
both definitions was to Identify the.«nit!8
within a given treatment train that
generated secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludge from those that •
generated secondary (biological)
.treatmentsludge. • , • ' •'
While hopeful that the first approach
would provide an accurate means for
distinguishing .primary from secondary
(biological) sludges, EPA«aw several
T The Agency did identify .units that wereflearty .'
recognized as performing Wologlpal treatment,
'
filters and fetodiscs. S3' FR 1.2188. Theso same
systems wrew<$a4»edW*W1>ejwtep«!»en< '. : -.-;,'
, Document thtt EnvJrex iwd refewwced in its original
petition to expand tiie *«e and KOS1 testings. See '
Develijpment Document p-ise. '
problems with the proposal including
how to implement H for multipurpose
units. The Agency also explained its
concern, that the use of activated carbon
and oxidizing agents in clearly primary
. treatment units, would boost phenolic
removal to the level of the suggested
approach. This might result in a unit that
clearly generated primary sludge
escaping regulation-
Most of the refineries responding to
the 1988 Notice of Data Availability
favored the phenolic removal efficiency
approadh to distinguish secondary oil/
water/solids separation sludges from
secondary (biological) treatment
sludges, provided the Agency used a
specific value (e.g., <70 percent) for
establishing a phenolic removal
efficiency test as an indicator parameter
in the listing definition.
The Agency received other comments,-
however, that identified several
problems with the phenolic removal
efficiency approach. In particular, the
phenolic removal efficiency approach
could inappropriately identify
intermittent flow basins as secondary
(biological) wastewater treatment units,
This approach could also encpurage the
use of larger primary surface
impoundments so that the initial
treatment step would attain the criteria
for biologically treated wastewaters.
Phenolic pretreatment could also be
used in the production area to drop
phenolic levels tp below the detection
limit in order to circumvent the intent of
the listing- Thus, facilities could escape
listing while generating sludges and
floats with the same constituents as
those proposed for regulation, a result
clearly at odds with the EPA's
expressed intention to ensure equal
treatment for all primary treatment units
and processes generating sludges pf the
same composition. Therefore, the>
Agency has abandoned the phenpjiq
removal efficiency approach as a means
to distinguish secondary oil/water/
solids separation sludges front
secondary (biological) treatment
sludges,. .... '
The second approach considered in
defining the scope of the listing (based
on the percent oi} content of the sludge,)
also received extensive comment. A
number of commenters supported the
' use of this approach to differentiate •' •
between primary treatment sludges and
secondary {biological) treatment'
, sludges, provided that the Agency ,
modify the baseline oil level . . .
determination (the Agency proposed .
.]• using the lowest percent oil content of.
, ;JC051 sludges generatedat each facility
'•', 'as a baseline); inparticular, these
•• 'comrueriters suggested that the, average
oil content of K051 sludges at each V
refinqry be used as a baseline. Other
commenters believed, the approach to be
workable but pointed out that certain
refinery specific waste.generation
practices may result in the
imsclassificatjori of secondary
(biological) treatment, sludges as
primary treatment sludges. For example,
the sludges from ah API separator
receiving largely surface runoff from the
process area may have very low oil
content because most of the solids are
surface dirt that will release free oil to
the separator surface, and then settle to .
form a low oil content sludge. Thus, with
the low oil content sludge of this
hypc-thetical API .separator as the basis
for comparison* secondary (biological)
• sludges may be misclassified as listed
primary treatment sludges. Many of the
commenters a}so expressed concern
about the precision and accuracy of the
analytical methods required for the
percent ojl content approach. But the
commenters offered no data to
substantiate their concerns and did not
suggest alternate methods for
determining the percent oil content of
sludge.
As a result of comments on the
.precision and accuracy of the proposed
analytical methods, the Agency re-
anajyzed the npticed data. The findings
of this effort, which are presented in the
rulemakinjg docket for the 1988 Notice
(See ADDRESSES), suggest that method
variability is outside of the acceptance
criteria established in EPA publication
SW^848,3rd Edition, November 1988.
Therefore, a definition based on percent
oil content of the sludge was not
considered implementable at this time.
Because analytical tests proved
unreliable indicators for distinguishing
secondary separation sludges and floats
from biological treatment sludges, the
Agency has decided not to adopt such
an approach. The Agency has decided
instead to adopt comprehensive listing
descriptions for primary wastewater
treatment sludges in order to respond to.
the commenters' clearly expressed
desire for listings that clearly
differentiate, primary from secondary
(biological) sludges, Consequently, the
listings first indicate the treatment
process (whether primary gravitational
. or secondary (emulsified), separation)
generating the listed sludges, then
identifies specific units generating the
sludges without limiting the listing to
. sludges from such units. Finally, the
listings identify those sludges not
included in the listings and identify units
or processes that would not generate the
"; listed sludgegi Only sludges and floats
from units using aggressive biological
treatment methods a*e not included in
-------
46358 Federal Register7 Vol. Sfr-Na. -213 / Friday. November 2. 1990 / Rales and Regulations
today's listings. This ensures that
sludges generated in systems with
passive, incidental biological activity
thnt are, In fact, relying on gravity
separation for oil/water/solids, that
generate a sludge similar in composition
to other primary wastewater treatment
sludges, do not escape regulation.
In order to address commenters'
concern that the listings should clearly
identify factors distinguishing secondary
separation from biological oxjdation, the.
listing defines the unlisted secpndary
(biological) sludges as those generated
in "aggressive biological treatment
units".8 The listings identifyjaggressive
biological treatment units (and hence
units not generating the listed sludges;)
as units employing one of four treatment •
methods: activated sludge, trickling,
filler, rotating biological contactor .
(RBC) or high rate aeration. Both the
" 1985 and 1988 Notices had earlier .
identified activated sludge, trickling
fillers and RBCs as units performing a
clearly biological function (50 FR5638,,
53 FR12164,12168). ,
The fourth category, high-rate .. '
aeration, is a general description.of
other secondary treatment processes ,,. t
that promote biological activity by ' ,,'
introducing additional .oxygen to the, •
treatment system through mechanical '•
aeration. (53 FR 12165) The Agency has;
adapted the definitions of RCRA section-
3003(j)(12)(A) for clarifying the
inapplicability of the listings to \. .'.. •
secondary (biological) treatment
sludges. Thus, the Agency defines high-' v
rate aeration as a system o| >., .. f'.
impoundments or tank's in whjch,intense ,
mechanical aeration is used to.
completely mix the waste in order to''"'' ,
enhance biological activity, jfn order to '
clarify that only true biological systems ,
fall outside of the listings, the listing ' *
describes "high-rate aeration" in. terms '
of a required level of mechanical ",..!''
aeration and the total retention time in >
the tank or impoundment, this
guarantees against primary was'tewa'ter
treatment systems purporting to be
secondary systems based on minimal
aeration.0 Thus, the requirement for 6
• The term "aggressive biological treatment units"'
derives from section 3005((](3HA) bfRCRA,'Thls
section provides that certain surface Impoundments '
are not subject to the minimum technology '
requirement of RCRA section 3004(o)(l)(A) "if they .
contain "treated wasto water during the secondary
or subsequent phases of an aggressive biological
treatment facility." 42 U.S.C § 6825(j)(3).
• In the Senate discussion concerning the
adoption of section 300S())(3)(A), Senator Bentsen
discussed the differences between primary and
secondary wastewater treatment processes (130
Cong, Rcc. S8183. July 25,1884); The exclusion for
wiislewatcr treatment surface impoundments
applies only to the secondary or terliary'phasei It •' '
docs noJ apply to primary treatment operations^ The
horsepower aeration per million gallons
of treatment capacity ensures that a-
refinery could not escape the listings
through such minimal aeration.
In addition to'the comments discussed
above, the Agency received a number of
other comments on the 1988 Notice of
Data Availability. These comments, all
other comments on previous notices,
and comments on the original'proposal
have been reviewed by the Agency. All.
comments identified by thelAgenoy as
major comments are discussed in. • .
section IV of this Preamble; the
remaining comments are addressed in
the Response to Comment Background
Document, which-is available in-theiEPA^
RGRADocket supporting today's rule.
In summary, after a careful review
and analysis of the available'
information, the Agency is. today
promulgating two new listings, identified
as F037 and F038, for wastes generated
from the treatment of petroleum refining
wastewaters. The Agency is listing the
following wastes as hazardous under 40
CER'261.31: "t"
F037 Petroleum reliniery primary'oil/water/
solids separation sludge—'Any sludge .
.generated from.the gravitational <,
separation of oil/water/solids during the
storage or treatment of proces?
wastewaters and oily coolihg
wastewaters from petroleum refineries.
. Such sludges include, but are not limited
'to,those generated in: oil/wafer/solids'
separators; tanks and impoundments;'
ditches and'other conveyances; sumps;
and stormwater-units.receiving dry-
weather flow. Sludges generated in
stormwater units that-do not receive dry
weather.flow, sludges generated in ..
aggressive biological treatment units as
, defined in § 261.3a{b)[2);(iricl'uding;
sludges generated in one or more ,f
additional units aftir wastewaters have
been treated lit aggressive biological
• treatment units) arid K051 wastes are not'
included in this listing: ', •'••>.'
exclusion would not apply to primary treatment
operations which someone wpuld attempt to make
appear to be secondary treatment, such as putting.'' •
an aerator in ajjrimary operation in theiope that- •
some biological activity would take place ,* *. *..
Another issue which has been raised is,what '
constitutes an "aggressive biological treatment
facility." This term Is used to describe a fa'cility
which has biological treatment'asa-planned and
primary function of Its operation. An example
would be an impoundment system in which some or
one of the ponds would include aeration. Thus the '••;
use of the word "aggressive", is included to •,. ,' .
distinguish between the types .qf facilities and: .
impoundment systems where biological activity is '
an incidental rather than primary purpose ofthe"' • '
impoundment system..An example pf where;a ••' V.,
biological activity is an incidental purpose would be
evaporation ponds that rely upon extended 1 ,
retention periods during which some biological, '
activity will occur * * *. ' '••'•; .••. "••-'•:'
F038 Petroleum refinery secondary, •
(emulsified) oil/water/ solids separation
sludge—Any sludge and/or float
generated from the physical and/or
chemical separation of oil/wate'r/solids
in process wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters from petroleum refineries!
Such wastes include, but are not limited
to; all sludges and floats generated in:
1 induced air flotation (IAF) units, tanks ' '•"
arid impoundments, and all sludges-
generated in IJAF units. Sludges ' " ;
generated in stormwater units that do not
receive dry weather flow, sludges . ;.'
generated in aggressive biological
treatment units as defined in
§ 261.31[b)(2) (including sludges ' '
generated in one or more additional units '
after wastewaters have been treated in
. aggressive biological treatment units)
•and F037, K048,.and K051 wastes are not
included in this listing;
In addition, for the F0.37 and F038
listings, the Agency is providing the
' following listing specific definitions
under 40 CFR 261.31(b):
(b) Listing Specific Definitions and
Requirements. " " •
(1) For the purposes of the F037 and F038
listings,- oil/w'ater/solids is defined as oil'
and/or water and/or solids.
(2)(i) For the purposes of the F037 and F038
listings,' aggressive biological treatment units
are defined'as units which employ one of the
following four treatment methods: activated.
sludge; trickling filter; rotating biological
contactor for the continuous accelerated
biological oxidation of wastewaters; or high-
rate aeration. High-rate aeration is a system
of surface impoundments or tanks; in which
intense mechanical aeration is used to
completely mix the wastes; enhance
biological activity, and (A) the unit employs a
minimum of 6 hp per million gallons of
. treatment volume; and either (Bj, the
hydraulic retention time of the unit is no
longer than S.days; or (C) the hydraulic
retention tiifte is rib longer than 30 days and
the unit does not'generate a sludge that is a
hazardous waste by the Toxicity
Characteristic. •';•::. .. • ,• ';
(ii) Generators and treatment, storage and
disposal facilities have the burden of proving; •
that their, sludges are not included in the ,
listing as FQ37 and F038 wastes under this,': '
definition:Generators and treatment, storage
• and diSpo'saTfacilities must maintain, in their
operating pr Sther onsite records, documents ' '-
and data' sufficient to prove thatV(A) the unit -
is an-aggressive biological treatment unit as ;
' defined in this subsection; and (B) the sludges
npt included in the descriptions of F037 and/: •
•or F.0.38. were; actually generated in the •;
aggressiye.biological treatment.unit. '-, ••":
(3)(i) For the purposes of,the F037 jis.ting,"'-.
sludges are considered to be generated at the -
.'mom'ent of deposition in theunit; where' ' '
deposition's: defined as at least'a temporary ''•
cessafioiri of lateral:particle movement. ,
•, •. (ii). Foir the. purposes of the FQ38i listing,' (A)... •
sludges are,fipn8idered to b.e.gerierated at tj)q .;
moment of deposition,in the pnitt.vvhere; .;,
deposition is defined as at fea^t a terflporaiy ' ;"
cessation of lateral particle fntovemerit, and" "
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday. November. 2. 1990 / Rules and Regulations,
46359
(B) floats are considered to be generated at ...
the moment they are formed in the top of the
unit, ' "
By listing these wastes as hazardous
EPA achieves its expressed intention to
treat sludges and floats of similar
composition in the same manner
regardless of the primary wastewator
treatment unit generating the waste. The
Agency is returning to the structure of
the listings proposed in November 1980
and is providing a clarification as to
which wastewater treatment sludges
and which sludge-generating units will
be covered under today's rule. The
Agency is distinguishing oil/water/
solids separation sludges from biological
treatment sludges—the listed primary
sludges from the unlisted secondary
sludges—by defining the aggressive
biological treatment units and the .
sludges (biosludges or digested'biomass)
generated from these units that are not
included in today's listings. These.
listings are discussed further in today's
rule.
II. Summary of Today's Rule
In today's action, the Agency is
finalizing two new listings for sludges
generated from primary treatment of
petroleum refining wastewaters: F037,
primary oil/water/solids separation
sludges, and F038, secondary oil/water/
solids separation sludges. In this
section, the Agency will (1) describe
industry and wastewater treatment
systems that generate these sludges; (2)
further clarify the scope of the listings; • .
(3) discuss the basis for listing for these
wastes; and (4) summarize the .
anticipated impacts of this rule.
A. Industry Overview
1. Industry Description
Petroleum refineries are defined as
"establishments primarily engaged in
the production of gasoline, kerpsene,
distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils,"
.. naphtha, liquified refinery gases, and
lubricants through the integration of •"•
fractionation and/or straight distillation
of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished
petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other
processes" (Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), 1987). The Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code for
: petroleum refineries is 2911, which
excludes establishments producing
gasoline from, natural gas or organic,
chemicals. The major products of
petroleum refineries are motor gasoline,
• - kerosene, diesel, .aviation .fuels, distillate
fuel pil, residual fuel oil,-liquified'
petroleum gases, jet fuel, lubricants,
petroleum coke, and asphalt (DPRA,
•: was). . • •••• •'••• ;•, • •'•• •' -_/'.•;:.
At the beginning of 1989, there were
204 operating refineries in the U.S.
(excluding U.S. territories) with a total
crude oil distillation capacity of 15.7
million barrels per calendar day.10
Petroleum refineries are located across
the country with at least one installation
in ench of 35 states. Three states—
1 exas with 34, California with 32, and
Louisiana with 22—dominate the
distribution, with a combined total of 43
percent of all refineries and 57 percent
of U.S. capacity. Another 12 states had
six or'more refineries within their
borders.
The refineries were owned by 106
companies. Of these companies, nine
possessed over half (57 percent) of the
crude distillation capacity, and another
21 companies controlled ah.additional
30 percent. The remaining 75 companies
accounted for only 9 percent of the total .
U.S, capacity. Of these 75 companies,
most had less than 50,000 barrels per
calendar day capacity and generally
owned only one refinery, although one
company owned three. In addition, these
75 companies were generally non-
integrated. That is, they did not produce
their own crude-oil but purchased it ^
from other companies, or that they did
not market their products but sold, their
products to other companies for
distribution to the public. In contrast, '.
the 31 largest companies were mainly
integrated companies with the largest 24
being exclusively integrated companies.
These 24 companies represent some of
the largest corporations in the nation.
A petroleum refinery can be
characterized according to the refining
processes employed by the facility.
Refineries may be categorized as
follows:
Refinery
Type
B
C
D
Processes
Cnide Topping Primarily Crude Distilla-
tion Units.
Topping and Cracking.
Topping, Cracking, and Petrochemicals,
Topping, Cracking, and Lubricating Oil
Processing.
Topping, Cracking, Lubricating Oil Proc-
essing, and Petrochemicals.
This characterization is based on
ascending process complexity and has
been used as a basis for subsequent
characterization-of waste generation.
Petroleum, refining may involve
. several manufacturing operations .and
processes, including crude desalting,
atmospheric and vacuum distillation.
10 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis; DPRA, June
18,1990/- '
hydrotreating, -catalytic cracking,
thermal processing arid residual'
upgrading, light hydrocarbon processing,
hydrocracking,. catalytic reforming,
extraction, isomerization, lubricating oil
processing, sulfur removal and recovery,
and product blending and inventory. A
spectrum of products is manufactured
from petroleum refining including
hydrogen, fuel gas, sulfur, liquified
petroleum gas, butane, aromatic
feedstocks, leaded and unleaded motor
gasolines, jet fuel, kerosene., diesel,
heating oil, fuel Oil, asphalt, and coke.
2. Petroleum Refining Wastewater
Treatment
Petroleum refining operations
generate large amounts of wastewater
that require treatment in order to reduce
wastewater pollutants and produce
effluents that meet discharge
requirements specified under Clean
' Water Act (CWA) programs. In general,
these wastewaters are either treated in
an on-site wastewater treatment facility
and discharged to surface waters or are
pretreated on site and discharged to an
off-site wastewater treatment facility,
e.g., a Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW). Discharges to surface waters
are controlled under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and. require an NPDES permit,
while discharges to a POTW are subject
to State and national pretreatment
standards.
Treatment systems must be designed
to accommodate wastewaters from a
variety of sources. Wastewaters may be
generally classified as process, oily
cooling, oil-free, and sanitary
wastewaters. Sanitary wastewaters
generated from locker rooms and
lavatories throughout the plant generally
are managed in a refinery sewage plant
or sent to a municipal sewage system.
The other three types of wastewaters
are treated in wastewater treatment
systems. Sludges generated from the
treatment of completely segregated oil-
free and sanitary wastewaters are not
affected by today's listings.
Wastewater .treatment systems at
petroleum refineries generally consist of
the following elements: (1) A drainage
and collection system to collect and
carry wastewaters to treatment units, (2).
a primary treatment system to separate
. oil/water/solids (o/w/s), and (3) a
secondary (biological) treatment system
to remove soluble biodegradable t
wastewater pollutants. Figures 1 and 2
present flow diagrams for two ' ' .
generalized waste'water treatment ;
systems/Figure .1 icepresents.,a;.treatn1ent
system that would be impacted only
-------
46360 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213'/ Friday. November 2, 1990 / Rules anfa Regulations
minimally by today's rule. Pigure 2
represents-a system that would be more
significantly impacted by today's rule.
While the Agency understands that
there is no typical refinery wastewater
treatment system, discussion of the
differences between these two
generalized treatment systems will help
clarify the scope of today's listings.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
FIGURE1
MINIMALLY IMPACTED REFINERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Process and oily
Mfastawafars
wiaaw •*<«>» «»
non-segregated
Stormwater
Stormwater
Ponds
(receive only wet
weather flow)
Segregated _
Stormwater
" 1 -
U»« Not Listed1
'"'"•''• i . - API "'""
System separation)
'La
OAF
separation)
•L.
Flow
TanK
•:.lj« '
Stormwater
Ponds
HB- Not Listed
Aggressive
treatment :
NPDES
: Discharge
-.'•?
Subsequent wf
^ Treatment **bis<
(polishing)
' 1 :; lv-- '•"
V'Npt Listed f ^Not Listed1
•». :
1
5 Primary Q/W/S separation
II
II
Secondary 0/W/S separation
1
Secondary (biological) treatment
Primary Treatment
Specifically excluded from the listing definitions of-F037 and F038.
Federa
e^stet
Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2,
Rules andxRe
ations
2
-------
FIGURE 2
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED REFINERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Stormwater
and process
and oily cooling
wastewaters
Stormwater
Pon^s
Process and
Oily cooling •
wastewaters
F037
Oxidation
Pond
Oxidation
Pond
Oxidation
Pond
L^ L
***F038 **^F038
Oxidation
Pond
I
NPDES
Discharge
w
I
01
i
5
to
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, J99Q / Rules and Regulations^ ^ 46363
Wastewater drainage and collection
systems may be segregated to allow for
treatment by waste class, or may be
nonsegregated, routing all wastewaters
to common wastewater treatment. A
facility as depicted in Figure 1 will
segregate oil-free wastewaters from
process wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters to the fullest extent
possible. Such facilities will also
minimize the generation of emulsions in
the drainage and collection system by
avoiding turbulent flow and mixing, and
will minimize accumulation of sludges in
the drainage and collection system by
incorporating properly sloped collection
systems. Sludges deposited from process
wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters in drainage and collection
systems are listed under today's rule as
hazardous waste F037.
Using a segregated collection system,
stormwater, the largest contributor to
the oil-free wastewater stream, is
handled in segregated stormwater ponds
that receive flow only during storm
events. Waters routed to these ponds
during storm events either are
discharged under an NPDES permit
when the effluent quality is high enough
or are returned to the wastewater
treatment system. In cases where
stormwater cannot be collected in storm
sewers (e.g., process sewers are used to
collect stormwater), stormwater ponds
are used to receive surge flow from the
process sewers during storm events.
Such facilities'will route only wet
weather flow (mixed process and
stormwater) to these segregated ponds.
Sludges generated from segregated
stormwater ponds that do not receive
dry weather flow (i.e., any process
wastewaters or c-ily cooling
wastewaters) are not included in today's
listings.
On the other hand, a facility (as
depicted in Figure 2) may route process^
wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters to stormwater ponds
during dry weather. Nonsegregated V
stormwater ponds that receive dry
weather flow of process wastewaters
and oily cooling wastewaters generate
sludges that meet the listing description
ofF037.
Primary, treatment may be divided
into two stages: primary oil/water/
solids separation, which is based on
gravitational separation, and secondary
oil/water/solids separation, which uses
other physical or chemical processes to
separate emulsified oil/water/solids
that are riot amenable to gravitational
separation. Primary (gravitational) oil/
water/solids separation for process
wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters is necessary in almost all
cases to meet effluent standards and to
recover oil for reprocessing. Tide extent
to which secondary oil/water/solids
separation (separation of emulsified
solids) is required depends on the
amount of emulsified oils in the ,
wastewater.
Primary oil/water/solids separation is
conducted in gravitational separators
designed to allow sufficient time under
low turbulence conditions for oil to rise
to the top and coalesce for removal by
skimming, and for solids to settle to the
bottom. Properly designed primary oil/
'water/solids separators provide for the
removal of the majority of the
nonemulsified oil and settleable solids.
Separators used at earlier points-fl.e.,
regional separators) may be employed
to treat individual waste streams prior
to commingling.at the main wastewater
treatment system. While the API
separator is most widely used, there
exist other types of effective primary
oil/water/solids separators (for
example, corrugated plate interceptor
(CPI) separators and separators of
circular design). API separator sludge
currently is regulated as hazardous
waste K05l. Gravitational separation
sludges generated in all other primary
oil/water/solids separators meet the
F037 listing description.
Secondary oil/water/solids
separation uses physical or chemical
methods to separate emulsified oils from
refinery wastewaters. Where such
treatment is used, many facilities utilize
systems for secondary oil/water/solids
separation that involve air flotation. Air
flotation achieves separation of
emulsified oils and suspended solids
from wastewater by introducing air into
the bottom of a unit. As this air passes
up through the wastewater it
agglomerates oil and suspended solids
to form an intimate mixture of gas (air)
and particulates that is lighter than
water. This, mixture floats to the top of
the unit where it is skimmed as surface
float for treatment and disposal. The
two types of air flotation units are .
dissolved air flotation (DAF) and.
induced air flotation (IAF), which differ
in the means by which air is introduced
in the unit In each case, chemicals may
be added to the wastewater influent to
improve emulsion breaking and removal
and agglomeration of particulates. Float
generated from DAF units is currently
regulated as hazardous waste K048. Jri
. addition, under today's listing, all
sludges and other floats generated from
induced air flotation and other
secondary oil/water/solids separation
units meet the F038 listing definition.
Facilities may also conduct secondary
oil/water/solids separation in a series
of settling ponds where extended
holding times are used to break
emulsions. Such facilities also may pass
wastewaters that still have settleable
solids from a primary oil/water/solids
separator to these ponds. Serial settling
ponds may have skimming devices to
remove oil that rises to the surface or
may rely on oxidation and
photodegradation to degrade these oils.
Some biological activity may occur
\yithin these units in addition to
secondary"oil/water/solids separation,
depending on the number of treatment
units included in a treatment train and
the length of time wastewater is
retained in each treatment unit to
complete separation of oil and solids
from wastewater.
Sludges from the treatment of process
wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters that are clearly biological
treatment sludges, K048, orK051 are not
included in today's listings. For the
purposes of today's rule, sludges that
are clearly biological treatment sludges
are defined as those sludges generated
from aggressive biological treatment.
The fpur types of treatment considered
aggressive biological -treatment by the
Agency in this rule are described below.
All sludges (except for K048 and K051)
that are generated in treatment units
prior to aggressive biological treatment
of wastewater and that are not primary
oil/water/solids separation
(gravitational) sludge? (F037) are
considered to meet the listing definition
for F03Q.
To meet effluent discharge limitations,
refinery wastewaters (primarily process
wastewater streams) require biological
treatment to reduce soluble (organic)
wastewater pollutants. Aggressive
biological treatment allows a facility to
minimize the size of required treatment
units while maximizing treatment
efficiency. For purposes of today's
listings, the Agency recognizes the
following four types of treatment as
aggressive biological treatment:
activated sludge, trickling filter, rotating
biological contactor units, and high-rate,
aeration, These technologies, described
below in further detail, facilitate the
detoxification and digestion of organic
chemicals in wastewaters.
The Agency has reviewed the
wastewater treatment systems for the
majority of the U.S. refineries and is
unaware of any other biological
treatment processes that achieve
equivalent levels of organic chemical
removal and thus would qualify as
aggressive biological treatment. Solids
generated following the aggressive
biological treatment of process
wastewaters.and oily cooling
-------
463G4
h J5;;,NQ.''213':/ ;FEii3ay..-No^mber '-2,- >moj Rules' and Regulations ••
wastewaters are "true", biological '
-sludges because they contain
acclimatized bacteria and dead • .
biomass. However, if a facility-believes
it has a treatment process that should be.
considered as aggressive biological
Ueatment, the facility may submit a, <
rulemaking petition under 40 CFR 260.20.
Facilities may alsd petition {he Agency .
to delist specific wastes under 4QCFR •'••
260.22. .,..,,
• . The activated sludge process is a
biological treatment technique primarily
used for removal of organic materials ','•
from wastewater. This process is - ,•
characterized by a suspension of
aerobic and facultative microorganisms
maintained in a relatively homogenous
condition by mechanical mixing or by
the turbulence induced by, mechanical
aeration.in an aeration basin. These
microorganisms oxidize soluble organic
materials and agglomerate colloidal and
participate solids in the presence of
dissolved oxygen. The aeration step is
fullowed by clarification to separate
biological sludge from the treated
wastewater. Most of the biological mass
is recycled to the aeration basin to be .
: combined with incoming wastewater
while the remaining sludge is routed to,a
sludge treatment and disposal facility.
The trickling filter operates by passing •
wastewater over a stationary bed qf
microorganisms. The filter consists of a
suitable containment structure packed ,
with a medium (usually rock, wood, or
plastic) on which a biological mass
(slime) is grown. Wasteivater is
distributed over the packing and
1-iomassby a spray system. As ' ,
wastewater flows over the slime,
organic compounds are degraded to CCfe
and water, and suspended participate
and colloidal materials are removed by
sorption processes. The sorbed material
!i
, hazardous sludges.',Thus, .sludges ..:
generated, to these types of units are
; subject to today's nile. ... ,, ..
, ' Secondary (biological) treatment may
be followed by nonaggressiye treatment,
involving polishing of wastewateirs prior
;to final discharge. Any sludges, ' :..'. . .
..generated,from treatment thatfoilows -.-•;
, aggressive biological treatment are not
. included in todaylslistings.?,3 ••• -„../, ,.,
•B:Scope i>f the Listings ; : -'•'" ' ;r
. i .Today's listings for primary oil/ .. ,-,.•.'.;.
water/solids separation (gravitational)
sludges;(F037) and secondary, oil/water/.
solids .separation (emulsified) sludges
(F038) effectively regulate as hazardous
waste all separation sludges generated
from petroleum refining process
waste waters and oily cooling
wastewaters that are not already . ,
regulated as either API separator sludge
(K051) or DAF float (K048). These
wastes are being added to the list of .
wastes from nonspecific sources in 40.' .
GFR 261.31 in order to regulate sludges .
generated at wastewater treatment
facilities on site at petroleum refineries
as v/ell as sludges.generated at off-site .,
v^astewater treatment facilities 14.
F037 and F038 sludges are generated
from the treatment of process , '
w;ast.ewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters. Process wastewaters
include, but are not limited to, the
following: ,
1. DeBalter water;
: 2. Tank emulsion and water draw-offs;
3. Condensate from steam stripping,
operations; .• .
4. Pump gland cooling water; :' : .
5. Barometric condenser water contaihing
.emulsions;. .
6. Intermediate and product treating plant
wash water; and
7. Other wastewaters containing emulsions,
heavy oils, or tar.
Oily cooling wastewaters include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1. Once through cooling water-frqm Ce '(six^
carbon) hydrocarbons and heavier
. operations; . ' . . ,, • '
2. Slowdown from cooling towers servicing
Ce and heavier operations;- -;'
3. Uncontrolled oily storm water from •
refinery processing and tankage areas; anil- '
4. Controlled oily storm water released '"
from diked areas or surge ponds.
*' pSEPA. 1983. 'U.S. Environmental Pfqteption
Agency, trea'lability taanual,'V6lum6' III, JEPA em'/ '
'2-82/001C, Janiiary;1983. pp '-"'•'
. .
iDispOsalotRefinery .Wastes; Volume.qh Liquid ''•"-,> •
Wastes API 769.7 man, Gh,J3.-. , ,;:•-.;- ^O.r.V-..;
13 It should be noted that units not included in'
today's rule pould be regulated under other RORA
provisions.eiiher because they are generating!or
receiving characteristically hazardous wastes or
sludges. . . • ', :
. '4 It should be noted that if wastewaters . . . .
. generated at petroleum refineries are discharged to ,'"
.a PpTW, and such wa.s.tewaters are mixed'with.'. „ '"
dpraes'tic sevvtfg^ from 'noniridustp^l.sourcesi:the ( •'
sludges generated jn (he.PpTly ^re-coye.iea:under .[
..
in today's listings. • -••:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 46385
Sludges subject tp; today's listing may
be generated in units that are designed
to perform primary treatment (e.g., CPI
separator or IAF unit) or may be
genera ted. incidentally in sumps,
conveyances, equalization units, •
nonaggressive biological treatment
units, or other wastewater treatment
units prior to aggressive biological
treatment The intent of today's listings
is to capture all primary treatment
(separation) sludges, including
gravitational and emulsified sludges
wherever they are generated.
The Agency has defined those sludges
that it believes are clearly biological
treatment sludges—and not included in
today's listings—as sludges generated
from aggressive biological treatment
units'. In addition, sludges generated in
units downstream of aggressive
biological treatment units that do not
receive any process wastewaters or oily
cooling wastewaters that have not
undergone aggressive biological
treatment are also not included in
today's listings.
Data collected and noticed in 1988 by
the Agency and supplemented by data
provided by commenters indicate that
sludges generated in stormwater units
that only receive rain water or storm
flow during storm events do not
generate sludges similar in composition
to those generated in primary treatment
units. Thus, sludges that are generated
in stormwater unita that do not receive
dry weather flow are also not being
included in today's listings. Sludges
generated in stormwater units that do
receive dry weather flow, however,
meet the listing definition for F037.
While the Agency is unaware of any
facilities that currently utilize spray
irrigation as a disposal technique for
petroleum refining wastewaters, such
disposal of petroleum wastewaters prior
to aggressive biological treatment would
result in the generation of one of today's
listed hazardous wastes. Wastewater
solids forming a residual layer on the
soil surface and the underlying soil layer
following spray irrigation of
wastewaters would also become or
contain listed wastes under today's
rulemaking.
C. Basis of Listing ' • • -
• Many commenters questioned the
Agency's basis for listing these wastes
as hazardous. This section summarizes
the basis of listing today's wastes as
hazardous, and section IV addresses the
major concerns raised by commenters;
all other comments are addressed in the
Response to Comments Background
Document that is available in the docket
to this rulemaking.
Section 3001(a) requires the Agency to
promulgate criteria for identifying the
characteristics of hazardous wastes and
for listing certain hazardous wastes. 42
U.S.C. 6921(a). The criteria promulgated
by EPA for listing a waste as hazardous
are presented in 40 CFR 261.11, which
states in part:
(a) the Administrator shall list a solid
waste as a hazardous waste only upon
determining that the solid waste meets one of
the following criteria * * *:
(3) It contains any of the toxic constituents
listed in Appendix Vffl unless, after
considering the following factors, the
Administrator concludes that the waste is not
capable of posing a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, ' •
stored, transported or disposed of, or
otherwise managed * * *. .
The sampling and analysis data '
collected in support of these listings and
noticed in the February 11,1985 (50 FR
5637) and April 13,1988 (53 FR 12182)
Federal Register notices clearly
demonstrate that primary treatment
sludges routinely and consistently
contain 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII
, constituents. For example, the wastes
consistently contained metals such as
lead, chromium, nickel, and arsenic, and
organics including benzene, toluene, and
numerous PAHs such as
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, chrysene,
pyrene, and phenanthrene; five of these
constituents, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
chrysene, lead and chromium,
consistently were found at sufficiently
high concentrations to warrant inclusion
in Appendix VII as the basis of listing
for these wastes. Table A summarizes
the range and average concentrations
for these five constituents. While some
of these sludges may contain low or
non-detectable amounts of certain of the
hazardous constituents, these sludges
almost always contain one or more of
the hazardous constituents at levels that
may pose risk to human health and the
environment.
In order to evaluate the criteria for
listing these wastes as hazardous, the
Agency considered each of the factors
specified in CFR 261.H,(a)(3) (i) through
.(xi) -to determine if these wastes were
indeed capable of posing a substantial
threat to human health and the
.environment The results of this
evaluation are presented below.
TABLE A.—PRIMARY TREATMENT SLUDGE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND RANGE OF MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
CAM Values in PPM; Wet Weight Basts]
Constituent ,
Benzene..- _ „
Benzo(a)pyrene. ,„..„.,„,„..
Chrysene „.„,.,_„
iggjj . . *«-,~"^""" — -*-• —
Chromium.... ....,,,., „,___.„....„_•_..
No. of .
samples
• 'analyzed
20
on
20
8
14
FO
No. of
samples
with
detectable
•levels ,
' - • 18
16
9
14
37
Range"
ND-138
3-4570
3-2290
. • Average11
28
552
702
.No. of
samples
analyzed '
24
e
14
Ft
No. of
samples
with
detectable
levels
, 19
6
14
B8
Range"
ND-125
1-3900
15-1950
Average"
10
"23
515
522
• ND—not detected . .
"Arithmetic averages are based on ,% the practical quantitation limit for constituents detected below quahtrtatiqn limits and for constituents not detected.
1. Toxic Nature of the Constituents
Each of the constituents presented in
Table A is highly toxic. For these
constituents, EPA has developed chronic
toxicity reference levels and/or, in some
cases, cancer potency factors for two
human exposure routes (inhalation and
oral). For the purpose bflisting wastes
as hazardous under RCRA, the Agency
customarily uses three basic types of
toxicHy data from animal studies and
, epidemiological studies when analyzing
the toxic potential of a constituent- (1)
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
(2) Risk Specific Doses (RSDs); and (3}
Reference Doses (RfD's). Based oh
different criteria, each of these types of
data estimate the maximum doses or •
-------
55< N°" 213 ! Friday> November 2. 1990 / Rules:and Regulations
acceptable human exposure-levels.' . '
i Exposure to chemicals below these,
levels is not likely to cause detectable
health effects, but exposure'to chemicals-
above the'se concentrations can be toxic
or detrimental and may'pose significant
risk to human health.'The criteria for
establishing the toxicity levels are - •
outlined below.
MCLs are final Drinking Water-.-,
Standards unddr section 1412 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended
in 1984 for both carcinogenic and- ..'
noncarcinogenic compounds. In setting •
MGLs, EPA considers a range of
pertinent factors cited in 52 FR 25697-
25890, July 8,1987.
For certain carcinogenic compounds,'
the Agency has not promulgated MGLs
but has developed RSDs. The RSD is a
dose that corresponds to a specific level
of risk to an individual of contacting
canaer over a 70-year lifetime because
of the intake of contaminated drinking
water. Modeling procedures are used to
extrapolate low-exposure levels to
levels expected from human contact
with the carcinogen in the environment.
The slope of the line from this
extrapolation is used to develop a -
cancer potency factor for the
carcinogen. The cancer potency factor is'
used with a specific risk level to develop
, an RSD. The oral and inhalation RSDs
for carcinogenic agents are established
at the 10" * risk level, which means that
one in one million people.could develop
cancer if exposed to the carcinogen at
the specified dosage for a lifetime. This
approach is consistent with the risk
levels "used to delist specific waste
streams as part of the RCRA dejis.ting
process. Based on the quality and
adequacy of epidemiological data and
experimental animal data demonstrating
carcinogenic responses,-constituents are
assigned to five classes via a wejght-pf-
evidence system developed by the'
Agency. .•..,..
With respect to the ,"weight-of.T .,"
evidence" system, the Agency > ' . . '../.'
• promulgated guidelines for earcinogem.c
risk assessment (see Si FR328S6,, - r J,.,/,
September 24,1888), whiclrincorpofate
an assessment of the quality of '"'-
experimental data for the overall hazard
assessment for carcinbgens.,The'se' .. ' ,
guidelines specify the following five '
classifications: .-'•..
Class A: Human carcinogen (sufficient
cVidencfe frorh epidemlologic studies)
Class B: Probable" human cartanogen'' ' ' * •
= Class Hi: Limited evidence of ' •" " !*r
carclnogenicity m humans , • • ,-•"- :
'Class Bs: A combination of sufficient •.
evidence In. animals,and adequate- or no . • '•
, 5 , evidence in humans;' ; -, ,i -...-, L "-.••••'•
• Class C: Possible human carcinogen (limited
evidence of carcinogenicity in.thie ,
• absence of human data) ... *
ClassD: Not classifiable as to human'1 ,' ','•
carcinogenicity (inadequate human agd.
animal evidence of carcinogenic} ty or no
.data available) • <-•
Class E: Evidence of noncarcinogenicity-for •
humans (no evidence of,carcinogenicity.
. in at least two adequate animal tests in
. different species or both tn adequate .
• qpidemiologic and animal studies.}. -,.'.'
• •- The Agency'regards constituents .
classified in Class A or B as suitable for
quantitative risk assessment. The •: •
suitability of .Class C constituents for-
quantitative risk assessment requires a
case-by-case'review because some
Class C constituents do not have a data
base of sufficient quality or quantity to
perform a quantitative carcinogenicity
risk assessment. The weight-of-evidence"
basis was used to eliminate Group D
and E constituents from further -
consideration as carcinogens.
Based on these guidelines, four of the
•five constituents are either • - -
"carcinogenic to humans" or are :
considered to be probable human
carcinogens. The carcinogenic
constituents of concern that are present
in F037 and F038 for which there are no
MCLs'are either.known (Class A'} or
' probable human carcinogens (Class ,B1 •
and B2). Table B identifies the cancer
. potency factors for carcinogens present
in these-waste streams. EPA's • ;
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Endeavor ,
Workgroup (CAVE) has determined; that
there is sufficient evidence to suggest
that benzene, and chromium (VI) are
carcinogens (Class A), and that V
,berizo(a)pyrene (BaP), chrysene, ancl
lead are probable carcinogens (Class
BO- , ' " ' . ' • " ,;•.'-•-•'
TABLE B.—CONSTITUENTS OF .CONCERN
-' AND CORRESPONDING Tpxicify VALUES
(CANCER POTENCY FACTORS)
Hazardous ;. '•
.•.t.constituents;, ,
Inorganic:-- ',-,
Chromium Vj ,»_'..
Organic! '•
Benzene
Benz6(a)pyrene' .
Chrysene ">..._
• ,CAQ" Caricer Potency Fajcitpfs
i; Oral (mg/.kg/- 1
. • day) V .:
•a.i , :• - *L- -.••:':.
2.9 X 10 .-« :
11.5 .• •• -.
11.5
Inhalation nig/ ...-
.; Ml/day) ;:?,.,, ,,
2^9 x 10 ~a ;
6.1'' ';O;;,V-;
•6.1 : ...,;•...„-
•Carcinogen Assessment Group. ...
" Cla.ss C.. carcinogen, however,., the, Agency, fe
basing the cancer potency of chrysene on'that "of
Benzo(a)pyrene based on structure relationship's.'
The cancer potency factor of Benzofa)pyrene is
assumed for other, potynuctear aromaticNflydrocar
dral'and.inhalationRfD'ij, on the
other hanoV, are established for •
iioncarcinogens (systemiiG; toXiC
Rfp isan estimate of daily ^xpb
the human population (including
.! sensitive subgroups such as children) to
V -a substance.that.would not represent ah
.;: appreciable risk of deleterious effects
.';. during.a lifetime. If frequent exposures
that exceed the RfD occur, the -
probability .that adverse effects may be
observed increases. The method for ..
estimating the RfD endpoints for . "
noncarcinogenic constituents was • . • ' i.
? described in the proposal for the • •• :• .;
.Toxicity Characteristic rule (51 FR -
/ 21648,June 13,1988). . . - '-..-- ; . ; , '•
Constituents exhibiting carcinogenic -.:.:••-'
• or other: chronic systemic effects on •. •••
. humans, pr laboratory; animals have . ' >
.been determined to be present in today's
. wastes. These toxicants are present in .
.sufficiently high concentrations (/. e., •.• •
concentrations greater than the EPA
established RfDs, RSDs, or MCLs) to
• pose.a.substantial threat to human
•health and the environment under ; .
plausible mismanagement scenarios.,A
brief summary of the toxicity of these
constituents is presented below. For.
additional information on the toxicity of
the hazardous Constituents, see the • '
Health and Environmental Effects
Profiles (HEEPs).(available at the EPA-
Headquarters and EPA Regional ' ; .
"Libraries)^. . . ;•'• ;"•-•' -•'' '•;'' *'•••• •. i; ;''
Benzene is a Class A carcindgen;:. ,
Benzene .is'carcinogenic in rats • " ,'
following exposure through gavage and ;•'. ' -
in mice following inhalation exposure
(JARC, 1982). An epidemiological study -
that correlated benzene exposure with ...
the incidence of leukemia.provided '•
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that i ;
; benzene is carcinogenic in humans • . '' ; '..
(NTP, 85V002). "•'• "'',;-."•".' '
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is a Class Ba : /
• carcinogen. BaP is-perhaps one of the ,..'.,
most potent,,known animal carcinogens. -, ;••'......
Microgram;quantities have been shown ,,'. ,.
to induce tumors in a number of -..-.'.'•. ' ...•
experimental animal species through '.. • ', .
various routes of exposure, including '
oral, inhalation, and disnnal application _, .'..;.
"'•&AJRG, 1973). The types of tumors seen-,. i • ...
v;after-exposure t.o BaP include mammary ,*, ..-,
, tumors4n.rats(IARC, 197&);squamous ^ -• • • ;*:
cell papillomas and/Or carcinomas of ;•
the foresftomach in niice (Rigdohia'nd ,."!.,:" .'.{
Neal,.1966);,and skin tumors in mice. ...'..'.' ,...;'
(Poeli 1963). BaP can also act as a a" '.-'•
transplacehtal carcinogen in mice (Bulay ' , . • •
:aiid Wattentberg, 1971), '''."-;. " ''V •-.'". V;'.;.' •s '
.. In addition,totJheir ability.tbacfas " '. .".
;,carcinogens, several of the PAH- • ... .. ... .;,.
jcompbunds (e.g. chrysene),, plus others
|e.jj. dibenz(a,'h)anthracene) that display1; ;
''^bicjLr^^og^nifii^tihUi^-'o^/^a^';!'..'';:''.; "',
beep found to":,Hctas' co-carcinogenic '.''. -.-'•;'".'.'. J,\'.
agents ^initiators or prornoterB) causing ' ; •'*;
''skin tumors in mice follib'wing'dennal -'":';' "•*•;. '••
-------
Federal Register / Vol; 55, No. 313 / Frjday. November 2. 199Q / Rules and Regulations^^ ^46367
based numbers developed for certain
PAHs are extremely conservative -
estimates of the toxicity of these
compounds but, that when present in the
wastes as mixtures of PAHs containing
both carcinogens and cocarcinogens,
these mixtures may collectively induce
tumor formation at lower
concentrations.
Benzene and BaP have also been
shown to be embryotoxic and/or
teratogenic in experimental animals
(IARC, 1982 and Shum et al, 1979).
Chrysene is classified a Class Bz
carcinogen, however sufficient data are
not available to make a quantitative
estimate of cancer potency. The Agency
has established cancer potency faqtors
for selected PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene)
only. The conservative approach that
the Agency follows for assessing health •
risks for exposure to the PAHs
belonging to Class Bz or C carcinogens is
to use the cancer potency factor for
benzo(a)pyrene, and to assign an order.
of magnitude less risk to the estimate.
Among the inorganic constituents of •
concern, hexavalent chromium has been
classified as a .known human carcinogen
, (Class A) by the inhalation route. EPA
'.. developed an inhalation cancer potency
factor for hexavalent chromium based
on an increased incidence of lung cancer
in workers exposed tp chromium over a
6-year .period and followed for
approximately 40 years.I? EPA derived
an oral; RfD pf 5.0 X WT3 mg/kg/day for
hexavalent chromium based on a study
by MacKenzie et al. (195.8) in which no
observable adverse effects were
observed in rats' exposed to less than 2.4
mg/kg/day of hexavalent chromium in
drinking water for! year.1 <* Rats . . .'
16 Mancuso, T.F. 1975. International Conference
on Hea.vy Metals in the Environment, Toronto,
Canada. ,
. «« Mackenzie. R.D., Byerum, R.V., Decker, C.F.,
Hopport, C.A., and Longham, F.L, 1958. Chronic
receiving a dose corresponding to 2.4
mg/kg/day showed an approximate 20 .
percent reduction in water, consumption
and an abrupt rise in tissue chromium
concentration.
With respect to lead, recent
information indicates that physiological
and/or biochemical effects in humans •
caused by lead can occur at blood
concentration levels that are lower than
the 25 ug/L value established by the
Centers for Disease Control, which is
used as an acceptable level pf blood
lead. Therefore; the Agency has .
established a provisional oral RfD of
'5 X10~4 mg/kg/day and a provisional
inhalation RfD of 4.3X10~4mg/kg/day
for adults based on the long-term
acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) and
National Ambient Air Quality :
Standards, respectively."-18The Agency
has-established an MCL for lead of 50
parts per billion (ppb) and has proposed'
reducing the MCL to 5 ppb (see 53 FR
31516). Although these RfD's for. lead
• have npt been, verified through the
formal EPA peer review process, after
considering the toxicity data
summarized above, the Agency believes
that lead is clearly an appropriate, basis
for listing these wastes as hazardous,
2, Concentration of Toxic Constituents
in Wastes '
Table A presents concentration
ranges and-average values for each of
the five constituents that fprm the basis
of listing for the F037 and F038 waste
streams. This table also identifies the
Toxicity Studied IL Hexavalent and-trivalent .
chromium administered, in drinking Water' to rats.
Arch. hid. Health 18:232-234.
17 EPA, 1988. Drinking Water Regulations,
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper. 53 FR 31518-31577, August 18,1988. •
1•* EPA. 1986. Air Quality Criteria for Lead,
, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
EPA,'Research Triangle Park, NC.
.. number of samples analyzed and the '
number of samples in which detectable-
concentrations {i.e., concentrations
greater than the analytical detection
limits) were' measured. As shown in the
table, lead and total chromium were
detected in every waste sampled, while
the remaining constituents of concern
were each detected in over 50 percent of
the samples analyzed. In addition, the
Agency identified other Appendix VIII
constituents in both types of sludge
samples; These include ars.enic, nickel.
benzp(a)anthracene,
dibenz(a,h)arithracene, pyrene, and
phenanthrene.' . .
Tables C. .gricTP present the health-
based levels for the water consumption
exposure scenario for the hazardous
constituents detected in F037 and F038,
respectively, The first four columns in
each table present the constituents, the
average measured concentrations of
those cpnstituents, their respective
water health-based levels, and the bases
used to calpulate those levels. The
remaining six columns provide an
exposure assessment analysis that is
discussed further.in this section and
section II.C.3. The health-based levels
presented in these tables are based on
twp exposure assumptions:. (1) The .
average expos erf individual weighs 70
kg and, (2) the exppsed individual .
drinks, on average, 2 liters of water
daily. The resultant acceptable water
intake qpncentrations range from
3.0X10~6ppm (BaP and chrysene) to
5.0X10r"2ppni (lead and chromium).
, That, is, iri the case of BaP and chrysene,
corisuniptipn of 2 liters of water daily
with a concentration of 3.0xlO~6ppm
would not threaten human health. Two
pf the fivsqbnstituents of concern.
(benzene, and chromium VI) are knpwn
human carcinogens. BaP, chrysene, and
lead are probable human carcinogens.
Lead is also a systemic toxicant.
TABLE C. BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F037
Hazardous constituent
Benzene
BenzpXa)pyrene ..;
Ohrysene.'.,..! '...„'.
Lead
Average
measured
waste
concentra-
tion tppm)
39
" . ".: 14
28
• '552
• . 702
Water
concentration
(health-based)
.limits (ppm)
. 5.0X10 -=>
3.0x10-«
3.0x10-°
5.0X10 -»
5.0x10,-"
Basis e
MCL (Class A) ...
RSD (Class Bz)
RSD (Clams a.)
MCL (Class B-)
MCL (Class A)
Estimated drinking well
concentrations yvf**>
.DA 100
0.39
0.14
0.28
5.52
7.02
DA 1,000
0.039
. 0.014
0,028
0.552-
..- 0.702
DA 10,000
'0".0039
-0.0014
0.0028
0,0552
0.0702
Estimated well concentration to
health-based lev.el ratios *
DA 100
78
46,600
9,000
-.<••• • -'110
; 140
DA 1,000 .
7.8
4,600
• 900
: 11
14
DA 10,000
0:78
460
90
1.1
1-4
" levels.
Calculated for three dilution/attenuation (DA) factors of 100,.1,000V and 10,000. . . . ; , .
Ratio obtained by dividing estimated drinking well concentration column by water concentration (health-based) limit column, for all three dHution/attenuation (DA)
'Reference Dosa (RfD), Risk Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant" Level (MCL) are explained elsewhere-in the preamble, as-are the classes.of
, RSDs. Benzo(a)pyrene is based on an exposure limit at a 10 "e risk leveL Chrysene, a Class Bs carcinogen, .is based on .an exposure Jimit at 910 6 risk level, and the
health limit is assumed to te that of Benzb(a)pyrene based.on structure1 activiry relatipnshiRS, ..' ,...' ,. '.. '. .......; ,..'.'.'. '•: . '
d Concentration ilimits are] for total chromiiirri only. . ..- • ••.;'• • .-.-.*•• * •'
-------
46368
Federal Register / Vol.. 55. No. 213 /'Friday/November-ft 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE D.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN F038
Hazardous constituent
Bonzene
Benzo(a)pyrono... „,.
Chfysono
Lead.
Chromium *
Average
measured
waste
concentra-
tion (ppni)
12
10
23
515
522
Water
concentration
, (health-based)
' limits (ppm)
5.0x10-'
3.0X10-"
3.0X10-5
,5.0X10 -*
,5.0X10-?
Basis <
MCL(ClassA),...
RSD (Class ba) ....;.'.
RSD (Class b.)...-.
HCL (Class b.)
MCL (Class A)
EstimSted drinking well
.concentrations * (ppm)
DA 100
0.12
0.10
; 0.23
5.15
• 5:22
DA 1,000
0.012
0.010
, 0.023
0.515
0.522
DA 10,000
0.0012
0.0010
0.0023
0.0515
0.0522
Estimated well concentration to .
health-based level ratios b
DA 100
24
33,300
7.600
103
104
DA 1,000
2.4
3,300.
760
10.3
10.4
DA 10,000
0.24
330
77
1.03
t.04
•n.vu.uiwu iwi UHTO utiuuuif/auuuuduun \vnj laciors 01 iuu, i.uuo, ana 10,000.
toveIsRati° (*lained ** dhrfdin9 estimated drinking well concentration column by water concentration (health-based) limit column, for al! three dilution/attenuation (DA)
"Concentration limits are (or total chromium only. . .
As shown in the last three columns of
Tables C and D. the concentrations of
constituents of concern in F037 and F038
are at least four orders of magnitude
greater than the corresponding health-
based limits. If mismanaged, therefore,
given the potential for migration and
persistence discussed below, the
Agency believes that the constituents of
concern are present in these wastes at
levels clearly capable of posing a threat
to human health and the environment.
The Agency has also evaluated
potential environmental damages for
API and DAF sludges based on data
submitted by refiners as part of their
delisting petition applications. The
Agency, using this industry data arid a
variety of ground-water, transport
models (including the Organic Leaching
Model (OLMJ, Vertical and Horizontal
Spread (VHS) dispersion model, and the
Land Treatment Mode,J (LTM)), has
concluded that concentrations of the
constituents of coneerain wastes (K048
andKOSl} are capable of migrating to
the receptor points. The concentrations
of the constituents of concern in the
drinking water wells at receptor points
exceed the corresponding drinking
water standards. This is one of the
reasons the Agency decided to deny
many of the delisting petitions submitted
by the petroleum refineries. Since the
wastes listed today are similar to the
previously listed wastes, the Agency
• believes that the constituents of concern
in the wastes listed today can
potentially reach receptor points and
can pose risks to human health. A
summary of the Federal Register notices
announcing the Agency's action on each
of the delisting petitions has been
placed in the Regulatory Docket
supporting this rule. ,
3. Fate and Transport of Toxic
Constituents in the Environment
The Agency, evaluated the mobility
and persistence of the F037 and F038
constituents of concern in the
environment. To assess mobility, the
Agency considered the physical and
chemical characteristics of the
constituents of concern. The factors
considered include the physical state pf
the sludges, their water solubility, the
oetanol-water partition coefficient (Kow),
arid the soil-sorption coefficient (Koc).
Table E summarizes these
quantitative measures of mobility for
each of the organic constituents, as well
as a qualitative assessment of these
data in terms of each constituent's
potential for migration and persistence
in the event of waste mismanagement.
Compared to other constituents in the
sludges, some of these constituents (e.g.,
benzene] are, more degfadable than
others. Chemical and biological •
degradation may occur in soil, if
physical (e.g.* soil temperature, humidity
and moisture.-particle size, and water
holding capacity of soil), chemical (e.g,,
soil pH), and biological (e.g., types of
microorganisms) characteristics are
conducive to facilitate degradation of
chemical constituents. However, as
evidenced by the contamination of soil
and ground water, typically degradation
is insufficient to prevent environmental
damage if the wastes are mismanaged.
TABLE E.—Ground Water Mobility and Persistence of Organic Constituents of Concern
Constituents of concern
Benzene.™.,
Banzo (a) pyrena
Ctwysona ..„.....,..„„..,...:. ....
Water
concentration
(health-based)
limits (ppm)
5.0X10-1
3.0x10-*
3.0x10-?
. Water
solubility
(ppm) ...
1.75X1G-"
asxto-3
2X10"=
&
2.13
.6.25
5.61
• KW
83
5,500,000
200,000!
Mobility*
Slightly "contaminated
medium -
moderate
low
notknowrt _....„
Highly • contaminated1
medium
.high.... i
not known ,
. Persistence
low.
high.
not known.
•%ZS£3X£y^ «*V ** «« «, see the Background Document.
^ K«*Soil-sorptIon coefficient; see Background. Document for data sources.
by orgtnte feoardmJsico'nstituenS" represents a mismanagement scenario where release of hazardous constituents does not result in saturation of the underlying so*
i mismanagement scenario where release of hazardous constituents results in saturation of the.underlying soil by
Because some of the constituents of
concern (parh'cularly.benzene) are water
soluble to some extent, they can (1)
leach out of the wastes in; a water-
soluble form, (2) be transported through
the subsurface environment from the
waste, (3) eventually reach ground-
water bodies, and (4) contaminate
drinkingrwater wells. One measure of
migration potential is the.ability of a
given constituent to partition between
octanol and water. If a compound is not
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 213. / Friday, November 2, 1990 /Rules, and Regulation^ 40369
easily soluble in water but is soluble in
octanol, it is slightly mobile in soil.
Table E gives the logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log
KOW) values for the constituents of
concern. A logKoW of 2.13 for benzene
indicates that it is .moderately soluble in
water and, hence, moderately mobilp in
soil. On the other hand, ^ ^a rt\i is
found in F037 and F038 have high log
Kow values suggesting that they would
be relatively immobile (i.e., less u.obile
than benzene) in the soil. However,
evidence exists that these constituents
may move more readily in soil with lovv
organic content or if codisposed with
other solvents or oils. Because wastes
listed today typically contain high
concentrations of oils, the mobility of
the PAHs is expected to be quite high
due to cosolvent effects. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that wastes
containing these constituents could pose
a significant threat to human health via
ground-water contamination if
mismanaged. :.
In order to conduct a more qualitative
evaluation of fate and transport of F037
and F038, the Agency evaluated
potential risks to human health posed by
exposure to a drinking water/waste.
mixture. EPA examined hypothetical
ground-water concentrations by
assuming that, through subsurface
transport, dilution and attenuation (DA)
processes will reduce the concentrations
of the hazardous constituents of concern
by a given factor. The Agency evaluated
three DA factors: 100; 1,000; and 10,000.
These three values correspond to
drinking-well water-contaminant
concentrations at 1, 0.1, and 0.01 percent
of the contaminant's original
concentration in the waste.
The three DA factors used in this
analysis are intended to encompass a
broad range of possibilities. While the
DA factors were not selected to
represent any particular environmental
condition or range of environmental
conditions, they represent assumptions
varying from a moderate amount of- '
dilution and attenuation to .a high degree
of dilution and attenuation. As shown in
Tables C and D, the wastes examined
pose a potential threat to human health
and the environment across this wide
.range of assumptions.
The Agency believes that the DA
factors used in assessing the potential
migration of the constituents of concern
in petroleum separation sludges are not
unrealistic. To assess the effectiveness
of the hypothetical concentrations (by
assuming a set of three DA factors) in
representing the real-life leaching and
migration processes, the Agency .
compared average concentrations of
certain constituents (chromium,
fluoranthene, pyrene, anthracene, and
naphthalene) in wood preserving wastes
and ground-water contamination data
from the damage cases related to the
wood preserving industry. The Agency •
assumed that, in the past, wood
preserving wastes containing high •
concentrations (higher than averages
calculated for the rulemaking activity)
were disposed of on land, which
resulted in contaminated ground water
as evidenced by the damage cases. The
comparison provided the Agency with a
mechanism to determine the potential
migration of toxic and hazardous
.constituents from oily wastes in soil.
The results of th'e comparison
suggested that metals such as chromium
and semivolatile compounds such as
anthracene, fluoranthene, chrysene, and
pyrene are released from the oily wastes
and, hence, are capable of '
contaminating ground water. The
calculated DA factors for these
semivolatile compounds in oily waste.
range from 10 to 100,000. Based on this
preliminary comparison, the Agency
concludes that the constituents of
concern in oily wastes .can be carried
over to receptor points as agueous
leachates at concentrations ranging from
10 to 0.001 percent and 1 to .0.01 percent
of the original concentration of
semivolatile compounds and metals
respectively, in the oily wastes.
As shown in Tables C and D, for each
of the organic constituents, the ratio of
drinking-water well concentrations to
health-based levels is greater than 1 in
all cases except for the DA factor of
10,000 for benzene, the most mobile of
the organic constituents. For F037
sludges, the ratios range from a low of
about 0.78 (benzene at 10,000 DA) to a
high of over 46,000 (B(a)P at 100 DA),
and for F038, these values range from
0.24 (benzene at 10,000 DA) to over
33,000 (B(a)P at 100 DA). The Agency,
therefore,'believes that the potential for
human exposure is significant and
provides a basis for listing these wastes
as hazardous. •.
These DA factor-derived estimates of
potential significant human exposure
are further substantiated by Agency-^
collected data from petroleum refining
sites. For example, the Agency has
information for down-gradient ground-
water contamination from a petroleum
refinery suggesting that the constituents
of concern identified in F037 and F038
wastes have been released from a
sludge pile and have reached ground
water at concentrations that exceed the
health-based numbers. The Agency
believes that the data are convincing"
and support its conclusion that the
current disposal practices used at this
refinery are not .acceptable, and given
the contaminants, may not represent
management of, waste consistent with
protection of human, health and the
environment. There are numerous . -
, instances of ground-water '.
contamination at petroleum refineries;
.and in some cases the contamination is
of such magnitude that oil is recovered
from the aguifer. Environmental damage
at refineries is extensive and is
generally attributable to .the following
contaminant.sources (pr combinations
thereof): crude oil spills, refined product
spills, and waste, management. The
Agency reviewed 21 refinery sites in
Region VI and found'at 17 of the
facilities that groundwater
contamination could not be traced
solely to waste management. However,
the Agency expects that waste
management in unlined surface
'impoundments significantly contributed
to the environmental damage based on
our modeling. At the remaining four
facilities clear evidence of groundwater
damage as a result of waste
management was detected. This ,
. provides additional evidence of the
mobility of oily materials and wastes.
Additional instances of environmental
damage resulting from mismanagement
are presented in Appendix I of the
Background Document supporting
todays rule. The data demonstrate that
the hazardous constituents in these
wastes are sufficiently mobile and
persistent to pose a threat to human
health and the environment when the
wastes are mismanaged. ,
4. Potential for Bioaccumulation
Under; the Clean Water Act, the ,
Agency has established acceptable fish
tissue concentrations for approximately
50 ecolo'gically significant cheniicals .'*•
that tend to either bioconcentrate in „'
fatty tissue and/or bioaccumulate in
aquatic species arid are likely to be'
transferred to higher 'organisms at
different trophic levels [i.e., jii the food
web). For each of the chemicals, the '-.
Agency has established a ' . '/ ..'
bioconcentfation factor (BCF) that may
be used to estimate the concentration of
the chemical in biological tissue . h ,
following exposure to a contaminated •
medium/fie., food or water). This.list of
50 chemicals includes the three organic
constituents of concern present in the
F037 and F038 wastes. To protect
humans from the consumption of
contaminated fresh water and salt water
species, the Agency has also, established
chronic water quality criteria for a large
number of chemicals including all five of
the constituents of concern for F037 and
-------
46370
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
F038 wastes. Table F presents BCFs and
the chronic water quality criteria for the
primary constituents of concern for
today's listings, the BCF of a chemical
represents the potential for its bio-
uptake, its accumulation in tissue, and
the degree of its metabolism and
biotransformation; and is balanced by
the excretion bf the chemical. The higher
the BCF value, the more readily the
chemical will be taken up and stored,
and m be degraded nor excreted.
TABLE F.—ERA-ESTABLISHED VALUES
FOR POTENTIAL BIOCONCENTRATION IN
AQUATIC SPECIES
Constituents
Bonzona. .._.„...._ „,—
Bonzo(8)pyrono S
Ctvysone..,.™.—...-....™.
Lead . ,
Chromtum VI
BCF
5.2
28,200
11,700
N/D
N/D
Chronic water
quality criteria
(M9"-)
Fresh
water
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
11
Salt
water
700
•300
•300
5.6
50
"For all PAHs. only one acute water quality crite-
rion Is established.
NM—Not available.
N/D—Not davetoped.
The BCF is estimated as the
concentration of the chemical in
biological tissue following exposure to
contaminated food and/or water
divided by concentration of the
chemical in the exposure'medium. For
example, chrysene has a BCF value of
11.700 indicating that if the
concentration in salt water were 3 jjig/L
(one-one hundredth of the chronic water
quality criteria value), it would be likely
that salt water organisms would show
chrysene concentrations of 35,100 jig/kg
(35.1 ppm) in the tissues of their bodies.
A BCF of 1000 indicates a potential for
bioaccumulation, and both chrysene and
benzo(a)pyrene are an order of
magnitude or more higher than a value
of 1,000. which is indicative of
bioaccumulation in fish tissue.
Animal toxicity data available in the
literature also shows that the
constituents of concern, especially
metals, remain in the edible animal
tissue. The National Academy of
Sciences (WAS) has established mineral
tolerance levels'for domestic animals.19-
These levels are referred to as maximum
tolerable levels (defined as the dietary
level that, when fed for a limited period,
will not impair animal performance and
should not produce unsafe residues in
human food derived from the animal).
18 National Academy of Sciences. 1900. Mineral
Tolerance of Domestic Animals. National Academy
Press. National Academy of Sciences. Washington,
Da July 1980.
The limits were established following
the evaluation of the literature relating
to 35 dietary minerals of both essential
and "toxic" nature. Information such as
the form of element, length of study,
criteria for response, and species of test
animals were taken into consideration.
In establishing these limits, the adverse
health affects to the domestic animals
were also considered as the primary
criteria for response.
The NAS limits are recommended for
use during formulation of diet for
domestic animals used as supplemental
food in addition to forages, a primary
food source for grazing animals.
Dietary mineral levels for selected
metals such as cadmium, lead, and
mercury were also based on human food
considerations (i.e., their potential for
bioaccumulation in edible tissue used
for human consumption). For example,
cadmium accumulates in the liver and
kidney tissue where it has a very long
biological half-life, i.e., is retained
without any significant degradation.
Domestic animals grazing on forage
grown on soil contaminated with high
levels of constituents of concern in
petroleum wastes may be toxic to
animals and may in turn accumulate in
animal tissue at levels higher than those
acceptable for human consumption.
These data, obtained from fish studies
and animal tissue analyses, suggest that
all the primary constituents present in
F037 and F038 could pose significant
risks to human health and environment
via bioaccumulation.
5. Types of Mismanagement
Management practices for F037 and
F038 sludges include storage in
wastewater treatment tanks and surface
impoundments, and final disposal in
land disposal units including subtitle D
landfills and land farms. However,
sludges may remain in surface
impoundments for very long periods.
Only about 30 percent of the refineries
have conducted periodic clean-out of at
least some of their sludge generating
ponds as of 1983. During wastewater
treatment (i.e., settling, sedimentation,
and gravity separation), solids deposit
at the bottom of settling ponds, surface
impoundments, or treatment lagoons.
Many of these units are in locations
where the soil is highly permeable and
the ground-water table is relatively high.
The solids settled in these units pose a
significant risk to human health and the
environment because (1) the settled
solids typically contain significant levels
of PAHs, benzene, lead, chromium, and
other hazardous constituents; (2) these
constituents have demonstrated
mobility in the environment; and (3)
these units typically are not fitted with
leachate control measures. The site
specific data collected by the Agency
indicate that toxic constituents in the
deposited solids have been transported
from the source and have reached and
contaminated ground water (see
Response to Comments Background
Document in the docket for this
rufemaking).
6. Quantities of Waste Generated
EPA estimates that approximately
408,000 metric tons of F037 and F038
sludge are generated annually by the 204
petroleum refineries in the United
States. Of this amount EPA estimates
that between 256,000 and 300,000 metric
tons per year are not covered by the
Toxicity Characteristic. The original.
listings for K048 and K051. captured
approximately 610,000 MT/yr of sludges
(310,000 and 300,000 MT/yr,
respectively).
7. Severity of Damage
The data available to the Agency
indicate that the mismanagement of
separation sludges has resulted in
damage to the environment. Detailed
damage information is presented in
Appendix I in the Background Document
Supporting today's rule. The damage
incidents have shown ground-water
contamination at levels in excess of
health-based limits, soil migration and
contamination of surface waters, and
mortality of wildlife attracted to
treatment lagoons.
8. Other Environmental Regulations
During the development of the F037
and F038 listings, the A-geney evaluated
the potential for other environmental
regulations to provide protection for
human health and the environment frotn
mismanagement of petroleum refining
primary treatment sludges. The Toxicity
Characteristic, which was being
developed at the same time as the
expanded listings, was identified as
having potential to identify the primary
treatment sludges as hazardous and thus
provide such protection. Specifically, a
number of commenters to the April 13,
1988 Notice of Data Availability (53 FR
12182} expressed their belief that the TC
rule would provide adequate protection
from these wastes.
The Agency analyzed wastewater
treatment sludges collected during the
waste characterization effort for the
expanded listings to determine the
extent to which the TC would regulate
primary treatment sludges. The results
of these analyses were published in the
April 13.1988 Notice of Data
Availability. The Agency has identified
-------
Federal Register / Veil 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 46371
two major problems in relying on the TC
to identify primary treatment sludges as
hazardous. The first is that there exist
significant levels of hazardous
constituents not covered by the TC.
Specifically, neither benzo(a)pyrene nor
chrysene, both constituents which form
the basis of listing for today's F037 sr-d
F038 listings, are covered u^ me i
DAF float and API separator sludge
from the petroleum refining industry
(K048 and K051J were evaluated as part
of the First Third land djsposal ;.
prohibition determination, and
treatment standards were promulgated,
for these wastes on August 17,1988 (see
53 FR 31138). However, in the Third
Third final rule (published in the Federal
Register on June 1,1990,55 FR 22520),
the Agency rescheduled these wastes to
the third third of the schedule and
established revised treatment standards.
In addition, the Agency granted these
wastes a six-month national capacity
extension from the effective date.of the
rule (May, 8,1990).
Although the wastes covered by
today's notice are being listed because
of the presence of hazardous
constituents at levels similar to those
found in K048 and K051, F037 and.F038
are newly listed wastes, and therefore,
the treatment standards for K048 and
K051 do not apply to today's newly
-------
46372 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
listed wastes. The Agency has not yet
completed treatability and capacity
analyses for these newly listed wastes.
For this reason, the Agency will address
land disposal restrictions for the wastes
listed today at a later date. Until that
time, these wastes are not subject to 40
CFR 268, unless they exhibit one or more
of the characteristics of hazardous
waste, namely corrosivity, ignitability,
reactivity, or EP toxicity. Wastes that
exhibit the newly promulgated Toxicity
Characteristic are considered newly
identified as hazardous and are not
covered by the LDR (unless also EP
Toxic) (see the Third Third Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule, June 1,1990,
55 FR 22520).
The following discussion of
requirements that may be imposed
under the land disposal restrictions is
provided to assist facilities managing
the wastes listed-today in preparing for
requirements that may become
applicable in the future. The Agency
recommends that facility owner/
operators begin taking the actions
necessary to come into compliance with
these requirements in anticipation of
future effective dates.
The Land Disposal Restrictions'
program may restrict the management of
the wastes listed today in various ways,
depending on the timing and substance
of a number of future regulatory actions.
It should be noted that because the
statute does not provide for automatic
restriction or prohibition of land
disposal of newly identified wastes until
such restrictions are promulgated, land
disposal of these wastes will not be
restricted or prohibited until the Agency
promulgates land disposal restrictions
(unless the wastes exhibit one of the
restricted hazardous characteristics or
are subject to other land disposal
restrictions).
Finally, it should be noted that several
other RCRA rulemaking actions may
affect the regulatory status of units
managing the wastes listed today;
including the Toxicity Characteristic (55
FR 11798), the Third Third land disposal
restrictions rule (55 FR 22520), and
promulgation of land disposal
restrictions for TC hazardous wastes.
The net effect of these regulations for
any specific unit will be determined by' .
the wastes managed in the unit, whether
the wastes are hazardous due to being
listed or exhibiting a characteristic, the
effective dates of rules that cause each
waste to be regulated as hazardous, and
the treatment levels and effective dates
promulgated for each hazardous waste
managed in the unit. Each facility
owner/operator must evaluate the
applicable current and future regulations
for each unit to determine the
appropriate regulatory and technical
actions for that unit.21
D, "Mixture"and "DerivedFrom"Rules
The mixture rule (40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iv)) provides that any mixture
of a listed waste and a solid waste is
itself a RCRA hazardous waste with
certain limited exceptions. Wastewater
flowing downstream from units
generating the listed sludges will not
ordinarily be hazardous by virtue of the
mixture rule in the absence of some
activity, such as scouring, that causes ,
the settled listed sludge to be
reintroduced into the wastewater.
The "derived from" rule (40 CFR
261.3(c)) states that any waste derived
from the treatment, storage, or disposal
of a listed hazardous waste is itself a
hazardous waste. Often water from
dewatering of wastewater treatment
sludges is recycled to process operation
or returned to the treatment system. It is
the Agency's position that such a
wastewater is not a "derived from"
hazardous waste if it can be
demonstrated that the water removed
from the sludge is no more contaminated
than the original influent to the
treatment unit from which the sludge
was removed for dewatering. •
E. Corrective Action ,
Under sections 3008(h) and 3004(u) of
RCRA, all solid waste management ,
units that are located at facilities subject
to interim status or permitting are
subject to RCRA corrective action'
requirements for releases of hazardous
waste or constituents to the
environment. It should be noted 'that
regulated hazardous waste management
units are also solid waste management
units. Under these provisions, units that
managed sludges that would have met
today's listings in the past but that cease
managing these wastes prior to the
effective date of today's listings are
solid waste management units and, if
located at facilities subject to interim
status or permitting under subtitle C of
21 Particularly, it Is possible that wastewaters ,
from which the wastes listed today are generated
will be Identified as hazardous waste prior to the
effective date of this rule through the revised .
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) (see 55 FR 11798,
March 29,1990). Thus, the applicability of unit-
specific requirements such as the technical
standards of 40 CFR 264 and 265, the MTR
retrofitting requirements, and the requirements
imposed by land disposal restrictions to units
managing both the wastes listed today, and
wastewaters that exhibit the Toxicity
Characteristic, will be driven by requirements
associated with TC wastes as well as those
associated with the wastes listed today. As
previously noted, any inconsistencies that may arise
among these requirements will be addressed in
future rulemakings which concern these issues.
RCRA, are subject to the corrective
action provisions. Wastewater
treatment units that are exempt from the
standards of 40 CFR 264 and 265 are
also solid waste management units and,
if they are located at facilities subject to
interim status or permitting under
subtitle C of RCRA, are also subject to
the corrective action provisions.
IV. Response to Comments
The Agency is responding in this
preamble to all major comments
received in response to the original
proposal and subsequent notices. The
major issues raised, by the commenters
that are addressed in this section are:
•.. Scope of the listing
.' • Data-adequacy
• Demonstration of hazard
• implementation Issues.
Other comments received by the
Agency are addressed in the Response
to Comments Background Document
that is available in the docket
associated with this rulemaking.
A. Scope of the Listings
Since the Agency originally proposed
these listings, numerous comments have
been received regarding the types of
wastewater treatment units that would
be subject to the listing.22 Comments on
the scope of the oil/water/solids
separation sludge listings that are being
finalized today have been subdivided
into three major categories:
• Incidental versus Intentional Generation
• Applicability to Stormwater Basins
• Alternative Definitions.
The Agency's responses to these
comments are presented below.
1. Incidental versus Intentional
Generation
Many commenters suggested that the
.Agency restrict applicability of the
listing to units that were designed and
22 As discussed in section Il.A of this preamble, •
the Agency differentiates between primary
wastewater treatment sludges (oil/water/solids
separation sludge) and secondary wastewater
treatment sludges [sludges generated in aggressive
biological treatment units) as follows:
• Oil/water/solid separation sludges are
generated during primary physical and/or chemical
treatment of wastewaters to separate oil, water, and
solids. These sludges typically come either from
gravitational units [e.g., API separators) generating
primary oil/water/solids separation sludges or
emulsion breaking units (e.g., DAF units) generating
secondary oil/water/solids separation sludges. Oil/
water/solids separator sludge also includes sludges
generated "incidentally" in units such as sumps,
sewers, and oil skimmers that are upstream of
aggressive biological treatment units. All of these
sludges are within the scope of today's new listings.
B Biological sludges or digested biomass solids
are sludges generated in aggressive biological
treatment units.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No, 213 / Friday, November 2,1990 / Rules and Regulations
'"~
operated for the primary separation of
oil, water, and solids from wastewaters.
Commenters believed intentional
generation of waste {i.e., generation in
units functionally similar to API
separators and DAFs) was the premise
of the original Envirex petition and that •
the. Agency should limit the listing to
these types of .primary ,,-^6e-&c.ijes-isting
devices. Several commenters responding.
to the 1985 and 1988 Notices of Data
Availability maintained thai >1^
Agency, until the 1985 notice, had not
provided any indication that units
(located upstream of the secondary
biological treatment unit) that
accumulated sludge incidentally (i.e., -
deposition in devices that were intended
to transport or store wastewater rather
than deposit sludge) were to be covered
by the listing. The Agency, thus, had not
provided an'opportunity for comment .on
the full scope of the listing. However,
some of the same commenters had
expressed concern in their comments on
the original listing proposal of 1980 that
the original listing proposal could
potentially apply to incidentally
generated sludges. One contmenter
maintained that the 1985 clarification
was essential to ensuring consistent
application of the original proposal.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters' contention that the original
. intent of the listing was to capture only
those primary sludge separator units
that were functionally equivalent to API
separators and DAF units. The following
quotes from the preamble to the 1980
proposal {see 45 FR 74893) illustrate that
the Agency's intent on the scope of the
primary sludge listings has been
consistent:
* * * any petroleum refinery sludge
resulting from primary and secondary oil/
water/solids separation will be comparably "
composed regardless of the type of equipment
used in the separation step.
Likewise,, the AH separator is only one of
the many equipment types which function as
a primary oil/water/solids separator (other
processes producing similar sludges include
* * * storm equalization lagoons and ballast
water-holding tanks.) ...
* * * the Agency agrees that the listings •
must be modified to reflect the hazardous
character of the wastes themselves, rather
than the type of equipment or processes
generating the waste.
• Based on comments, received since the
1980 and subsequent proposals, it •
appears that some commenters' '
understanding of when a listed ..
hazardous waste is. generated and
becomes subject to regulation has
changed. Originally, some commenters
failed to realize that the Agency •
considers sludge generation to occur •
.when oily .wastewater is treated fay
physical and/or chemical processes to
segregate oil and solids from the
wastewater. The solids formed at the
bottom.pf a sludge-generating unit are
wastes potentially subject to the RCRA
regulations. As a consequence of their
misinterpretation, some commenters
erroneously concluded that the original
proposal did not include sump sludges
and other incidentally deposited
sludges. A commenter responding to the
1988 notice acknowledged that EPA has
provided a satisfactory clarification of
which sludge-generating units would be
covered by the proposed rule.
Commenters identified a number of
"incidental" accumulators of primary
oil/ water/solids' separation sludge that
the commenters believed were
inappropriately included in the listing
scope. These included sumps, concrete
sewers, pits, pipes, and pipelines,
emulsion tanks, separation tanks and
impoundments, gravity separators,
ditches, storm-water basins, flow
equalization basins, chemical cleaning
pits, and oil skimmers as well as oil
retention units not used for the
emergency spill control. The Agency has
collected samples from all major
incidental accumulator units at a variety
of refineries and compiled analytical'
data on the sampled sludges. Analyses
of these samples demonstrate that these
sludges are similar to oil/water/solids
separation sludges from API separators
and/or DAFs at the same refinery (see
docket number F-88-PTSA-SOOO5
included in the regulatory docket for the
analytical results). This outcome,is not
surprising, inasmuch as the sludges are .
generated from the treatment of
similarly composed wastewaters
through gravity sedimentation. While
commenters expressed the belief that
units operated for different purposes
wo.uld produce sludges of different
characteristics and that the Agency .
should require and conduct specific
analyses of unintentionally (Ae.,
incidentally) generated sludges before
regulating such sludges as hazardous,
they failed to provide data to
substantiate their claims-. Furthermore,
no valid theoretical basts has been put
forth in support of the claims that the
API separator sludge and the sludges
generated in the incidental units are
dissimilar.
A comparison of the data generated
by the Agency for the sludges from the
incidental units and the API separator
sludge indicates'that both types of '
sludges are similar in composition and
contain hazardous constituents at
significant concentrations {see
document number F-88-PTSA-S0005
included in the regulatory docket). The
Agency, therefore, 'disagrees With the
commenters and is applying these
listings to the sludge-generating units
with sludge deposits that are incidental
to the primary wastewatertreatment
system regardless of the location of
these units.In the Agency's opinion all
the incidental units identified earlier in
this section and intentional units such as
API separators and DAFia used to
separate oil, water, and solids from
process wastewaters and oily cooling1' >
wastewaters physically and/or
chemically are covered by -today's rule.
The Agency, therefore, is finalizing
the proposed listings for F037 and F038
wastes that capture sludges generated in
both the incidental and intentional
sludge-generating units. The F037 listing
definition includes the sludges
generated from gravitational separation
during storage or treatment of process
wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters from petroleum refineries.
Such sludges include, at a minimum,
those generated in oil/water/solids
separators, tanks and impoundments,
ditches and other conveyances, sumps,
and stormwater units receiving dry
weather flow. The F038 listing definition
includes, at a minimum, sludges
generated in secondary pil/water/splids
separation units, such as IAF units, and
tanks or impoundments not covered in
the definition, of either F037, K048, or.
K051.
The F037 and F038 listing definitions,"
however, do, not include the following
sludges:
—The sludges- included in the hazardous
• waste listings K048 and K051; :
—The sludges generated in stormwater units
• that do not receive dry wearier flow; and
—TJie sludges generated in the aggressive
biological treatment units and units that do-.
not receive any process wastewaters or
oily cooling wastewaters that have.not,
undergone aggressive biological treatment.
The Agency believes that today's
listings and the previous listings of K043
andKOSl coverall types of oil/water/
solids separation sludges generated
using either-primary or secondary
separation in primary treatment units. In
other words, the petroleum refinery
sludges not covered either in today's
listings or the previous listings are not
included' in the intended scope of the
original listings- because they are not
similar in composition to the listed
wastes and are not generated in the
primary or secondary oil/water/solids
separation- processes {i.e., physical and
chemical separation).
. The Agency believes that the scope of
today's listing-definitions provides ah. ~
incentive to refiners to use and properly "
maintain a well-designed wastewater
treatment system, thus minimizing the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday. November 2. 1990 ./ Rules and Regulations
38374
potential generation of separation
sludges in incidental units. During
sampling site visits, the Agency noted
that at many locations the primary
wastewater treatment systems are
operated inefficiently. This increases the
quantities of sludges generated in
downstream separator ponds and
impoundments. The Agency believes .
that a wastewater treatment system
could be better maintained and operated
to (a) improve treatment efficiencies, (b)
minimize sludge quantities especially in
the incidental units, and (c) reduce the
need for potential compliance with the
RCRA-imposed minimum technology
requirements.
2. Applicability to Stormwater Retention
Basins
Numerous commenters expressed -
concern that stormwater retention
basins generally handle a high volume
. of storm or rain water run-off and a
relatively low volume of contaminated
wastewaters. These commenters
believed that these units should be >
distinguished from other primary
treatment units. Commenters expressed
the belief that the sludges generated in
these units would be different from .
those in units which typically and
frequently receive oily process
wastewaters and/or oily cooling
wastewaters. Commenters indicated
= that the use of oil skimmers in
association with these units is
necessitated by Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans
instituted by many refineries and does
not necessarily reflect an expectation
that the stormwater retention basin will
receive an oily wastewater influent. One
commenter submitted TCLP data that,
according to the commenter,
substantiated differences between
primary oil/water/solids separation
sludge and stormwater retention basin
sludge.
The Agency examined a number of
stormwater and flow equalization units
in the course of its data collection
efforts. These data were noticed on
February 11,1985 (see 50 FR 5837) and
April 13,1988 (see 53 FR 12162). The
compositional data demonstrated that
sludges from units that received dry
weather flows were similar to other
primary treatment sludges at the •"
refinery. The similarity between sludges
generated in stormwater retention units
used exclusively for stormwater flow
equalization and sludges generated in
units used for primary treatment is less
clear. Refineries generally collect the
stormwater that falls on and runs off the
surface of process areas of their
operations. The stormwater is retained
in basins for treatment and possible
discharge. Some refineries collect
stormwater in the process sewer system
during storm events and thus may s'end
some process wastewater along with
their stormwater to stormwater
retention basins. The Agency agrees
with the commenters that stormwater
units that receive process wastewaters
in this manner, and do not receive any
process wastewaters or oily cooling
wastewaters during dry weather flow,
do not routinely generate sludges that
are similar in composition to the
primary treatment sludges subject to
today's listings. Thus, for the purposes
of these listings, any stormwater unit
that receives process or oily cooling
wastewaters during non-storm events
(i.e., dry weather flow) will be
considered to be generating a listed
sludge.
One commenter submitted TCLP data
that, while lacking important total waste
compositional information, provided
some additional confirmation for the
Agency's view that units that are used
for process and/or oily cooling water
flow equalization in addition to
stormwater retention will be significant
accumulators of sludge, and that those
sludges will be similar in composition to
other primary treatment sludges
generated at the refinery. The Agency,
therefore, has concluded that sludge
generated in stormwater collection
devices that receive dry weather flows
[Le., units used for wastewater flow
equalization) are within the scope of the
listing. Those devices not receiving dry
weather flow and used exclusively for
stormwater retention are not included in
today's listings.
3. Alternative Definitions
In the 1988 proposal to list oil/water/
solids separation sludges as hazardous,
the Agency discussed the potential use
of phenolic removal efficiency and
percent oil content as criteria to
differentiate between the sludges from
primary and secondary oil/water/solids
separation and sludges generated from
biological treatment of wastewaters.
Several commenters supported the use
of phenolic removal efficiency as an
.indicator of when sludges are biological
treatment sludges. A few commenters
also supported the use of percent oil
content in combination with phenolic
removal efficiency as an appropriate
indicator to differentiate between
primary and secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludges and secondary
(biological) treatment sludges. After a
careful review of the Agency-collected
data and the public comments, the
Agency concluded that it is not feasible
to define the scope of the sludge listing
based on chemical differences between
the primary and secondary (biological)
treatment sludges. The Agency believes
that the available data are not adequate
to apply either of these parametric tests
to differentiate between secondary oil/
water/solids separation and secondary
(biological) treatment sludges.
Specifically, these tests yielded both
false negative and false positive results
at a frequency unacceptable for
regulatory decision-making (see section
I, Background above). The Agency
believes that the final listing definitions
clearly identify affected units and are
more easily implementable and
enforceable because they do not impose
additional testing and data
interpretation requirements for the
regulated community.
B. Data Adequacy
This section covers two major issues
raised by commenters: (1) Sampling
protocols, and; (2) data variability and
representativeness of the samples.
Commenters raised questions
concerning the adequacy of the
Agency's sampling procedures. They
also maintained that sludges included in
the previous listings and those proposed
for the new listings are not comparable
and equivalent in terms.of constituents
and their concentrations; hence, these
sludges are not similar to K048 and K051
wastes and cannot be classified as K048
and K051 wastes. Each of these issues is
discussed further below.
1. Sampling Protocols
Commenters raised a number of
questions regarding the sampling and
analytical procedures used to collect
sludge data in support of today's listing.
The major comment on sampling
protocols of relevance to today's listings
relates to the Agency's use of grab
samples to characterize wastewater
treatment sludges. Commenters
expressed concern that the -
concentration of sludge constituents
would vary temporally and spatially
within a sludge-generating unit
(particularly impoundments and
conveyances). Commenters felt that the
Agency's sludge sampling activity did
not reflect and adhere to the SW-646
sampling protocols.
The Agency disagrees with these
commenters. For example, when
sampling surface impoundments, the
sampling teams typically probed the unit
to determine the extent of sludge
accumulation prior to taking a set of
samples. The sludges sampled generally
reflected long-term (longer than, one
year) deposition and, thus, were
temporally significant, that is, reflective
of long-term concentrations. Also,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 /- Rules and Regulations
46375
samples were obtained from
predetermined sampling locations (i.e.,
grid approach) within the impoundment
to ensure spatial representativeness,.
thus, the Agency considered the
potential for both spatial and temporal
variability of sludge withiu ._ u,u<. aiid
designed the sampling approach to
ensure that representative samples were
obtained. Aliquoting of subsampib^,
when necessary, was performed in
accordance with the SW-846 protocols.
When surface impoundments were
sampled from the banks of the unit
(usually because the refinery refused to
allow the sampling team on the :-
impoundment), grab samples were
collected around the perimeter of the
unit, . ;
Great care also was taken to sample
incidental sludge-generation units, both
those units that serviced small portions
of the refinery and those that centrally
serviced the refinery's wastewater
treatment needs. Ditches where sludges
accumulated incidentally were sampled .
to compare with sludges intentionally
generated in separators. Surge basins
that performed varying degrees of
stormwater retention versus flow
equalization also were sampled. The
result of this extensive sampling
program was the collection of samples
from the entire spectrum of wastes
potentially subject to the listings.
In a small number of cases, grab
samplSs-were collected from a single
operating cycle of units that generated
sludges on a continuous basis. However,
when the hazardous constituent levels ,
of these wastes were examined on a dry
basis, the observed values were well
within the concentration ranges for
similar classes of sludge-generating
units and for other units at the refinery.
Therefore, the Agency believes that it
was successful in obtaining samples that
ar.e representative of the long-term
waste-generation practices of sludges
from the treatment of petroleum refining
wastewaters.
2. Data Variability and Class
Representativeness
Numerous commenters responding to
the 1980 and 1985 Federal Register
notices expressed concern that the
Agency had not provided data on large
classes of units that were subject to the
listing (e.g., stormwater and flow
equalization basins and the other
sources specifically mentioned-in the
February 11,1985, notice). To address
the commenters' concerns, the Agency
had included in the 1988 notice docket
the relevant data (see docket Dumber F-
88-PTSA-S0005 included "* *he
regulatory docket).
Commenters responding to the April •
13,1988, notice expressed.concerns
regarding the adequacy of the'Agency's
data collection effort. Commenters also
raised several new concerns. Among the
rommenters' concerns with the data .
noticed in 1988 were: ;
—Variability of constituent levels within a
given unit throughout the class of wastes,
—rWhethsr the data established
quantitatively the equivalency of the
proposed sludges to K048 and/or K051
waste listings, and
—Whether lead and chromium levels were
still of concern in any refinery sludges.
These comments are discussed below.
a. Constituent Level Variability. The
response to the above comments about
the extent of sampling and adherence to
the SW-846 sampling protocols explain
the rationale for the Agency's
conclusion that collected samples were
representative and that a
comprehensive sample collection
activity was undertaken. Similarly, the
Agency stresses that an extensive
sampling effort was completed to
illustrate the similarity between the F037
and F038 sludges, and the API separator
sludge (K051) and the DAF float (K048).
Care was taken to obtain samples from
possible sludge-generating units
servicing small portions of the refinery
as well as those centrally servicing the
refinery's wastewater treatment needs.
For example, ditches that incidentally
accumulated sludges were sampled for.
comparison with sludges intentionally
generated in separators. Surge basins
that performed varying degrees of
stormwater retention versus flow
equalization were also sampled. The
objective of this sampling program was
to determine the constituent level
variability and/or similarity in support
of the potential listings.
Considering the diverse population of
sludge-generating units and operating
conditions, it was not unexpected that
lead and chromium concentrations
varied over three orders of magnitude.
Similar variations in inorganic contents
were seen in the analytical values used
as the basis for the original API
. separator sludge listing. Likewise, API
separators sampled at different-
refineries over the past several years
also exhibited three orders of magnitude
variation in metals concentrations.
Despite this apparent inter- and intra-
facility diversity, side-by-side
comparison of API separator sludge and
primary oil/water/solids separation
sludge concentrations showed
consistent and strong similarity in terms
of the sample means, concentration
ranges, and variances (see document •
number F-88-PTSA-S0005 included in
the regulatory docket). Data obtained
during the development of Land
Disposal .Restrictions forK048 and K051
shows similar variability. Despite this
variability, most samples analyzed by
the Agency showed high concentrations
of one or more toxic constituents.23
The Agency views the strong
similarities among the characterization
results for the sludges generated in these
many types of units with varying
degrees of sludge-generating capacities .
as clear support for the premise that a
similar class of units is being addressed
in today's listings. Similarity of organic
hazardous constituent levels in the
sampled sludges further supports the
Agency's contention that all of these
sludges belong to the same category of •
primary wastewater sludges. -
b. Equivalency to K048 and K051
Listings. In 1980, Envirex petitioned the
Agency to extend the K048 and K051
listings to all similarly composed
sludges, regardless of the unit type in
which the sludges were generated. .
When the Agency proposed to list
primary and secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludges on November 12,
1980 (see 45 FR 74893), it did so to
ensure that all primary treatment
sludges would be regulated in similar
fashion. As discussed in the previous
section, the Agency believes that the
data noticed in 1988 clearly validate the
premise of the original Envirex petition.
The Agency compared the lead and
chromium levels found in the API
separator sludges and DAF floats with
those levels in wastes listed today and
concludes that the two sets of
compositional data are equivalent with
over 99 percent confidence based on the
use of a standard "t" test on the log-
normally distributed data (see document
number F-88-PTSA-S0005 included in
the regulatory docket).
c. Changes in Lead and Chromium
Levels. Several commenters responding
to the proposed rule expressed the
opinion that lead and chromium levels
have decreased in API separator sludges
since the original rulemaking.
Commenters reasoned that these
changes have resulted from the phase-
out of lead in gasoline and from the
reduced usage of chromium in cooling
water. Commenters concluded that the
Agency should reexamine the need for
the existing listings rather than adding
new ones.
In response, the Agency evaluated all
of the data noticed to date on API
23 If the'concentrations of each Appendix VIJ1'
constituent is sufficiently low, the refiner may elect
to delisl the Waste under the procedures specified in
40 CFR 260.22.
-------
46376 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday. November 2. 1990 / Rales and Regulations
separator sludges. Three groups of
analytical data were considered: the
original data collected in the mid-1970's
in support of the K051 listing, data on
API separator sludges collected in the
early 1980's and noticed in the February
11.1985 Federal Register, and additional
data collected from units sampled in
1987 and noticed in 1988. The Agency
believes that these data offer an
opportunity to examine the-.
chronological changes in sludge
composition over a period of 15 years.
First, it should be noted that the
Agency does not believe that the lead in
gasoline is the major contributor to the
lead observed in wastewater treatment
sludges. As can be seen from Table G,
average lead values have not decreased
with time in API separator sludge
(K051), rather, they have increased by at
least three fold since 1985, and by more
than eight fold since the-mid 1970's. The
Agency is uncertain as to the precise
cause of this phenomena but based on
the data the Agency concludes that the •
concentrations of lead in the sludges is
not a strong function of gasoline lead
concentrations.
TABLE G.—API SEPARATOR SLUDGE
'COMPOSITION DATA
Constituent
Lead. . _ ...
Chromium _„„._„....„....
Average concentration (mg/
kg)
Mid-1970
26
190
1985
75
370
1987
222
197
The chromium values presented in
Table G, on the other hand, suggest that
recently sampled and analyzed sludges
contain lower chromium levels than
those analyzed in the early 1980's.
However, the average 1987 chromium
levels (197 mg/kg) are virtually identical
to those measured in the mid-1970's (190
mg/kg) that warranted the original
listing of the API separator sludge.
Whatever the variability in the
chromium values, the data show the
levels remain high. Therefore, the
Agency believes that both lead and
chromium continue to be present in API
separator sludges at levels of concern,
and API separator sludges will continue
to be listed as hazardous wastes.
C. Demonstration of Hazard
Commenters from the regulated
community .generally opposed the
expansion of the K048 and K051 listings,
while the environmental and regulatory
community uniformly favored the
expansion "to reflect the hazardous
character of the wastes themselves."
Opposition to the expansion of the
listings was based on a variety of
factors that generally reflect a concern
that the Agency has not adequately
demonstrated that the wastes pose a
hazard to human health or the
environment. The commenters, however,
neglected the fact that the Agency had
already made such a determination of
hazard as required by 40 CFR 261.11 in
its original decision to list API separator
sludge (K051J and DAF float (K048) (see
46 FR 4618, January 16,1981).
Furthermore, the importance of
regulating the primary wastewater
treatment sludges as hazardous is
increased by the fact that these wastes
may be generated in surface
impoundments and land-based
conveyances, posing a threat to human
health and the environment if these
land-based units are not properly
designed or operated. This section
discusses the following four issues:
1. Hazard of qurrently listed wastes
2. Differences in management practices
3. Inadequate ground-water data for hazard
assessment
4. Establishment of pass/fail criteria
1. Hazard of Currently Listed Wastes
Several commenters believe that the
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity
characteristic data specific to the
currently listed wastes (i.e., K048 and
K051) suggest that the wastes do not
pose a hazard to human health or the
environment. In addition, commenters
reasoned that because the wastes only
occasionally exhibited a hazardous (EP
toxic) characteristic and because the
delisting process is complex and
resource intensive, the Agency should
promulgate a "properly designed" unit
as the criterion for listing of wastes.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters' contentions that the
currently listed wastes do not pose a
hazard. In 1980, the Agency finalized the
listing of K051 and K048 without
challenge to the original bases for
listing. Since 1980, the data collected by
the Agency have demonstrated not only
that lead and chromium levels are high
and have remained at similar levels, but
that the wastes also contain significant
levels of hazardous organic constituents
including benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and
chrysene. Commenters, on the other
hand, have provided no new waste
composition information that would
refute the original determination or the
more recent proposals. To the contrary,
the only compositional information
provided to the Agency has come by
way of delisting petitions submitted
under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 and data
submitted in response to the Land
Disposal Restrictions for K048 and K051.
In every instance the data show that
untreated wastes contain high levels of
toxic constituents. To date, none of the
K048 or K051 delisting petitions for
untreated wastes (which consist of more
than 35 petitions) submitted by
refineries have met the delisting criteria
because they contain significant levels "
of the Appendix VIII constituents.
In addition, the commenters claim that
leaching data do not suggest any
potential hazard to human health and
the environment. These commenters
overlooked several points relevant to
the mobility of oily wastes in the
environment. The Agency developed 40
CFR 261.21 through 261.24
characteristics to identify those wastes
that clearly pose a significant threat to
human health and the environment. The
Agency has always maintained that
wastes that do not exhibit any of the
promulgated characteristics may still be
hazardous for other reasons (e.g.,
mismanagement scenarios unaccounted
for in the TC). The Agency's leaching
test (as described in 40 CFR 261.24)
models constituent mobility in a slightly
acidic (pH at or below 5.0) aqueous
leaching environment. Agency studies
have shown that the EP test, as well as
the newly developed TCLP, tends to
underestimate the teachability of
hazardous constituents from oily
wastes.24 The potential shortcomings of
the existing tests for oily wastes and
the presence of significant levels of
hazardous constituents not covered by
the TC are major reasons why the
Agency cannot rely solely on the
characteristics to identify primary
treatment sludges as hazardous. (EPA is
continuing to investigate, however,
whether the existing tests may be
adjusted to more accurately reflect the
leaching potential of oily wastes. For
instance, in the context of its used oil
lising decision, EPA will soon notice for
public comment data on the
characteristics of oily wastes using a
modified TC protocol.)
Several commenters expressed
interest in the Agency's perspective on
the significance of leaching data for
releases of metals from oily wastes. The
Agency did develop an oily waste
extraction.procedure (OWEP) to
evaluate the EP toxic metals in
petitioned oily wastes. In response to
the commenters, the Agency reviewed
industry-submitted OWEP data on API
separator sludge (K051) and included a
2< Research Triangle Institute. Evaluation and
Modification of Method 1311 for Determining the
Release Potential of Difficult-to-FHter Waste, Final
Report, April. 1990.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 /Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 46877
report on this review in the 1985 notice
docket.*5 ..,.••
The OWEP data must be evaluated
within the context of its intended use in
the evaluation of delisting petitions for
oily wastes. In evaluating delisting ,
petitions, the Agency considers, among
other factors,, the appropriateness of a
ground-water modeling approach and
alternative disposal scenarios and
identifies a reasonable worst-case
management scenario.
The modeling approach used for
delisting generally includes a ground-
water transport scenario, incorporating
conservative, generic hydrogeologic
parameters to predict reasonable worst-
case contaminant levels at the point of
exposure (i.e., concentrations in ground
water at a hypothetical receptor well).
The use of conservative, generic
modeling parameters to determine
potential human health exposure rather
than extensive site-specific factors is
premised oh the fact that once the waste
is delisted, it will no longer be subject to
hazardous waste control. Conservative
modeling assumptions, therefore, assure
public health protection even when "the
waste may be poorly managed.
In delisting evaluations for large-
volume oily wastes, inorganic
constituent leachate levels (as
determined by the OWEP) that •
exceeded the health-based levels were
used as one of the criteria to support
decisions to deny delisting petitions.
Based on models that have been used in
these delisting evaluations, EPA
predicted the levels of hazardous
constituents in the oily waste leachate
and compared these with health-based
levels. Applying these health-based
criteria to the sludge data reported in
the ERM report cited earlier, the Agency
determined that 10 out of 11 sludges
leached either lead or chromium at
levels exceeding the compliance-point
concentrations.
The .waste composition data for API
separator sludge (K051) cited in the ERM
report are similar to the composition
data for primary oil/water/solids
separation sludges cited in the docket
for the 1988 notice (see document
number F-88-PTSA-S0005 included in
the regulatory docket). Because these
wastes are similar in composition, the
Agency believes that the hazardous
constituents in the waste proposed for
listing should, therefore, leach from the
waste and migrate to ground water in
similar fashion. Consequently, the
inference by the commenters that
leaching data suggest that the wastes
25 Multi-Participant study for establishing
Threshold Concentrations for Delisting Oil Refinery
Wastes, ERM-Southwest, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1984.
are not hazardous and would generally '•
be delisted is contradicted by the
Agency's assessment of the potential
leaching and migration of API separator
sludge-containing.hazardous.
constituents to the ground water. • •; .;
Through-the analysis of available data,
the Agency has determined that the
sludges listed today pose unreasonable
risks to human health and the
environment because of the presence of
unacceptable levels of inorganic and
organic constituents. ; .
In commenting on the hazard posed
by K048 and K051 sludges, commenters
also took issue with the inclusion of
total chromium as a constituent of
concern. Commenters asserted that the
Agency's movement away from
regulating trivalent chromium, the lack
of evidence to substantiate that the
chromium contained in the sludges was
hexavalent, and the Agency's
misrepresentation of the hazards
associated with exposure to sludges
containing 1,000 mg/kg of trivalent
chromium, were all reasons for the
Agency to reconsider the basis for the
original listings of K048 and K051.
The Agency believes that its approach
to regulating chromium-bearing wastes
is sound. While the Agency
acknowledges that trivalent chromium is
less toxic than hexavalent chromium,
trivalent chromium can be converted to
the hexavalent form under certain
plausible mismanagement conditions. .
Recent evidence suggests that the
trivalent to hexavalent chromium
conversion may occur in a number of
environmental situations (see 51 FR
26420, July 23,1986). For example,
chromium has been found to oxidize
readily in the presence of catalyst such
as manganese dioxide found in many
field soils and sediments. Moreover, it
has been shown that process-water
treatment involving chlorination (not an
uncommon practice in the refining
industry to reduce phenol levels) 112 will
effectively transform trivalent chromium
to its hexavalent form. Also, the normal
presence of residual oxidizing capacity
in treated water throughout municipal
water treatment systems is capable of
maintaining dissolved chromium in the
higher valence state (see, 50 FR 46966,
November 13,1985). Thus, if trivalent
chromium is present in high
concentrations in w.ell water,
chlorination can .result in
correspondingly high concentrations of
hexavalent chromium at the point of-
exposure (i.e., at the tap). For these
reasons the Agency elected to
promulgate TC based on hexavalent
chromium, but requires that total
qhrpmium.be measured when
performing the TCLP.
For all of the above reasons, EPA is
poncerned.with the potential for
triyajent chromium to be converted to
hexavalent chromium. Furthermore,
beyond the Agency's concerns about
trivalent chromium, a significant •.•:
possibility exists that some portion of ,
the chromium present in the sludges is in
the hexavalent form/Unfortunately, the
oily nratrix,interferes with the Agency's
analytical .methods for determining what
portion of the chromiuipii is present in the
hexavalent form. When the Agency first
proposed to modify the K048 and K051
listings in 1980, the basis of listing cited
hexavalent' chromium as one of the
constituents of concern. Commenters
have provided no data to establish that
hexavalent chromium is absent from
primary separation sludge. On the
contrary, the Agency's background
information has provided ample
justification for the assumption that
hexavalent chromium is present in
refinery wastewaters. Hexavalent
chromium is used at many refineries,
and it has been frequently observed in .
the water phase of refinery wastewater
treatment systems.
2. Differences in Management Practices
Several commenters .believed that
typical management practices for,K048 •
and K051 differ from those for the
surface impoundment sludges captured
by the new. listings. They asserted that
the sludges posed no appreciable risk
when managed in situ because the
sludges are infrequently removed from
the impoundments (see document
number F-88-PTSA-OOQ09 included in
the regulatory docket). Commenters
further claimed: (1) That the differences
in typical management practices
necessitated, consideration of factors
beyond constituent level equivalency
between wastes identified in the listing
proposal and K048 and K051, and (2)
that EPA must demonstrate that the
wastes proposed for listing can pose
risks to human health and the
environment as required under 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3) and under sections
1004(5){B) and 3001(a) of HSWA.
Commenters stated that the Agency
should consider additional parameters,
such as quantities of waste managed,
potential of constituents to leach and
migrate, and/or degradation of
hazardous constituents into nonharmful
constituents, under the plausible types '
of mismanagement. Commenters also
suggested that, even if the Agency did
not agree with the need for
consideration of additional factors to
make a listing determination, it should
-------
46378 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
consider these factors as a basis for
making a determination that the sludges,
even though generated, would not be
regulated until they were removed from
the sludge-generating units.
As discussed previously, the Agency
has considered all factors specified
under 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) and has also
considered these factors as part of,the
original K048 and K051 listing decisions.
Contrary to the commenters' contention,
the Agency believes that the sludges do
pose an appreciable risk to human
health and the environment.
The first issue raised by the
commenters was whether or hot the
Agency has realistically identified total
quantities of sludges requiring disposal
and plausible types of mismanagement
practices for the waste of interest. Some
commenters expressed the opinion that
the sludges have always been managed
in the ponds where they were generated
and that the sludges accordingly, should
be evaluated under different
mismanagement scenarios than those
used for K048 and K051.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters. The 1982 survey of refinery
waste management practices conducted
for the API, which is included in the
1985 Notice of Data Availability docket,
and RCRA section 3007 questionnaire
responses to the petroleum refinery
survey conducted by EPA clearly
indicate that primary oil/water/solids
separation sludges are generated in
significant volumes. EPA estimates that
approximately 408,000 MT/yr of F037
and F038 are generated annually from
the petroleum refining industry. Much of
this waste remains in surface
impoundments in the refinery •• : '
wastewater treatment system. On-site
landfarming and off-site land disposal
are the predominant methods of.
disposal for these wastes when they are
removed from the wastewater treatment
units. The Agency, therefore, believes
that it is entirely reasonable to consider
the types of waste management
practices to which the primary '
separation sludges are currently
subjected and as "plausible types of
mismanagement" to which these sludges
might be subjected if they were not
listed.
Turning to the question of an
exemption for surface impoundments <
that manage wastes listed in today's
rule and that are used for in situ
treatment, the Agency sees no basis for
making this distinction. The Geraghty
• and Miller report cited by the
commenters and included in the
regulatory docket as document number
F-88-PTSA-Q0009 concludes, among
other things, that "The ratings of the ten
refinery sites. . . show a moderately
high ground water contamination
potential from many sites. . . ."
Furthermore, the sites were uniformly
found to have inadequate ground-water
monitoring systems. Also, the report
states that many refinery impoundments
have been constructed in highly
permeable alluvial zone or fill materials.
In some regions of the country (e.g., the
Western Alluvial Basins), the report
concludes that leachate will move
downward without much attenuation
and that "major .endangerment problems
could arise because of the dependence
of much of .the [Western] region on the
ground water resources." The Agency
has concluded that the commenter-cited
report'provides no decisive evidence
that would lead the Agency to
reconsider its assessment that the
storage and in situ treatment of
hazardous wastes in unlined surface
impoundments may pose a significant
risk to human health and the
environment. To the contrary, the-
report's findings confirm the Agency's
previous findings and substantiate its
assessment that these wastes are likely
to be mismanaged if not listed.
3. Inadequate Ground Water Data for
Hazard Assessment
Commenters argued that the noticed
data did not establish that the wastes
posed a health hazard due to the
presence of contaminated ground water
in wells downgradient.from the units.
Commenters asserted that the Agency
should not move forward with the listing
until data were presented for comment
that substantiated impoundment
releases and corresponding
contamination of ground water at levels
that posed a risk to human health and
the environment.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters about the need to prove
that active, health-threatening ground-
water contamination is occurring before
deciding to list a waste as hazardous. To
the contrary, the criteria specified in 40
CFR 261.11(a)[3) require only that the
Agency assess potential for health-
threatening ground-water
contamination. The Agency must
evaluate the presence of hazardous
constituents in a waste and consider
specified factors such as type of waste
management, waste quantities, and
generic hydrogeologic characteristics.
The ground-water data included in the
1988 Notice of Data Availability docket
illustrate the highly mobile nature of
organic hazardous constituents
associated with the oily waste matrix.
These 'data also indicate the presence of
persistent metals such as lead and
chromium in the oily waste matrix. The
Agency also has collected additional
data (see Appendix I of the Background
Document in the docket supporting
today's rule) demonstrating that the
wastes pose a threat to human health
and the environment. This reaffirms the
Agency's determination that these
wastes are hazardous.
4. Establishment of Pass/Fail Criteria
Several commenters maintained that
the Agency had not established criteria
for what constituted a hazard for any of
the constituents in the subject wastes.
Commenters expressed an opinion that
specification of pass/fail criteria was
essential to the evaluation of the class
of refinery wastes because hazardous
constituent concentrations in several of
the wastes were below the levels that
lead the Agency to list the wastes in the
first place.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters on the need to establish
pass/fail criteria as part of the listing
process. The Agency promulgated its
listing criteria in 1980 at 40 CFR 261.11.
These criteria are based on the
requirements of section 3001 of the
statute. Using these RCRA listing
criteria, the data presented by the
Agency clearly demonstrate that the
hazardous constituents are routinely
and typically present in the wastes at
levels well in excess of the health-based
levels. The RCRA statute allows the
Agency to list wastes as hazardous even
if only one hazardous constituent is
demonstrated to be present at a
significant concentration (i.e., a level
"many times" greater than health-based
level) hi a waste. If a refinery believes
that his waste is not hazardous (i.e.,
contains low concentration of hazardous
constituents) he may petition the
Agency through the procedures specified
in 40 CFR 260.22).
D. Implementation Issues
Commenters raised a number of
concerns regarding the timing of various
regulatory requirements that would be
imposed as a consequence of listing
primary treatment sludges and the
industry's ability to comply with these
regulations. Central to the arguments of
several commenters is the premise that
continuous operation of the refinery is
only possible with continued use of
primary treatment surface
impoundments for wastewater
treatment.for a 4- to 6-year period. The
commenters further indicated that any
disruption in the wastewater treatment
systems (e.g., retrofitting of primary
treatment surface impoundments to
comply with MTRs specified on July 15,
1985) would result in shutdown of the
operation. They requested that the
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 199Q / Rules and Regulations 46379
Agency extend (1) the effective date of
listing beyond a 6-month period and (2)
the MTR compliance period for surface
impoundments beyond 4 years.
The following four major issues are
discussed in this section.
—Effective date of listing
—Water Quality impact
—New versus amended listings
—Impact of land disposal restriction
determination
1. Effective Date of Listing
A number of commehters requested
an extension of the effective date of the
listing. Several commenters were
concerned that refineries that cannot
complete closure of impoundments
containing the primary oil/water/solids
separation sludge before the effective
date of the listing would be forced to
expend considerable resources o
needlessly in subtitle C closure efforts.
Commenters reasoned that these
unnecessary costs could be avoided by
extending the effective date of the
listing, which would enable refineries to
close impoundments under the less
costly subtitle D closure requirements.
HSWA sets forth a requirement that
the effective date be no later than 6
months from the promulgation of the
new listing. A period of 6 months from
the effective date of the listing is
generally adequate time for the removal
of sludges from impoundments and for
cleanup of incidental sludge-generating
units. It also should be an adequate
amount of time for'the industry to
undertake the following corrective steps:
—"Fine tune" wastewater systems to prevent
future generation.of the sludges in
stormwater and flow equalization
impoundments.
—Implement improved operation, Inspection,
and maintenance steps as part of standard
operating procedures to guarantee that
most of the sludge would be generated in
units intended for the wastewater
treatment and not in the incidental units
identified in this preamble.
The Agency realizes that refiners
using devices other than API separators,
DAF units, and aggressive biological
treatment units may not be able to
complete all remedial activities within a
6-month period. These refineries may
have been managing potentially
hazardous wastes in an inadequate
fashion for quite some time and may
already have experienced releases of
hazardous constituents 'into soils and
ground water. Future releases at
refineries that do not use API
separators, DAF units or aggressive
biological treatment technologies have a
significant potential to pose a hazard to
human health and the environment.
Therefore ..the Agency believes that .
resources expended in ensuring the
proper closure of these units under
Subtitle C provide a necessary step
towards mitigating future impacts on
human health and the environment.
A second concern of the commenters
was that refineries choosing to continue
operation of affected surface •
impoundments that contain the wastes
listed today may not be able to retrofit
impoundments within the 4-year period
specified for the compliance with MTRs.
These commenters requested that the
Agency consider delaying the, effective
date as a means of deferring the
imposition of the MTRs,
The 4-year compliance deadline for
the MTRs is a statutory requirement and
is beyond the Agency's power to
change. Regardless of this point,
however, the Agency disagrees with the
commenters about the impact of a.4-
year MTR compliance period. The
Agency believes that refineries could
retrofit their wastewater treatment
systems by selecting one or more of the
following options:
—Operating properly designed flow
equalization tanks and segregated
stormwater units.
—Using property maintained primary oil/
water/solids separation systems.
—Converting to a more aggressive form of
biological treatment to eliminate future
generation of the listed wastes.
—Removing both the wastes in the sludge-
generating units and the underlying
contaminated soils (if present), thus,
eliminating the need for MTR compliance.
Following the application of the first
two retrofitting options, all the sludges
would be generated and deposited
upstream of affected ponds. The
selection of the third option would
totally eliminate the need for future
storage or treatment ponds/
impoundments. Similarly^ under the last
option, one-time removal of the
preexisting sludges and contaminated
soils would allow refineries to avoid the
MTR compliance costs and to perform
closure under the less-costly Subtitle D •
requirements. If none of these options
appear to be feasible, then refineries
must retrofit units within the 4-year
compliance period. For further
discussion of MTR compliance
requirements, see also section V.D.4.,
Impact of Land Disposal Restrictions
Determinations.
2, Water Quality Impacts •
Three commenters expressed concern
that the listing of primary separation
sludge would leave some refineries with
no option but to shut down affected
impoundments. Commenters were
concerned that the listing could force
refineries into NPDES nbncompliance
and result in surface water
deterioration.
As stated earlier in this preamble, the
Agency does not believe1 that surface
impoundment closure will necessarily
'lead to increases in water pollutant
discharges. Rather, the Agency believes
that conscientious upgrading and use of
a well-operated and maintained
wastewater treatment system will
eliminate the potential generation of
hazardous wastes in incidental and
downstream units. The listings will,
consequently, provide ah incentive to
the industry to improve the ability of
primary wastewater treatment systems
and secondary biological treatment
units to treat the wastewaters with
improved efficiencies. Therefore, the
Agency believes that the impact of the
listing will be to improve surface water
quality.
3. New versus Amended Listings
Numerous commenters. requested that
the Agency consider wastes subject to
the listings to be newly listed wastes, -
rather than amending the existing
listings of DAF float (K048) and API
separator sludge (KG51). Commenters'
concerns were also related to the many
additional requirements for hazardous
waste management-imposed by the
HSWA. Commenters reasoned that the
subject wastes were not generally
managed as hazardous at the present
time and, therefore, consolidation of the
listings could be erroneously construed
to imply retroactive application of the
listings. At a minimum, commenters
were concerned that the situation would
be a confusing one.
EPA agrees, in part, with the
commenters. Inasmuch as the listing
adopted today is a listing promulgated
pursuant to section 3001 of RCRA and
offered in satisfaction of the
requirements of section 3001(e)(2), the
Agency clearly will consider it to be a
new listing and is assigning the
proposed wastes new RCRA hazardous
waste numbers. This distinction
between existing wastes and newly
listed wastes eliminates confusion and
will facilitate RCRA listing compliance.
4- Impact of Land Disposal Restrictions
Determinations
Commenters responding to the'
proposed rulemaking repeatedly
expressed concern about.the potential
impact of land disposal restrictions
determinations that follow the
promulgation of a new listing. HSWA
requires tfiat the Agency make a land '
disposal prohibition determination for
newly listed hazardous wastes within 6
months of the date of listing {RCRA
-------
section 3004(g)(4). 42 U.S.C. § 6924(g)(4)).
However, the statute does not provide ,
for an automatic prohibition of the Jand
disposal of such wastes if EPA fails to
meet this statutory deadline. -
Nevertheless, the commenters presumed
that the Agency would meet the 6-month
deadline because the wastes involved in
this listing are similar in composition to
K048 and K051 for which a land disposal
restrictions determination has already
been made. Commenters raised three
issues that assume a similar
determination would be made for
primary separation sludge. , ,
^ First, some commenters contended ,
that the land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) should not apply until sludges
were removed from the generating
impoundments or incidental sludge-
generating units. These commenters
maintained that the Agency does not
consider the sludges to be generated
until they are removed from the unit and
disposed on the land.
The Agency disagrees with the .
commenters. The Agency has always
maintained that sludges are generated at
the moment of their deposition at the
bottom of a unit. The commenters have
apparently misunderstood the exclusion
from certain regulations for hazardous
sludges generated in product storage
tanks (40 CFR 261.4(c)), which does not
apply either to other waste management
units or to surface impoundments used
In any manner. Furthermore, the
commenter's belief that 40 CFR 261.4(c)
states that the sludges are not generated
Is in erron 40 CFR 28I.4(c) states that
sludges are not subject to regulation
until removed from the product storage
tanks.
Second, the commenters requested
that the Agency verify that the land •'
disposal restrictions would not apply to
sludges at the time of generation in
impoundments because the sludges had
not actually been placed upon the land.
The commenters reasoned that: (1) The
deposited wastes did not meet the'
criteria for listing until they were
removed from the bottom of the
Impoundment and (2) the land disposal
restrictions only prohibit placement of a
hazardous waste on the land, not its
formation on the land or in land-based
units.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters and again notes that the
wastes listed today are generated
through gravitational separation and/or
chemical or physical deemulsification of
oil/water/solids from refinery
wastewaters. Consistent with the K048
and K051 listings, these wastes are
considered to be generated at the
moment of deposition in the unit. Note
that deposition is defined as a condition
where there has been at least a
•: temporary cessation of lateral particle
movement (OSW Policy Directive
9441.29 (85)). When land disposal
restrictions are promulgated for these
newly identified hazardous wastes,
surface impoundments in which these
newly identified wastes are generated
must either comply with the MTRs of
3004(o)(l)(A) within four years of
promulgation of the new listing or
characteristic or must cease receiving
hazardous waste no later thfan that date.
Additional requirements imposed by the
land disposal restrictions Will be
addressed when land disposal
restrictions are promulgated for these
newly listed wastes.
The third point raised by the
commenters relates to imposition of
MTRs on surface impoundments storing
listed hazardous wastes subject to the
LDRs.,Comnienters stated that the 6-
month compliance deadline for
imposition of the MTRs would
necessitate an immediate shutdown of
the impoundments and, as a
consequence of CWA regulations,
closure of the refinery. Commenters
expressed the opinion that shutdowns
should be unnecessary, especially
because a 8-month timetable for
imposition of the MTRs would be in
direct conflict with Congressional intent
(suggested by section 3005(j)(6) of
RCRA, which allows 4 years for
impoundment retrofitting).
, The Agency believes that it is unlikely
that refinery closures would result from
a 6-month timetable for imposition.of
the MTRs. As stated previously, many
refineries will require only minor
modifications to their wastewater
treatment systems to prevent future
generation of today's wastes in any
large impoundment or,in incidental
sludge-generating units. Most other
refineries will have a broad range of
options available that could be
implemented iri this time frame to avoid
impoundment retrofitting and refinery
closure. For example, petroleum
refineries typically have huge volumes
of tank storage capacity. Refineries that
are unable to complete primary
wastewater treatment in an existing
treatment system could temporarily
convert product storage tank capacity to
storage of wastewater awaiting further
treatment until the wastewater
treatment system upgrade is completed
or until surface impoundments have
been retrofitted to comply with MTRs.
Review of RCRA section 3007
questionnaire responses suggests that
no refinery would have to convert more
than 10 percent of its crude and product
storage capacity to handle the surface
impoundment-based primary
wastewater treatment operation at a
given site. Given that refineries typically
maintain a large excess of tank capacity
over daily needs, negligible impact on
production capacity would be expected
to result from temporary conversion of -
tank capacity.
Regardless of the compliance
strategies ultimately adopted by the
various refineries, it is important to keep
in mind that today's notice does not in
any way set land disposal restrictions
for these wastes. Consequently, the
potential statutory conflict referred to
by commenters does not yet exist (i.e.,
there is not conflict between the
statutory deadlines imposed by land
disposal restrictions and minimum
technology requirements until the
Agency develops land disposal
restrictions for the wastes). Therefore,
the Agency notes the commenter's
concern and will address the issue in the
proposed determination on the land
disposal restrictions.
V. Compliance and Implementation
A. State Authority
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under RCRA sections 3008,
3013, and 7003, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering 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 that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more-stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent requirements within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. § 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in unauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted interim or final
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 19^ / Rules; and Regulations .r_^^^
*Btma^^*mMmBmmmmm^f^B^B^Kmi^^Bxafmm^f^^^K^^min*^*maaem*^Mm****m**^KW*m^i^^'V\m iiiuwmnniiL._J'"'{"-"'i''" yl .i"<;"':^'t"':r^f;^^E^r" •<•- ••.'" -.. ::.fji,:'?! i -'"*';-7~T^-^rLr-;-rrrg;
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in
authorized States fn the interim. Today's
rule is promulgated pursuant to section
3001 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921).
Therefore, this rule has been added to
Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(jj, which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated •
pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all
States, regardless of their authorization
status. States may apply for either
interim or final authorisation for the
HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
discussed in the following section.
2. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's rule in authorized States until
their programs are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State '
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or Final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g}(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1,1393 [see
§ 271.24(c)].
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires States
that have final authorization to modify
their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and, subsequently, to
submit the modification to EPA for
approval. State program modifications
must be made by July 1,1992, if only
regulatory changes are necessary or July
1,1993, if statutory changes are
necessary. These deadlines can be
extended in exceptional cases (see 40
CFR 271.21(e)(3)),
States with authorized RCRA
programs may have requirements
similar to those in today's rule. These
State regulations have not been
assessed against the Federal regulations
being promulgated today to determine
whether they meet the tests for
authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases EPA will be able to defer to the
States in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
• for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include '
standards equivalent to these standards
in their applications. However, the State
must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in 40 CFR 271.21{e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards
must include standards equivalent to
these standards in their application. 40
CFR 271.3 sets forth the requirements a
State must meet when submitting its
final authorization application.
B. Effective Date ' ,
The effective date of today's rule is
May 2,1991. As discussed abov$, since
today's rule is issued pursuant to HSWA
authority, EPA will regulate the
management of F037 and F038 until
States are authorized to regulate these" -
waste's. Thus, EPA will apply Federal
regulations to these wastes and to their
management in both authorized and
unauthorized States.
C. Section 301ONotification
Pursuant to RCRA section 3010, the
Administrator may require all persons .
who handle hazardous wastes to notify
EPA of their hazardous waste
management activities within 90 days
after the wastes are identified or listed
as hazardous. This requirement may be
applied even to those generators,
transporters, and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) that have
previously notified EPA with respect to
the management of other hazardous
wastes. The Agency has decided to
waive this notification requirement for.
persons who handle wastes that are
covered by today's listings and have
already (1) notified EPA that they
manage other hazardous wastes; and (2)
received an EPA identification number;
The Agency has waived the notification
requirement in this case because it .
believes that most, if not all, persons
who manage these wastes have already
notified EPA and received an EPA
identification number. However, any
person who generates, transports, treats,
stores, or disposes of these wastes and .
has not previously received an EPA
identification number, must obtain an
identification number pursuant to 40
CFR 262.12 to generate, transport, treat,
store, or dispose of these hazardous .
wastes by January 31,1991. , -
D. Generatdts-andTransporters .V,'/^ >
Persons that generate E037 and E038=
wastes may be required to obtain aft; ';
EPA identification number, if they .do- i.
not already have one (as discussed in ,
section V.ti above). In order tO!be;abie <
to generate or transport these wastes. ;;
after the effective date of this rule ,» ,
generators of the wastes listed today .
will be subject to the generator : .
requirements set forth in 40 CFFi 262V '
These requirements include standards •
for hazardous waste determination {4GM
CFR 262.11), compliance with the r
manifest (4tt CFR 262.20 to 262.23),
pretransport procedures {40 CFR 262.30
to 262.34), generator accumulation (40
CFR 262.34), reeordkeeping and
reporting (40 CFR 262.4O to 262.44), and
import/export procedures (40 CFR '
262.50 to 262.80). It should be noted that
the generator accumulation provisions
of 40 CFR 262.34 allow generators to
accumulate hazardous wastes without
obtaining interim status or a permit .only
in units that are container storage units
or tank systems; the regulations also
place a limit on the maximum amount of
time that wastes can be accumulated in
these units. If these wastes are managed
in surface impoundments or other units
that are not tank systems or containers,
.these units are subject to the permitting
requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 265, and
the generator is required to obtain
interim status and seek a permit (or
modify interim status or a permit, as
appropriate). Persons who transport
F037 and F038 wastes will be required to
obtain an EPA identification number as
described above and will be subject .to
the transporter requirements set forth in
40 CFR 263.
E. Facilities Subject to Permitting
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA
Permit Requirements
Facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of F037 and F038, but have not received
a permit pursuant to section 3005 of
RCRA and are-mot currently operating
pursuant to interim status, might be
eligible for interim status under HSWA
(see section 3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) of RCRA,
as amended). In order to operate
pursuant to interim status, eligible
facilities will be required to provide any
required notice under section 3O10 by,
and to submit a Part A permit
application not later than May 2,1931..
Such facilities are subject to regulation
under 40 CFR 265 until a permit is
issued. . .
In addition, under section 3005(e)(3),
not later than May;4,1992 land -disposal
facilities qualifying for interim status
under section .3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) also mast
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55.--No. 213 / Friday, November 2. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
submit a PartB permit application and
certify that the facility is in compliance
with all applicable ground-water
monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements. If the facility fails to •'
submit these certifications and a permit
application, interim status will terminate
on May 4,1992. • . . - . .
2. Interim Status Facilities ;
Pursuant to 40 GFR 270.72(a)(i), all ,
existing hazardous waste management
facilities (as defined in 40 GFR 270.2)
that treat, store, or dispose of F037 and
F038 and are currently operating
pursuant to interim status under section
3005(e) of RCRA must file an amended
Part A permit application with EPA no
later than May 2,1991. By doing this, the
facility may continue managing the
newly listed wastes. If the facility fails
to file an amended Part A application by
May 2,1991, the facility will not receive
Interim status for management of the
newly listed wastes, and may not
manage F037 or F038 until the facility
receives either a permit or a change in
Interim status allowing such activity [40
CFR 270.10{g)).
3. Permitted Facilities
Under regulations promulgated by
EPA on September 28,1988, (see 53 FR
37912), a hazardous waste management.
facility that has received a permit
pursuant to section 3005 of RCRA and is
"in existence" as a hazardous waste
facility for the newly listed wastes, may
be eligible to continue managing the
new wastes under 40 CFR 270.42(g)
while steps necessary to ob'tain a permit
modificatipn to allow the facility to
manage the wastes are taken. To
' continue to manage the newly listed .
F037 and F038 Wastes, eligible facilities
must be In compliance with 40 GFR 265
requirements with respect to ..
management of the newly listed wastes
and submit a Class 1 modification
request no later than May 2,1991. This
modification is essentially a notification
to the Agency that the facility is •
handling the waste. As part of the
procedure, the permittee must also
notify the public within.90 days of
submittal to the Agency. ,
The permittee must then submit a •
. Class 2 or 3 permit modification to the
Agency by ,180 days after the effective *
date of the listing. A Class, 2
modification is required if the newly
listed wastes will be managed in
existing permitted units or in newly .
regulated tank or container units and
will not require additional or different
management practices than those
authorized In the permit A Class 2
modification requires public notice by
.the facility owner of the modification
request, a 80 day public comment','.
period, and an informal meeting
between the owner and the public
Within the 60 day period. The Class 2
process includes a "default provision,"
which provides that if the Agency does
not reach a decision within 120 days, the
modification is automatically authorized
for 180 days. If the Agency does not
reach a decision by the end of that
period, the modification is permanently
authorized.
A Class 3 modification is required if
management of the newly listed wastes
requires additional or different
management practices than those
authorized in the permit or if newly
regulated landbased units are involved.
The-initial public notification and public
meeting requirements are the same as
for Class 2 modifications. However,
after the end of the 60 day public
comment period, the Agency will
develop a draft permit modification,
open a public comment period of 45
days, and hold a public hearing if
requested. There is no default provision
for Class 3 modifications.
Under 40 CFR 270.42(g)(l)(v), for
newly regulated land disposal units,
permitted facilities must certify that the
.facility is in compliance with all
applicable 40 CFR 265 ground-water
monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements no later than May 4,1992.
If the facility fails to submit these
certifications, authority to manage the
newly listed wastes under 40 CFR
270.42(g) will terminate on that date.
F. Compliance Options for Specific
Units
Facilities that treat, store, or dispose
F037 and F038 wastes will have several
options for complying with the RCRA
regulatory requirements. Facilities may
alter existing wastewater treatment
systems to limit the units in which these
wastes will be generated and managed
arid, thereby, may control which units
will be subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulation. For example, wastewater
treatment surface impoundments, which
are subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulation, could be replaced with
wastewater treatment tanks, which are
excluded from regulation as long as the
provisions under 40 CFR 264.1{g)(6) and
265.1(c)(10) are met. Alternatively,
facilities may cease managing these
wastes in units that would be subject to
regulation (such as surface
impoundments) prior to the effective
date of today's rule in order to avoid the
application of RCRA permitting
standards. These options are discussed
in more detail in the following sections.
1. Tank-Systems
Because the .wastes listed today are
generated from the treatment of
wastewaters, it is likely that, in the
future, much of the waste will be
generated in tanks that are part of
wastewater treatment systems.1 Under 40
CFR 264.1(g)(6) and 265.1(o)(10), tanks
and tank systems that meet the
definition of wastewater treatment unit
in 40 CFR 260.10' are not subject to the
permitting and interim status
requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 265. The
wastewater treatment unit definition
includes devices th^t (1) are part of a
wastewater treatment facility that is
subject to section 402 or 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act; and (2) treat or store
an influent wastewater that is a
hazardous waste,-or that generate and
accumulate a wastewater, treatment
sludge that is a hazardous waste, or that
treat or store a wastewater treatment
sludge which is a hazardous waste; (3)
meet the definition of tank or tank
system in 40 CFR 260.10 (see 53 FR
34079). Therefore, all tanks and tank
systems that meet the wastewater
treatment unit definition, and in which
the newly listed wastes are generated,.
accumulated, treated, or stored, are
exempt from the regulatory
requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 265.
Because the definition of tank system.
includes all connected ancillary
equipment as defined in 40 CFR 260.10,
which includes piping, fittings, flanges,
valves, and pumps; any such equipment
that is part of an exempt wastewater
treatment unit in which the newly listed
wastes are generated, accumulated,
treated, or stored is also excluded from
the requirements of 40 CFR 264 arid 265.
(See 53 FR 34079 for further discussion
of the scope of the exemption.)
However, Jhe listed sludges, once
removed from the excluded units in
which they are generated, are subject to
all applicable Subtitle C regulations.
It should also be noted that wastes
being generated at treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities may qualify for the
permit exemption under 40 CFR 262.34 ,
(see discussion in section C.I above).
This exemption applies only to tank and
container units for specified periods of
time.
Any tanks or tank systems that
manage the newly listed wastes but that
do not meet the wastewater treatment
unit definition or other permit exemption
will be subject to the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 265,
including requirements for secondary
containment and leak detection, as well
as closure and financial responsibility.
-------
. Federal Register /Vol.: 55. No. 213 / Friday. November.2. 1990 / Rules; ami Regulations ..
46383
2. Surface Impoundments
'Because the wastes listed today are
generated from the treatment of
wastewaters, it is likely that those
sludges not generated in exempt
wastewater treatment units will be
generated in surface impoundments that-
are part of wastewater treatment
systems. Because surface impoundments
are not excluded from regulation under
the wastewater treatment unit
exemption, and in addition are "land
disposal" units for purposes of the land
disposal restrictions (under section
3004(k), all surface impoundments are .
land disposal), the regulatory status of
these units for permitting purposes is
dependent on several factors. Surface
impoundments generating F037 and F038
wastes are subject to the same
regulations applicable to surface
impoundments managing RCRA
hazardous wastes in any other manner.-
The factors which determine the surface
impoundment regulatory status for
permitting purposes and their
compliance options are discussed
below.
Facilities with impoundments in
which F037 and F038 wastes currently
are generated and/or disposed may
cease operation of the units prior to the
effective date of today's listings. If all
sludges containing F037 and F038 are
removed from the surface
impoundments prior to the effective date
of today's listing, the units will not be
subject to RCRA Subtitle C. If the
removed sludges are not actively
managed after the effective date of
today's listing, they will also not be -
subject to Subtitle C. If operation of
these units ceases prior to the effective
date, these inactive units would not be
subject to regulation under 40 CFR,264-
or 265. However, any sludges that meet
the listing descriptions contained in the
inactive units, and that are actively
managed after the effective date would
be subject to regulation. For example, if
the sludges were excavated for
treatment and disposed of elsewhere,
they would be regulated as hazardous
wastes at the time of excavation and
would be required to be managed at a
RCRA subtitle C facility. R should be
noted that any inactive units that are .
located at facilities otherwise subject to
RCRA interim status or- permitting' are
considered to be solid' waste . . •
management units subject to corrective
action requirements under sections
3008(h) and 3004(u) of RCRA (see
corrective action discussion in section
III.D.).
However, facilities with surface •
impoundments in which F037 and F038 .
wastes have been generated and/or
managed may also choose to redesign or
reconfigure the existing wastewater
treatment system such that F037 and .
F038 wastes are no longer generated or
, rn p>.. jcd in some or all units of the
treatment train after the effective date
of this listing. Under this scenario, there
may be surface impoundments
containing F037 and F038 sludges which
were deposited prior to -the effective
date, and which cease to receive
hazardous wastes after the effective
date. If ,(1) any sludge or waste" that
meets the description of F037 or F038
remains in the surface impoundment on
the effective date of today's listings,'and
(2) the unit does not receive or generate
any other hazardous wastes on or after
•the effective date, and (3) the
impoundment is the final disposal site
•• for the wastes, then the impoundment is
not subject to RCRA Subtitle C. The
Agency does.not view one time removal'
of waste as part of a closure as changing
the status of the unit, as long as there .;
has not been ongoing management of
-ihe waste in the impoundment. Removal
of waste in the context of a closure
provides human health and
environmental benefits since'it •
'eliminates potential sources of ground
water pollution. This approach is
consistent with current operational
'procedures for landfills under identical
circumstances with respect to newly
regulated TC wastes. -
A unit not receiving hazardous wastes:
may, However, generate hazardous
.wastes. For example, even if the unit
containing the newly listed sludge is not
considered to be actively managing the
sludge,,if any influent to the unit,
including that which is nonhazardous,
causes that sludge to be scoured from
the unit, any effluent from the unit
would be considered hazardous,
because the'.'mixture rule" would be
applicable. Thus, any surface .
impoundment receiving that hazardous
effluent would be subject to the Subtitle
- C management standards and would
need to be under interim status or obtain
a permit.
Facilities with units in which F037 and
F038 wastes are generated and/or :
managed after the effective date of the
listings may continue to use these units
to manage F037 and FQ38 wastes if all -.
applicable RCRA Subtitle C
requirements are'satisfied. These-
facilities will be required to obtain :
interim status and apply for a permit (or
modify interim status or a permit, if
•appropriate) in accordance with the •
compliance dates discussed in section- •
IV.B, above. The units will b'e subject to
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR1 :
264 and 265 as o£the effective date of •'-.•
the. listing. .= ....•'.. . '...:. •••:
With regard to the land disposal -
restrictions (LDR), treatment or storage
in a land based unit is considered land
disposal arrd potentially; subject to LDR
prohibitions..The key to LDR '.V.
applicability is whether there has been
placement of the hazardous waste into .a,
land-based unit after the effective date "••
of the LDR regulations. :-•••••
3. Other Units '
: Units in which F037 and F038 are •
generated-or managed will be .subject to
all applicable requirements of 40. CFR .
264. and 265, unless the unit is excluded ..
from such permitting by other provisions
such as the wastewater treatment tank.
exclusions (40 CFR 2644(g)(6) and. ,. .
265.1(c)(10)j, and the product storage
tank exclusion (40 CFR 261,4(c)).
Examples of units to which these
exclusion's could never apply include
landfills, .land treatment units; waste
1 piles; incinerators, and any other , ,
miscellaneous units in which these. , ;. ,;
wastes irtay.be generated or managed. ; ;
4.. Closure • . .'•. ;';•.•' -
All units; in which P037 and F038
wastes;are treated, stored, or disposed , •-.
after the effective date of this regulation,
that are not excluded frpm the •;-. • :••
requirements of-40 CFR 264 and 265> are-,;
subject to both the.general closure and
post-closure requirements, of Subpart G..,
• and the unit-specific closure -• --••• -•>'-'.'.:
.requirements set forth .in the applicable.
unit technical standards Subpart.of 40 '
CFR 264 or 265. Additionally, EPA • •
' recently promulgated a final rule, that-,,
allows, under limited circumstances, ,, ..
regulated landfills, surface
impoundments, or land-treatment units.".
to cease managing hazardous waste but
to delay Subtitle C closure to allow the:
unit to continue to manage, non- .:.', .
hazardous waste for a period of time-
prior to closure of the unit (see 54'FR • ;'•.,
33376, August 14,1989). Units for which
closure is delayed continue to be-subject,
to all applicable 40 CFR 264 and 265 .
requirements. Dates and procedures for
suteittalof necessary demonstrations,
permit applications^and.revised- ,, .,- „. ^
applications are detaileoMn 40 CFR' ~ :, -
264.113(q) through (e) and 265-.113'(t3).:
. through.(e).,., • ,;.••',.-• ..•••: ...
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis > 4, / ;"
Pursuatirto Executive. Order. 12291,
the Agency Has determined that today?s ,
rule may eonstitute.a "major regulation"
•since it could result in an annual cost to •••
the economy in excess of $100 million, '
Consequently, the Agency has ;" l: '
., conducted a-regulatory impact analysis ;
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55. No- 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(KIAJ in scpport of today's rule. The
complete RIA document, Regukdory
Impact Aaalysis foe the Listing of
Peinx&y and Secondary Oil/Water/
Solid Sepamtt'oa Sludges from the
JteotmBni ofPetmletan Refinery
Wastewalars fliereaftec, "RIA
DocnnaeafJ, is available for review in
&e public docket fee today's rale, and
also W*B jss&mitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review as
required by E.0.12291. EPA's response
to OMB's views is available in the
docket supporting today's rale.
This •section of the preamble
summarizes the RIA in three parts. The
first part provides an overview of the
U.S. petroleum refining industry and
identifies and profiles the affected
management practices, estimated sludge
quantities, number of refineries, and
expected subtitle C compliance
scenarios for affepted refineries. The
second part provides an overview of
estimated compliance costs. Including
general .methods employed, expected
national economic impacts, and direct
industry impacts. The third part
illustrates the types of human health
and ecological hazards likely to be
associated with these separation
sludges under baseline management
practices and typical petroleum refinery
emirontaaoial settings. It also provides
results from EPA's -effort to quantify the
major-baseline -damages and regulatory
benefits.
A Industry Overview and Profile df
Affected Facilities
l.The U-S. Petroleum Refining Industry
At the beginning of 1989 {the base
year for this analysis), there were 204
operating pelroleuia .refineries in the
Untied Stales with a combined'capacity
of 15.7 million barrels per calendar day
(BPCD) of .crude oil distillation capacity.
Following « 5-year period of contraction
fraiaaa historical peak of 324 refineries
and 1O8 million BPCD of capacity at the
end «f 1930, die industry has teen
relatively stable, with moderately
JocreasJEg capacity since 1985. As an
industry, petroleum refining is
distributed widely across the country.
with at least one installation in each of
35 states, and 12 states having six or
more refineries.28 The top three states^
Louisiana wltii 22, California with 32,
and Texas with 34—doismate.
iepfleseauing43 percent of ali refineries
aad 37 percent of US. capacity.
MUnfe«9ottren«Mse noted, general refinery and
petroleum *slfcUc» we ft«n the US. Department of
Cocj£y. A?*>ofoiM» Supply Annual ISesitAay MSS).
2. Profile of Affected Refineries
As discussed, today's rale would
require ail primary and •secondary oil/
water/solids separation sludges
generated in treatment of process
waste waters and oily cooling
wastewaters from petroleum refineries
to be managed as hazardous waste .
under RCRA Subtitle C regulations.
As background for rule development
as well .as for the regulatory, impact
analysis, 4he Agency conducted a
detailed evaluation of refinery
wastewater treatment practices, uait
processes, and system configurations to
develop an understanding of pond types
and sizes, sludge characteristics and
generation rates, and current baseline
sludge management practices. The
principal source of empirical
information for these evaluations was
the Agency's 1984 (and subsequent
follow-up} mail survey of the refining
industry which provided 1983 data on a
total of 182 refineries. Using current U.S.
Department of Energy data, individual
refining capacities were updated and
closed ikcQifles were deleted from the
original data base. After these changes,
the Agency had data on 167 refineries.,
which represents 82 percent of the
operating refineries and over 94 percent
of operating crude distillation capacity
as of the beginning of 1989.
, Based on this data and evaluation of
individual refinery wastewater system
flowsheets, the Agency estimates that
almost 90 percent of the 204 operating
U.S. refineries, or 182 refineries,
generated atleast some oil/water/solids
•separation sludge from primary
wastewater treatment in 1989. These
affected refineries vary enormously in
size and complexity, from iess than 5,000
to more that 400,000 BPCD of crude oil
processing capacity.
Many of 3he sludges subject to today's
rule, however, are also hazardous
wastes under the Toxicity
Characteristics (TCJ rate which was
promulgated on Match 29,1990. In
addition to the sludges, oily
wastewaters at a majority of petroleum
refineries are also'expected to be TC
.hazardous .wastes due to benzene
concentrations. Refineries where either
the sludges or waetewatera or both
would be captured by the TC rule will
need to modify their wastewater
treatment systems to achieve
compliance with RCRA. Xbese
modifications, which typically include
constructing additional wastewater
treatment tanks and bringing surface
impoundments into compliance, are very
similar to modifications that would
otherwise be needed for today's rule.
Therefore, the prior promulgation of the
TC rule substantially reduces the impact
attributable to today's rule.
Based on EPA Toxicity
Characteristics Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) data for petroleum refinery
wastes, die Agency estimates that about
84 percent of refineries {about ISO,
, termed "Croup A") have wastewaters -
and/or sludges that exceed the new TC
regulatory level for benzene. The
remaining 16 percent of refineries {2.9
refineries, termed "Group B") that
generate oil/water/solids separation
sludges ace estimated to be unaffected
by the TC rule. Similar to fee
compliance response for the TC rule,
these Group B facilities will need to
modify their wastewater teeatment
systems by bringing surface
impoundments into compliance and
constructing wastewater treatment
tanks. Extrapolating from the mail
•survey data, EPA estimates that these 29
refineries generate about 48,000 metric
tons per year of primary treatment
sludges, utilizing approximately 65
unlined surface impoundments with a
combined surface area of 225 acres
nationwide, subject to today's listing.
These Impoundments are also estimated
to contain 430,000 metric tons of
accumulated sludges.
Although the TC rule accounts for
most of the compliance activities at
Croup A facilities, these refineries may
still generate, after completion of
wastewater treatment system
modifications, non-TC sludges that are
subject to today's rule. Although the
wastewaters are characteristic
hazardous wastes under the TC rule, a
substantial but highly uncertain portion
of the oily sludges generated from .these
waste waters may not test TC
hazardous using the standard TCLP
laboratory procedures {or reasons
discussed above. Because the Agency
does not have adequate data on the
amount of sludge that would be
captured by fee TC rule after TC rule
compliance modifications at the 153
Group A refineries, EPA bounded the
impact estimates by assuming two
scenarios; flj 30 percent of the sludges
are not captured by TC, and; {2} 70
percent of these sludges are not
captured by TC. This results in a range
of 108,000 to 252,000 metric tons at
Group A refineries estimated to be
affected by today's listing. Adding the
48,000 metric Ions from Group B
facilities .gives a combined range of
sludge quantities affected by today's
rule of 156,000 metric tons for the 30
percent scenario and 301X000 metric tons
for the 70 percent scenario.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55; No. 213 /Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations,
46385
3. Baseline Waste Manaqement
Practices and Assumed Compliance
Scenarios
Sludges subject to today's listing can
be deposited at virtually any point in the
oily wastewater collection ai,., on/
water/solids separation system
upstream or prior to aggressive
biological treatment units. Howevei, ihe
principal sources of such sludge
generation and accumulation will
include a variety of small or large ponds
and, to a lesser extent, flow equalization
basins or non-regulated primary
treatment tanks located at various
points in typical refinery wastewater .
flow system configurations.
Characteristic pond types include:
• stormwater runoff retention ponds
that are also used for primary treatment;
« flow equalization ponds upstream
of primary treatment units (API
separator or dissolved air flotation
(DAF) units); and
• wastewater treatment ponds
downstream of, or used instead of,
secondary oil/water/solids separation,
but before biological treatment, or
before offsite discharge in the absence
of biological treatment.
Current Sludge Management Practices.
The bulk of the sludges subject to
today's listing have historically been
deposited and stored in unlined ponds.
According to the EPA survey data, about
30 percent of the refineries had
conducted periodic clean-out of at least
some of their sludge generating ponds as
of 1983. However, most of the ponds in
the survey had not been dredged up to
1983, and thus were serving as indefinite
sludge accumulation and storage
impoundments. As these ponds continue
to accumulate solids, it is likely that
many more would eventually require
sludge clean-out in order to operate
adequately in a primary wastewater
treatment capacity. Historically,
. dredged primary sludge has been
disposed in landfill or land treatment
units, either on-site or off-site, primarily
under unregulated or State-regulated
Subtitle D conditions. A few states, such
as California, may be treating some of
these sludges as Subtitle C hazardous
wastes when removed from primary
treatment ponds, although this was not
accounted for in the present cost
assessment due to lack of specific data.
Regulatory compliance scenarios.
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, oil/water/
solids separation sludges can no longer
be generated or managed in unlined
surface impoundments. As a result,
refineries with non-compliance sludge
ponds would be required to alter current
waste generation and management
practices in two manners:
(1) To reconfigure oily wastewater
treatment systems to eliminate the use
of unlined surface impoundments ifor.
primary or secondary oil/water/solids•.;.•
separation; and , •'••'.•
(2) To retrofit, close, or otherwise
.convert existing primary sludge
impoundments to other uses, under
various possible options.
For regulatory compliance purposes,
the Agency anticipates that oily
wastewater treatment systems at
affected refineries will be redesigned to
capture fill oil/water/solids separation
sludges in tank or basin units, including
the possible use of additional
mechanical separation equipment.
Although some small ponds may be
excavated and retrofitted as settling
basins with liners meeting Subtitle C
specifications, this will probably be the
exception. ..
Therefore, for cost estimating
purposes, the Agency assumed the
refinery wastewater redesign strategy
will typically involve: (1) Construction
of flow equalization tanks or basins to
improve the performance of existing
mechanical sludge separation
equipment; (2) the construction of new
DAF flotation devices for oil removal;
and (3) the separation of stormwater
runoff ponds from oily wastewater
sources to eliminate their use as primary
oily-sludge settling ponds: This
engineering design approach was
applied systematically to a sample of 24
Group B refineries in EPA's refinery
database assumed not affected by the
TC rule to determine equipment needs .
and sizing as a basis for estimating the
capital and operating costs of
wastewater treatment system
modifications. •
In addition to wastewater treatment
system modifications and new sludge
management requirements, compliance
with Subtitle C also will require that
existing impoundments containing these
sludges be closed or otherwise brought
into compliance with current regulations
to prevent or control hazardous
releases. For purposes of estimating.'
compliance costs the Agency assumed
that, by the effective date of this listing,
all refineries will have responded in one
of three ways as possible compliance
strategy options for managing existing
oil/water/solids separation ponds:
(1) Dredging listed sludges from pond
storage areas prior to the effective date ;
of the rule and disposing them as
Subtitle D wastes. Pond sites would then
be converted to another use or left idle.
This is the minimum cost compliance
option considered in this regulatory ' '
impact assessment. . .;
(2) Closing the pond as a Subtitle C..
land unit. Pond sludge is first solidified
•in situ with fly ash. The impoundment is
then filled to grade with native soil, and
an EPA-recommended cover, consisting
of a drainage system* a synthetic ;:
membrane, and two feet of compacted
clay, is added. Groundwater monitoring
and post-closure care are provided. This
is an intermediate cost option. ;
(3) "Clean closure," in which the . . -"
sludge and two feet of underlying soil ;
are dredged arid disposed as a Subtitle •
C hazardous waste. The Agency
assumed, for present purposes-, that this
disposal Would occur prior to
implementation of land disposal
restrictions for this sludge. Soil analysis
and grouridwater monitoring are
provided during the closure period.
Closed pond areas are convertible, to . •
other impoundment uses or other
nonwater system uses. This is the high
cost option for purposes of this ' .
assessment.
The Agency estimated compliance
costs for all three options, recognizing
that individual site conditions and
company compliance policies will
underlie choices at individual refineries.
•However, it should be noted that Option
1 (dredge and dispose as Subtitle D ,
waste prior to effective date of listing)
could engender future removal or
damage cost liabilities, either on-site or
off-site, where local disposal conditions
allow contaminant migration. Possible
additional costs'of this type have'not
been included under Option 1. "
Oil/water/solid separation sludges
generated after wastewater systeni
modifications, both in response to this :
rule and the TC rule, will.be subject to
today's listing if not captured by the TC
rule. For present cost estimation • . '.
purposes, EPA is expecting the listed
sludge to be subject to the same land
disposal restrictions as other refinery
sludges under EPA's "FirstThirds Rule"
(53 FR 31138) and "Third TJhirds Rule"
(55 FR 22520). Sludge incineration and
solvent extraction in Subtitle C
permitted units are the standard "best
demonstrated available technologies".
(BOAT) under these restrictions..: • •
Although incineration was, investigated-
in most detail, due to the recent, .
promulgation of solvent extraction as an
acceptable option, the Agency ajso .
conducted a less extensive evaluation pf
solvent extraction and oil recovery as
the more likely choice by industry. .
Other state-of-the-art recycling and .-.--.
waste minimization technologies as ••••
alternatives to Subtitle C incineration -.'.
were akb investigated but not . :
.specifically posted. Hie results; of this , ;
analysis are summarized mthe:RfA; \; '•
document;" ' . . .-.' . ••;••• r
-------
Federal Register /. Vol.' 55, fJo. 213/Friday,November 2, 199Q /RulesandRegulations
3. Economic Costs and Impacts
Based bn individual refinery
vrastewater system flowsheets and EPA
engineering cost functions for basic 'unit
processes, the Agency estimated
wraelTne and SttbtiUe C Tegnlalory.
compliance costs for 24 randomly-
chosen refmerieo in the EPA Survey
database likely to be subject to ftis
sludge listing but not to the TC rule
(Group B refineries). Tbiee compliance
scenarios, following the descriptions
outlined in the previous section, •vrere
simulated to account for possible
variations fa company decisions
regardkg initial impoundment closure or
conversion options. Capital costs were
calculated for wastewater treatment
system modifications, pond closure
(including sludge clean-out, landfill
closure or clean closure), and {for
Options 1 and 3 only} disposal of initial
cleanout sludge. Operating and
maintenance costs for the new
wastewaler treatment system
Installations and annual cost of .sludge
removal, treatment, and disposal for
future sludge generation were the other
principal costs estimated. Engineering
assumptions for waste management
involved on-site sludge dewatering and
solvent extraction followed by cement
stabilization of sludge residues as the
principal treatment technology, followed
by off-site land disposal in Subtitle C
commercial facilities. Qn-site sludge
treatment and off-^site disposal was
sized on the basis of total refinery
sludge generation including previously
listed, 1C, and newly h'sted Subtitle C
sludges.
In addition to total compliance costs
for the Group B refineries, EPA also
estimated treatment and disposal costs
for the 30 to 70 percent of non-TC
sludges generated at a large sample of
over 100 Group A [TC-affected}
refineries, using the same BDAT waste
management assumptions as for Group
B.
All costs were extrapolated from the
EPA data-base to the total universe of
operating ILS. .refineries using relative
refinery capacity as the basis for
extrapolation.
1. Nationwide Economic Costs *•
Table H summarizes fhe total national
costs of today's sludge'listing for the
three alternative impoundment closure
options studied by the Agency. National
costs were extrapolated upwards from
the Agency's sample data base of
individual facility cost estimates, based
on the data base coverage of 34% of
total U.S. refinery capacity. Compliance
costs in Table H represent total resource
or social costs of this regulation.
measured before any business expense
tax write oils available to affected
companies. Capital investment costs asre
anoualized here over a 20-year lifetime
at a real discount rate of 3.0 percent.
As seen in Table H, &e Agency
estimates compliance costs for initial
investment at Group B Befineries to
range between $42 and ,$407 million, and
total annualized costs for all refineries
to be in the range of $57 to $131 million"
per year, depending ;on company
decisions relating to pond closure
options and percent of affected future,
sludge at Group A s«fineries attributed
to this listing rule rather than die TC
rule. Pond .closure options have the
dominant influence on total initial
investment costs. The total annual cost
estimates, however, are more influenced
by ifae amount of future sludge "which is
or is not captured by the TC rale.
TABLE H.—TOTAL NATIOMAL COMPLIANCE COSTS, BY POND CLOSURE OPTION
fDoHars in •millions!
Option 1
Op8on2
Option 3
CnplM Cute ..
2. Anneal O & M '
3. Annual Sludge Cbpo«I«
3O% non-TC sludjes
70% •oo-TCskitfsM -
Total annualan«l
$29
185 _..
$29
231
147
$42 _._
53 „
1 „
$214
$407
1$27
I
S3 _
53
1O2
53 ...
102
ssr
$108
$72 „_
$121
•$81
$939
VKtiSS1* ^•^S'fS?3 U"3^1^ by the TC flule. Capifefl costs atmoalized over 20 years at 3 percent.
1 Includes flon-TC «(udge« atrefinerias both tmaffected and defied by the TC RiHa '
Other Waste lAoaagemeat Options,
The casts presented here for annual
future sludge disposal are based on die
assumption that canpanies will choose-
to meet kod disposal restrictions
'regulatiom by treating tbe oewfy listed
wastes by solvent extraction anriead of
induration, Generally, tie Agency's
cost ewhiarions indicate that
incineration would be a slightly higher
cost option. Solvent extraction recycles
recovered oil back to the Befiaery for
reprocessing at an estimated rate of
about one barrel of oil per metric toa of
sludge. Other waste mimmizatioa ©r
recydipg options, not addressed in this
analysis due to the site specific natee
of these options, could also reduce ihs
cost of die rule. Examples of such
options might include reducing oily
waste inflow to the oily w.astewater
treatment system by waste segregation,
using efficient over design to manage
process upsets, incoiparating tetter
operating practices such as spiil
prevention and proper materials
handling, and recycling sludge to the
oolang oven (potentially available at
about one 'quarter of the.reSneries).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Potential Corrective Action Costs.
The Agency did not include potential
corrective action costs for on-site solid
waste management units (under Section
3004(u) of RCRA) within the scope of the
RIA for today's rule. The Cor. •'!. „
Action Rule itself is still under
development and methods and
assumptions for assessing costs arc-
highly uncertain. The Agency's best
present estimate is that, as an upper
bound, approximately 9 to 12 refineries
would be likely to become subject to
corrective action as a direct
consequence of this listing rule, with a
combined total annual cost of about $4
million to $22 million per year.
This estimate is based on the
observation that 60 to 70 percent of U.S.
refineries are already subject to
corrective action based on current
Subtitle C on-site management
permitting data, and assumes that only
"Group B" refineries could be newly
subject to corrective action as a
consequence of this listing rule. It also
assumes that all 9 to 12 refineries would
chose to manage the newly listed sludge
on-site (requiring a new permit and
hence triggering Section 3004(u)). -Unit
costs of facility-wide corrective action
of $400 thousand to $1.8 million per year
per refinery (a provisional estimate from
the draft Corrective Action RIA) 87 were
used to derive the $4 to $22 million per
year total national cost estimate for the
9 to 12 refineries.
2. Industry Impacts
As a principal measure of this rule's
impact on-individual refinery
competitiveness,, the Agency compared
annual incremental compliance costs to
annual product revenue for each of the
149 refineries in EPA's database that
generate sludges of the type subject to
today's rule. Product revenue was
calculated using individual facility
product line proportions from the 1983
survey, together with 1989 reported U.S.
average refinery-level product prices,
and scaling each refinery's total
production to a normalized 1989 refinery
utilization rate of 86 percent of its
reported crude oil refining capacity.
For purposes of evaluating annual
compliance costs as a percent of annual
sales (cost/sales ratio), the Agency
recomputed compliance costs on an
after-tax basis, allowing for private
company cost savings attributable to
corporate tax deductions for pollution
control capital depreciation and
operating expenses. In reformulating
27 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Proposed Ralemaking on Corrective Action for
Solid Waste Management Units, September 13,
1988. .
private costs of compliance, EPA used a
private sector discount rate for
analyzing capital costs of 10.6 percent,
based on recent estimates of the real
cost of capital for petroleum industry
investment.
Based on an analysis of private
compliance .cost-to-sales ratios, the
impact on the refining industry is
assessed to be modest, although not
necessarily: insignificant. A small
number of refineries in the EPA
database showed cost/sales ratios
exceeding one or two percent, a level
which has often been taken as a first
stage indicator of significant adverse
impact in EPA regulatory analyses.28
Comparing the low and high TC affected
sludge scenarios, 4 to 8 refineries show
ratios greater than one percent of sales;
but only three refineries exceed two
percent, even under the highest cost.
scenario. Conversely, nine out often
affected refineries in the highest cost
scenario fall below 0.5 percent, and over
three-quarters fall below 0.25 percent
according to the Agency's calculations.
For the small number of refineries that
might become competitively vulnerable
based on the cost/sales ratio criterion,
the Agency also evaluated the type of
vertical integration of the companies
owning the potentially vulnerable
refineries. The assumption here is that
fully or partially integrated companies
(i.e., those with ownership of crude oil
production, petrochemical, and/or
product marketing interests) would be in
a position to absorb refinery compliance
costs more readily than companies
operating only at the refining stage. Of
the potentially vulnerable refineries
with cost/sales ratios greater than one
percent under the highest cost scenario,
as many as seven refineries are
operated by non-integrated petroleum
companies and could therefore be
considered possibly more vulnerable
than the others in this group.
The Agency was not able, to conduct a
more extensive analysis of potential
facility closures or possible direct
employment effects because of a lack of
plant-specific information on costs, cash
flows, and balance sheet items that
would be required for such an
evaluation. However, based on the
analysis performed, the'Agency projects
only small overall impacts on the U.S.
refining industry with a few facilities
possibly incurring substantial adverse
financial impacts to the point of closure.
3. Product Prices
The Agency does not believe that
today's rule will have any measurable ;
impact bn^nsumer-level product prices .
for products including gasoline, diesel
fuels, heating oils, or petrochemicals.
For those refineries most affected by
this rule {Group B). the average after-tax
compliance cost is barely (12 percent of
total refinery sales revenue. For Groap
A facilities (the majority), average costs
attributable to today's rule will be much
less; and it appears that many refineries
(at least 1 percent or more) will not be ..
directly affected by this rule because of
prior commitment to closed system
wastewater management and recycling
of oily sludges. As a result of both of
these factors, plus the presence of some
foreign competition in refined products,
it seems unhlkey that companies
incurring compliance costs would be
able under existing competitive
conditions to pass these costs forward
to final product prices to any significant
degree. However, even if all costs were
to be passed thru, equivalent price
increases at retail would be about 0.05
percent.
4. International Trade
Although hi principal a domestic cost
increase will tend to favor foreign
refinery competition, the Agency does
not anticipate a measurable impact from
this rule on international trade flows or
the U.S. balance of payments. Since
1984, net refined petroleum product
imports have been relatively constant at
about 1.4 million barrels per day, or
about 9 percent of domestic U.S. refined
product supply. Under the conditions
described above, with many U.S.
refineries unaffected by this listing
regulation and the most affected group
of refineries (Group B] incurring an
average compliance cost of only 0.2
percent of sales revenue under the high
cost option, a measurable loss of reSSed
product market to foreign competition
due to this regulation is unlikely.
C. Benefits of Primary Sludge Listing
The Agency used a two-stage
approach to estimate the total national
benefits attributable to today's rule.
First, EPA conducted a general
assessment of a number of factors
relating to primary wastewater
treatment sludge characteristics,
management practices,, and the
environmental settings typical of .
petroleum refinery locations in the - -
United States. The Agency then
conducted limited quantitative modeling
in order to estimate the magnitude of •-
potential damages associated with
28 Many RIA's have used 5% as the cutoff for
determining significant adverse impacts.
Based on this general assessment and
modeling study, the Agency conckwied
that there is a high probability that ' .
-------
48383 Federal Register / • Vol. 55, No; 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
historical and current generation and ,"
management of this waste degrades the
environment and poses potential human
health risks at a significant number of
U.S. petroleum refineries. Material for •
this section of the preamble is presented
hi more detail in Chapter 4 and
Appendices D, E, and F of the RIA
Document. . •
1. General Assessment of Hazardous
Potential
In assessing the damage potential
from primary refinery wastewater
treatment sludges the Agency conducted
extensive evaluations of toxic
constituent concentrations, sludge
management practices, geophysical
settings, and other factors affecting
potential pollutant release, transport,
and fate for typical petroleum refineries.
Sludge Quantities and
Characteristics. As noted above, U.S.
refineries generate a total of 156,000 to
300,000 metric tons per year of primary
and secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludges that will be affected
by today's rule.29 Although quantities
vary greatly at individual refineries,
approximately 70 percent of generators
produce more than 500 metric tons per
year, approximately 30 percent generate
more than 2,000 metric tons per year,
and 2 to 6 refineries (2 to 4 percent)
generate over 10,000 metric tons per
year. On-site accumulations in ponds at
individual refineries may amount to up
to ten years or roore of waste
1 generation, depending on pond dredging
frequency and sludge disposal histories.
On-site landfills and land farms may
also contain sludge quantities
equivalent to many years' waste
generation. The substantial sludge
generation rates and accumulations
provide one indication that these wastes
nave the potential to threaten" human
health and the environment.
Further evidence of the potential
hazard posed by these sludges is found
in the toxicity of constituents present in
the sludges. As discussed above, today's
listing is based, oh the high
concentrations of five Appendix VIII
constituents (benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
chrysene, lead, and chromium)
Frequently detected in the waste.-Results
from the Agency's 198? field survey on
chemical constituents from sludges in 44
units at 11 typical refineries [see 53 FR
12162) document the pervasive presence
, " The range of sludge quantities reflects the
Agency's assumption. In the absence of adequate
.date on the amount of sludge captbred by the
Tojtldly Characteristic (TO) rule, that 30 to 70
percent of the sludge at facilities that currently
generate a waslewater or wastewater treatment
sludge that exhibits the TC Will not be captured by
the TC and will be affected by today's rule.
of these five hazardous constituents and
seven other toxic constituents at levels
warranting further evaluation from a
hazardous waste perspective.30
In particular, lead, chromium,
benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and chrysene,
as well as arsenic, nickel, toluene,
benzo[a)anthracene, and
dibenzo(a,h]anthracene, were commonly
tested at concentrations that are tens to
thousands of times higher than standard
EPA health-based and ecological
protection reference levels. These levels
strongly indicate potentials for damages
to human health, aquatic ecosystems,
and ground-water quality under a
variety of plausible mismanagement
scenarios. .
. Baseline Management Practices .and
Release Potential. Given
implementation of the Toxicity
Characteristics Rule as a baseline
assumption, sludge subject to today's
rule would be generated in wastewater
treatment tanks or cement-lined basins
at all Group A refineries, or in unlined
ponds at a smaller number of Group B
refineries. As discussed above, many
oily wastewaters and wastewater
treatment sludges at petroleum
refineries are hazardous wastes under
the TC rule, and the Agency has
assumed for purposes of this RIA that
refineries' currently using unlined
primary-settling ponds would modify
their wastewater treatment systems (i.e.,
construct wastewater treatment tanks)
to comply with design and operating
requirements under the TC rule.
Based on these assumed Wastewater
treatment system modifications and
assumptions about the amount of sludge
subject to today's regulation that will
not exhibit the toxicity characteristic,
EPA estimates that approximately 53 to
114 refineries would generate non-
characteristic sludge subject to today's
rule in tanks and approximately 22
refineries would generate non-TCr
Characteristic sludge subject to today's
rule in unlined impoundments. EPA
assumes that the refineries with
wastewater treatment tanks would
generate an average of up to 2,600 metric
tons of non-characteristic, affected
sludge in tanks each year, and the
refineries with unlined impoundments
would generate an average of 2,200
metric tons of sludge per year in ponds
averaging about 10 acres in total area
per facility.
30 Constituent concentration data for primary
wastewater treatment sludges are presented in
Summary of Data and Engineering Analyses
Performed for Petroleum Refining Wastewater
Treatment Sludges (prepared by MRI for the Office
of Solid Waste,.U.S. EPA), April 1988.
EPA estimates that the entire quantity
of sludge generated in tanks and a
portion of that generated in ponds, an
average of 2,600 metric tons per year at
approximately 63 to 124 refineries, would
be removed periodically from the
wastewater treatment units and
disposed in landfills or land farms under
typical Subtitle D conditions in the
absence of today's rule.
Wastewater treatment tanks in which
sludge is generated are typically
concrete-lined and do not accumulate
and store large quantities of sludge over
long periods of time. Although the
Agency has not investigated potential
releases of sludge constituents from .
these tanks in detail, EPA believes these
units pose a relatively small hazard
because of their engineered containment
and relatively small accumulated sludge
quantities. In contrast, the traditional
unlined settling ponds and land disposal
units that accumulate the majority of the
sludge affected by today's listing are
generally not equipped with protective
liners, caps, leachate collection or
ground-water monitoring systems, or
other, protective measures during their
operating or post-closure periods. To the
extent these ponds and land disposal
units lack protective controls during
operating or post-closure periods, they
may be subject to toxic constituent
releases in a variety of possible forms.
These could include leaching into
ground water, migration from
groundwater into surface water, direct
erosion or surface runoff from storm
events, or volatile emissions from pond
or land farm surfaces. Migration and
transport pathways could thus involve
ground water to water-supply wells or to
surface waters, land surface to surface
waters, or air transport directly to
human receptors or other environmental
media or points in the food chain.
EPA's damage assessment focused
principally on the groundwater
pathway, and in this respect the
teachability of sludge constituents from
unlined ponds or land management units
is of particular importance. Although
subject to scientific debate regarding
specific predictive processes, there is
substantial evidence that considerable
quantities of toxic constituents from oily
wastes can and do leach through
containing walls or bottoms of unlined
land storage or disposal facilities. For
example, recent EPA column leachate
studies have documented substantial
release potentials for several oily
wastes similar to the sludges affected by
today's rule, including API separator
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regalations
sludge.31 Depending on solubilities and
other factors, various sludge
constituents may migrate out of
containment units either directly in an •
oil phase, or as an1 oil/water emulsion,
or dissolved in an an"""--" '"•< ',,..„>.
Mobility in Ground Water. Sludge
constituents in ground water may be
transported and/or attenuafed in
several complex ways.
A fraction of the more water soluble
constituents, such as arsenic and
chromium, is expected to seep from
management units in an aqueous phase.
In this form, the constituents will tend to
. travel with, the ground-water flow, but
will become diluted and, to varying
degrees, removed from the flow by
sorption to soil particles, as they are
transported from the source.
Other constituents, such as the
polynuelear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) will tend to be concentrated
more in an oily phase, which can form
as a layer upon or near the ground-
. .water table. An oily layer can move at
Varying speeds relative to ground-water
flow itself, and may be subject to less
dilution or attenuation by sorption or
other mechanisms. As oil continues to
migrate from the management units and
move on the surface of the water table,
the sorptive capacity of the soil will be
decreased, and toxic constituents in the
oily phase may move downgradient with
the ground water in a largely unretarded
fashion. The migrating oil also will tend
to retain a high concentration of
contaminants because the immiscibility
of oil and water precludes dilution.32
That is, the oil phase will spread,
becoming thinner, rather than mixing
with the ground water and becoming
more dilute. Intermediate oil/water
emulsions may also be involved in the
transport/decay process, as toxic
constituents move from a source
towards receptors.
Because of the complexities involved
in these multi-phase leaching and
transport processes, predictive modeling
of oily waste migration is extremely
difficult, and results are subject to great
uncertainty. However, a growing body
of empirical evidence indicates that oily
waste constituents can and do travel in
groundwater systems over substantial
distances and often at relatively high
concentrations. For example, in its
Report to Congress on oil and .gas
production wastes, EPA described
several damage cases involving the
migration of hydrocarbons from unlined
waste pits into ground water.33 In one .
case in New Mexico, hydrocarbons were
detected in ground water SO meters
downgradient from unlined produced
water pits. .Sands above the water table
were found to be stained with oil, and a
black, oily film was discovered on the
water itself.
In a separate study of petroleum
refinery wastewater treatment sludges,
EPA found concentrations of PAHs
(phenanthrene, pyrene, and chrysene) of
up to 2,000 parts per million (ppm) in a
well located 200 meters downgradient
from primary wastewater treatment
units.34 At a coal-tar waste site in
Minnesota, municipal wells drilled 1,000
meters away were found to be
contaminated with several organic
compounds, including several of the
PAHs commonly present in oil/water/,
solids separation sludge.35 The coal-tar
waste was oily in composition and most
of the compounds detected
downgradient from this site were
slightly more concentrated in an oily
phase. These and other documented
cases of oily phase migration
substantiate the Agency's concern about
potential for sludge constituents to be
released into and migrate through the
environment.
Environmental settings. Several
factors relating to the environmental
settings of petroleum refineries
contribute to the general potential for
damages from toxic sludges, as borne
out by EPA survey and file data, as well
as research by the American Petroleum
Institute.
First, refineries and their
impoundments tend to overlie relatively
shallow aquifers. An EPA mapping
study of 20 refinery locations, using
available hydrogeologic maps, showed
90 percent of the sites with ground-
water tables 20 meters or less from the
land-surf ace and 75 percent with water
tables that are less than 7 meters deep.
Similar, more precise field data from
thirteen EPA site visits have
documented the distance between the
bottoms of surface impoundments and
the ground-water table. Over half of the
31 For example, see: Evaluation.of Method 1311
for Determining the Release Potential of Oily
Wastes. Draft final report prepared by Research
Triangle institute for the Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
EPA. November 1988.
'82 Alfoldi. L., "Movement of Oils in Ground
Water and in Rocks." in Proceedings of
International Symposium on Ground Water
Pollution by Oil Hydrocarbons. Prague. June 1978,
33 U.S. EPA. Report to Congress: Management of
Wastes from the Exploration. Development, and
Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and
Geothermal Energy, Volume 3. EPA/530-SW-88-
003, December 1987.
34 Summary of Data and Engineering Analyses
Performed for Petroleum Refining Wastewater
Treatment Sludges, prepared by MR! for the Office
of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, ApriM9(ta
35 Rostad. C.E.. Perfeira, W.E., andWLR Hult,
"Partitioning Studies of Coal-Tar Constituents in a
Two-Phase Contaminated Ground-Water System",
Chemosphere, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp 1023-1036,1985;' '
impoundments at these refineries
extended either into or within 1.5 meters
of the water table; and the water table
was within 6 meters (20 feet) of the base
of all the ponds at 12 out of 13 refineries
in the sample.
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) also found that the water table
underlying petroleum refinery
wastewater treatment impoundments
was very shallow at a sample of 10
refineries and, more generally, in several
regions where refineries tend to be
concentrated.36 In addition, API found
that these refineries and regions
generally are underlain by
'unconsolidated soil that has a high
permeability. Short distances to ground
water and high subgrade permeability
enhance migration potential for leachate
and thus enhance the probability of
ground-water contamination and other
damages.
Distances to typical receptors are also
important locational considerations,
affecting both time of travel and extent
of dilution or attenuation of toxic
constituents between points of release
and points of exposure. The EPA site
visits referenced above also measured
distances from' impoundments to surface
waters at 31 refineries. Seventy-five
percent had distances under 1,200
meters, and 50 percent were within 250
meters. These distances are all generally
within the range at which various toxic
constituents can be transported by
ground water, in either ari aqueous or
oily phase, at concentrations that can be
damaging to natural resources and
human health.
Little data are readily available on
distances from refineries to active
drinking water wells, a principal '.
indicator of direct human health threats.
However, the Agency reviewed U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) maps for a
sample of 40 representative-refinery
sites to identify the presence and .
location of downgradient residences
1 that.appear to be outside the range of
public water systems (PWSs).
Residences outside of PWS service
areas are likely to have private wells."
For the same sample of 40 sites, the
Agency also used the USGS maps along
with data from the Federal Reporting
Data System {FJRDSJ to identify the
location of PWS wells.
At 18 of the 40 refineries mapped (45
percent), residences that are expected to
have private wells were present within
1,600 meters (1 mile), and at 9 of 40
refineries :(23 percent), residences that
36 American Petroleum Institute, Assessment of
Potential Hazards io Ground Water Posed by .••: .
Refiner Wastewater Impoundments. March 1980.
-------
,48390 Federal Register /Vol. 55KNo. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / 'Rules and Regulations
are expected to have private wells were
within 400 meters. Four of the 40
refineries (10 percent) have a public well
within ,1,600 meters downgradient. Using
current census data on,the average
number of people per residence (2.6) and
data from FRDS on the total population
dependent on potentially affected PWSs,
and extrapolating the sample results
across the universe of affected
refineries, EPA estimates that from 9,500
to 68,000 people could be exposed to the
sludge contaminants via either private
or public wells within 1,600 meters
downgradient of 39 to 71 refineries.'
Although certainly not conclusive, these
data suggest the potential for drinking
water contamination at a substantial
proportion of refineries and the potential
for a large number of people to be
exposed.
Overall, of the 40 refinery sites
evaluated by mapping, 90 percent
showed either downgradient residences
that may have drinking water wells, or
surface waters, or both within 1,200
meters.
Conclusions from General
Assessment Based on (1) the substantial
quantities of primary and secondary oil/
water/solids separation sludge in
unlined impoundments and land
disposal units, (2) the high
concentrations of several toxic
constituents in the raw sludge, (3) the
demonstrated capability of these sludge
constituents to migrate out of
containment units, (4) the shallow
ground-water tables arid high, soil
permeabilities beneath most refineries,
and (5) the relatively short distances to
surface waters and/or drinking water
wells at a substantial proportion of
locations, the Agency concludes that
there is a High probability that'these
sludges are contributing substantially to
environmental degradation and possible
human health damage under current
management practices at a significant
number of U.S. petroleum refineries.
2. Quantitative Damage Estimates
In an effort to quantify the benefits
from this regulation, the Agency •
undertook a modeling study of the
ground-water damage pathway to
estimate baseline toxic constituent
concentrations at receptor points and to
evaluate potential damages associated
with this contamination.
Approach and Methods. The approach
used sample data for representative
refineries to estimate typical damage .
potentials for all refineries producing
primary wastewater treatment sludge.
The principal data included: (1) Sludge
quantity estimates for 149 refineries; (2)
field data on toxic constituents in
sludges .sampled at 44 waste
management units at ll refineries; (3)
downgradient distance to surface water
for-31 representative refineries;, (4)
downgradient distance to nearest
residence (as a proxy for drinking water
wells) for 40 representative refineries;
and (5) total population potentially .,
exposed to ground-water contamination
via private and public water supply
wells located within one mile
downgradient of 40 representatives
refineries. - .
To develop modeling inputs from, the
data on toxic constituent concentrations
in the sludge, the Agency estimated
leachate concentrations using,all.
available .sludge sampling data and
accounting for the oily .nature of the
sludge. The Agency did not use toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) direct data in this analysis
'because only limited sample data were
available and the TCLP may
underestimate actual leaching due to the
oily nature of the sludges.3'7 Instead, the
Agency estimated leachate ,,
concentrations for all 44 sludge samples
using available EPA methods that
account for the oily character of these
sludges.38 The estimated leachate
concentrations are many times higher
than leachate Concentrations that would
be expected from the TGLP. However,
while this approach may appear to be
conservative (i.e., may overstate
aqueous phase leaching from the
sludge), it is designed to more
realistically account for leaching from a
mobile oily phase, which is nbt well
simulated by the TCLP.
Because the sludge that is affected by
today's rule only includes that which
does not exhibit the TC; the Agency
based this analysis only on samples that
the Agency considered likely to pass TC
regulatory levels using standard
laboratory test procedure. By comparing
measured TCLP concentrations to '
estimated leachate concentrations from
37 In particular, the TCLP appears-to '
underestimate the contribution of the mobile oily
phase, which is likely to contain most of the
sludge's hydrophobic PAHs, to the extent that any
portion of the oil phase passes through the filtering
step of the TCLP. In such cases, the filterable oil is
treated as part of the "initial- liquid" during the
remainder of the procedure. Also, there is evidence
that the oil fraction decreases the exposure of the
solid fraction of the waste to the TCLP leaching .
medium. . '
38 Concentrations of metals in sludge leachate
were calculated using a conservative procedure
developed for the delisting program. Concentrations
of organics in sludge leachate were calculated by
different methods to distinguish between the
character of leachate generated from impoundments
and landfills/land farms. Both approaches account
for the contribution of a mobile oily phase to the
concentrations of organic constituents iii the
leachate. (See Chapter 4 of the RIA document for
additional detail on the leachate estimation
procedures.) . .
• sludge samples taken from the same
.units, the Agency identified a small
number of sludge samples that would
likely exceed TC regulatory levels using
the'TCLP test and excluded these from
the data base, leaving estimated •
leachate concentrations for 30 sludge
management sources from 9 refineries.
Although TCLP test method
concentrations for these 30 samples
would likely lie below TC regulatory
levels, the approach used to estimate
leachate concentrations produce's
concentrations that exceed the TC
regulatory levels for benzene, chromium,
or lead for 16 of the 30 samples. For
model input, the Agency- used facility-
level leachate concentration estimates
derived by averaging constituent •
concentrations across all samples at a
given refinery.
These baseline data were used as
input into the Agency's VHS ground-
water model 39 to produce probabilistic
frequency distributions of expected risks
representative of all affected sludge
generators. Downgradient ground-water
concentrations were thus' estimated both
for landfills (or land farms) at 63 to 124
refineries and for impoundments at 22
refineries.
From these ground-water
concentrations, EPA developed
estimates of two types of damages:
(1) Human health effects (both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic)
through drinking water well
contamination for "maximally exposed
individuals," based on distances to,
nearest residences, and for total
exposed populations, based on'both
private residences and public wells; and
39 The Vertical and Horizontal Spread (VHS)
model (50 FR 48897) was used to estimate the
dilution of ground-water contamination caused by
impoundments, landfills, and land treatment units,
EPA recognizes.that the VHS.model does not-
account for an unsaturated zone, in which dilution •
due to dispersion can occur. This would tend to
underestimate the dilution of constituents in the
aqueous phase (i.e., overpredict the exposure point
concentrations) in cases where an unsaturated zone
exists. However, since the depth to ground water at
refineries is relatively small, this error is not
expected to be especially large. On the other hand,
the model will overestimate the dilution that will be
experienced by constituents that are mobilized in
the oil phase and are subsequently released to the
aqueous phase as the oil phase degrades. This is
because the area of the degrading oil phase will be
larger than the leachate source assumed by the
model. (The area of the degrading oil phase will be
equal to the leachate source area plus the area over
which the oil phase spreads before it degrades).
Additionally, the constituents in the oil phase will
be released at points closer to the receptor point
than the assumed leachate .source. While the
Agency believes that the magnitude of the error
introduced by these factors cannot'be accurately
quantified due to the complex site-specific nature of
the issues involved, it is noted that the factors act in
opposite directions on the model's results and are
thus, to some extent, offsetting.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 A Friday.'. November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations •.-.•46397
(2) Concentration of toxic constituents
entering surface water bodies, through
ground water, based on distances to
surface water, for those constituents
that are damaging to fresh and saline
water ecosystems.
The estimated health risks may be
over estimated because they are
calculated on the assumption that
exposed populations would drink
untreated water even though it might
exceed taste and odor thresholds for oil _
and certain constituents, and because
PWSs may routinely treat water to meet
drinking water standards. These issues
are discussed below, together with
estimates of costs for providing
, alternate drinking water supplies.'
Ground-Water Resource Damages, An
upper bound dollar value of the cost of
.avoiding the health effects described
above can be obtained by estimating the
cost of replacing drinking water that
comes from affected down-gradient
wells. Ground-water resource damages
were defined in this analysis by
exceedences of maximum contaminant
levels (MCL's) defined by primary
drinking water standards established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act for
five potential contaminants, including
three metals (arsenic, chromium, and
lead) and two organic compounds
(benzene and toluene).40 Contaminant
concentrations were estimated at fixed
distances between 200 and 1,200 meters
from sludge management units.
AH told, 70 to 80 percent of the
refineries that manage affected sludge in
landfills or land farms showed :
exceedences for at least one ,
contaminant, even at the 1,200 meter
distance1, with 4he figure rising to 90 to
95 percent having exceedences at 200
meters. For refineries managing sludges
in impoundments, 95 percent showed
exceedences for at least one
contaminant at 1,200 meters, and all
showed exceedences at 200 meters. This
translates into about 70 to 130 refinery
sites producing damages to ground
water at 200 meters and 60 to 110 sites
showing damages at 1,200 metera. The
total area of ground water contaminated
above MCLs at these refineries i$' •
estimated to be 13 to 25 square miles.
Multiple MCL exceedences (up to four
contaminants) were.typical for a
majority of cases at all distances up-to
1,200 meters. , •'•••.'•.
The predicted magnitudes, of the MCL
exceedences were also substantial for a
large percentage of refineries. For , '
example, for 60 percent of landfill and
land farm sites and for 95 percent of the
impoundment sites, MCL exceedences
were greater than a- factor of 10 at 200
meters. At 1,200 meters, .the proportion
of sites with MCL exceedences greater
than a factor of 10 declined to 25 to 40
perpent pf landfill/land farm, sites and
, 75 percent of impoundment sites. MCL
exceedences at 200 meters were greater
than a factor of 100 for at least one
contaminant at 10 to 20 percent of
landfill/land farm sites and at 60
percent of.impoundment sites, MCL
exceedences at 1,200 meters were
greater than a factor of 100 for 30
percent of refineries that have
impoundments containing affected
sludge. . .. .
In general, chromium accounted for
the largest number of MCL threshold
exceedences across all refineries and'
produced the greatest absolute MCL •
exqeedance levels—-up to 2,500 times the
threshold—at more than 90 percent of
the affected refineries that dispose'of
sludge in landfills and land farms and
all 22 refineries that accumulate the
sludge in impoundments. Lead
exceedences were predicted for 70 to 80
percent of the facilities with landfills
and land farms and all 22 refineries with
impoundments containing the affected
sludge. Benzene exceedences were
predicted at 10 to 50 percent of the
affected refineries, dependingJm
distance. Only toluene among the five
constituents did not result hi an
exceedance of the MCL at any sites
within the 200 to 1,200 meter range of
distances modeled,
In addition to the ground-water
damage estimates from modeled
exceedance of MCLs, current sludge'
management may also contaminate
ground water with levels of oil that can ,
be tasted, smelled, or even seen. In this '
analysis, the Agency has assumed that...,',
sludge constituents are released, in part,
in an oil phase that migrates hi ground;'.. •
water. Given the assumption of a mobile -
oil phase, it is likely that ground water •
downgradient of sludge management ,
units will not be usable because oil
concentrations in the ground Water will
be well above taste arid odor thresholds.
Human Health Damages. To-quantify
potential human health damages, the
.Agency modeled,cancer risks.*'and .
noncarcinogenic (lead and chromium)
health effect •threshold' exceedance '
levels as a function of sludge -V
characteristics and distances to drinking
Water wells.'The Agency estimated both
maximally exposed individual {MEIj
risks at individual refineries and-total
population risks. Virtually all refineries
40 For toluene the analysis used the pjioppsed
MCLof2.0mg/L.
41 Carcinogenic constituents included arsenjc,
benzene, and various PAHs [benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo[a)anthrscene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
chrysenej. . • ' • -"
estimated to'h&ve drinking Water wells
at distances under 1,200 meters (45
percent of refineries)indicated potential
cancer risks and'als6-ex-ceedences of
health effect thresholds for both lead
(neurotoxie effects in sensitive
populations) and chromium (liver and
kidney damages). Because of the
simplified nature of the VHS model and
uncertainties in predicting contaminant"
concentrations far from a release source,
the Agency modeled concentrations
only out to 1,200 meters. Therefore,
results for the remainder of refineries
(55 percent with the-nearest
downgradient residence beyond 1,200
meters or beyond aii intervening surface
water body) were either inconclusive or
assumed to yield low risks.
EPA's carcinogenic risk modeling .
results for the sludges affected by
today's listing predicted MEI risks
greater than 10 ~5 for all refineries with
residences within 1,200 meters (45
percent of all refineries), and greater
than 10~4for 40 percent of all affected
refineries. For up to 25 percent of
affected refineries with the greatest
predicted risks—i.e., those with higher
carcinogenic constituent concentrations,
larger sludge volumes, and closer
distances to wells—EPA predicted MEI
lifetime risks equal to or greater than
10~2 (ope case in 100. similar lifetime.
exposures} for these wastewater sludges
under currentmanagement practices
and distances to existing residences.
Multiplying the median individual .
lifetime cancer risk estimates at three
downgradient distances by the total ...''.
. population potentially exposed via .
downgradient drinking water wells at
those distances, the Agency predicts
that baseline sludge management
practices could cause anywhere from .
one to three cancer cases per year.
Newptoxicolpgical damage to
sensitive persons.(infants or pregnant ;
women) can occur at threshold =
concentration levels of lead greater than
O.Q2 ppm in drinking water. *2 Levels
exceeding two times this amount «re
predicted by the -EPA^modeling results :
at up to 30 percent of refineries that' '
manage sludge in landfills or land farms
and 40 percent of refineries managing'
affected sludge in'impoundmehtk Leyels
exceeding 100 times this concentration
are predicted at up to 5 percent of
refineries with landfills and land farms
and 15 percent of refineries with '
impoundments. Kidney arid/ortivet :
damage from chromium ingestioh cart s :
occur at'drinking water'cdncentrfitibris*. •
« Based on an MCLG of D:02 mg/titer previously
proposed'by EPA's Ofnce-pfBtinking'Water (50 FR
46936,.Novemberl3,1985),: " .-• '
-------
41992
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213. / Friday, November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ofcbroraium-greaterthan 0.18 ppm. *a'.••••
The EPA model results for ail refineries
roggest that this threshold may be
reached at 25 to 30 percent' of refineries
lhat manage sludge in landfills or land
farms and 40 percent of refineries
managing affected sludge in *
impoundments. According to the
modeling results, this threshold would
be exceeded by 100 times at about 10
percent of all refineries managing
affected sludges in impoundments.
Overall, the model results- indicate
that up to a& estimated 6,400 to 32,000
people could be exposed to drinking
water concentrations of lead and/or
chromium in excess of their respective
health effect thresholds as described
above.
Taste and odor. In cases where taste
and odor thresholds in tap water are
exceeded, households or public water
systems may take a variety of actions to
avoid exposures to contaminated
supplies and thus avoid any health
effects. Our analysis-has shown that
benzene and toluene are sometimes in
this range where taste or odor threshold
exceedences could tend to preclude-use
of water. Highly sensitive persons, can
detect toluene (the more critical of the
two constituents) in water at 0.024 mg/L,
and our ground-water modeling results ••
indicate that this concentration level
could be reached at the MEI risk
locations (nearest residential user} at
about 20 percent of refineries with
current downgradient private
residences. However, for less-sensitive
persons at MEI residences and/or for
other (non-MEI) residences further
downgradient, taste and odor for
toluene could be much less a.factqr in
forestalling health risks for private, well
users.
In addition, if the oil .phase is mobile •
and reaches exposure points (as is.
assumed in estimating health effects), it >'
is possible that oil could be tasted and ••"'
smelled in drinking water at any of the -
facilities where the Agency estimated •>*''•
cancer risk or lead or chromium'
threshold exceedences. However,' since
the oily phase of the contaminant plume
is generally expected to occur at the
surface of the contaminated aquifer, •
wells would have to'be withdrawing
from the aquifer surface1 for users to
detect the oil itself. > ''
Replacement Costs Far Contaminated
Water Supplies. As an alternate
measure of damages, the Agency
estimated the costs of replacing ground '
water that is currently used as a
' drinking water supply and that may be
contaminated by baseline sludge .
management practices. We estimated.
' these costs using a standardized •• ••'
resource damage model,44 along .with
our«stimates of potentially exposed
populations and the frequency of
exceedences of MCLs in downgradient
ground water. ,'',."
Based on the" Agency's projections, the
nationwide annualized cost of replacing
contaminated ground water that is
currently used-at downgradient
locations ranges from $4.2 to $7.8
million, depending on the proximity of
alternative water sources and 'the
number of refineries affected by today's
rule.45 The estimated total number of
people placed on alternative water
supplies ranges from 7,600 to 14,000.
These replacement costs are based on
• the'assumption that ground water, from
either nearby or distant locations, will
• provide the replacement water supply. If
surface water is used as the replacement
supply, the annualized replacement
costs would be from 8 to 28 percent
higher than presented above. Similarly,
if the Agency considered the
replacement of ground water
contaminated above taste and odor
thresholds rather than MCBs the
annualized replacement costs could also
" be slightly higher man-presented
above.48 In addition, these estimates
only .include replacement' costs for
current water demand and do not
include replacement or treatment costs
'for future growth in .demand.
Surface Water Pollution. The EPA
modeling effort- estimated concentration
levels of .toxic constituents predicted to
reach nearby rivers, lakes, estuarine, or
coastal water bodies through ground
water. As noted above, EPA estimates
'thait 75 percent of refineries-are within
1,100 meters, arid 50 percent within 250
' meters, of a surface water body. In
addition, 25 percent are within 800
'meters of other wetland areas (swamps
•••• or Dogs)* " '•' •• • >. , -
>'•' Results from modeling predict that
1 constituent concentrations reaching
' these surface Waters may be
substantially higher than standard water
quality criteria for ecological protection
' (i.e., acute ambient water quality .criteria
'arid criteria developed from toxicity test
resultfrpresented-in EPA water quality
•" BJwcf en Ibe reference dose from EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System.
• '44 IGF Incorporated, Subtitle's Risk bfddi>l: Draft
Appendix R.Resoarce Damage Submodel,
September 1988. , , . ' .
-" These values were calculated from the sum of
all discounted costs Incurred over 80'years with a
discount rate of 3 percent and a payment period of
2J» years. . ••.-••'
' "4S Because tfie taste and odor thresholds for
• principal sludge contaminants are tower than the
^MClJs, the volume arid replacement, costs of water
'contaminated'above taste and oddr thresholds
could be larger than these corresponding to MCL
exceedances alone.
criteria documents). Although the results
are not conclusive because they do not
provide quantitative estimates on the.
mass flows of pollutants, they provide
an indication of the potential for
ecological harm. In addition, it may be
noted that several of these sludge
constituents, particularly lead,
chromium, the PAHs, and (to a lesser
extent) nickel and arsenic, could-tend to
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms or,
under certain circumstances, deposit in
benthic sediments. Damages to surface
water through ground-water transport
were not estimated in terms of total
'acreage or number of stream miles
damaged.
3. Regulatory Benefits
Regulatory benefits from today's rule
can be measured in terms of reductions
in current damages (or prevention of
increased future damages] to ground-
water resources, human health risks
(potential mortality or illnesses due to
cancer and other organ dysfunctions),
and ecological damage .avoided through
reduced pollutant loadings to fresh and
saline surface waters or other wetlands
near refineries or near off-site sludge
disposal areas.
Basically, Subtitle C regulations will
require that current sludge management
units be closed (generally in a manner
that will reduce future constituent .
releases) and that future sludge
generation be managed either by
incineration, solvent extraction, or by
some other means that precludes the
migration of toxic pollutants into ground
waters or. surface waters. No new
unlined primary oily sludge treatment or
storage ponds would be constructed,
either at existing or future new
refineries, and no future oil/water/
solids separation sludge Would be
disposed of under uncontrolled
conditions in land management units.
Instead, the sludge would accumulate
•and be stored in tanks or basins in
accord with containment controls, and
final disposal would occur under best
demonstrated available technology
(BOAT) specifications.
' As, an example of the damage
.reductions to be expected, the analysis
has considered future health riskS from
; carcinogens and metals. The Agency has
estimated that .damages to human health
• via contaminated drinking water may be
Occurring presently at up to 52 percent
of U.S..refineries currently generating.
these sludges, or at between 39 and 71
locations. If the 22 refineries with
impoundments adopt either of the two .
more likely Subtitle C closure scenarios
for existing surface impoundments •
(closure in place or clean closure), toxic
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55,-No. 213 /-Friday. November 2, 1990 /.Rules and Regulations
•^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M^-Ma]-|]|CBOgI1MMammnBKMBCTMBB^^W^.^JW.Ii^.^-M^
48393
releases will either be essentially
eliminated or future monitoring and
corrective actions should substantially
protect against future off-site migration
at all of these 22 locations. Future oil/
water/solids separation slud
management at all sites will De
regulated according to BDAT—i.e.,
solvent extraction or incineration -•• •**"•
Subtitle C, Subpart 0 conditions. Thia
typically results in hazardous organic
constituents being recycled, destroyed,
or removed at levels greater than 99.995
percent. In addition, cement
stabilization of solvent extraction
treatment residuals and proposed
metals emission regulations are
designed to control carcinogenic MEI .
risks below 10 ~5 levels, and
noncarcinogenic metals risks to levels
below MEI health effect threshold
levels. Thus, the Agency anticipates that
MEI health risks due to cancer would be
reduced from.present levels, ranging ,
from 10 ~4 to 10 ~2 at 35 to 60 locations,
down to a maximum of 10 ~B (most
likely substantially below10~s) under
expected regulated conditions. An
estimated one to three cancer cases per
year would be avoided. Noncarcino- .
genie effect levels^ would be similarly
controlled, under BDAT regulations, to
levels below health risk thresholds. The
number of people potentially exposed to
lead and chromium concentrations
above noncarcinogenic effect thresholds
in drinking water, as a result of
contaminant migration from the sludge,
would be reduced by 6,400 to 32,000.
An alternative measure of benefits is
the reduction of costs of treating or
replacing contaminated ground water
from private and public wells. These
replacement costs would be reduced or
prevented at almost all of the estimated
75 to 136 affected petroleum refineries
as a result of this regulation. This would
result, in an annual savings of more than
$4.2 to $7.8 million per year that would
otherwise have, to be spent to replace
existing drinking water supplies.
An additional benefit,,not quantified
in this RIA, is that pollutant loadings to
surface waters and wetlands through
groundwater migration and transport at
56 to 102 refineries (about 75 percent of
sludge generators) should also be - • "
substantially reduced or eliminated as a
result of this rule.
D. Sjfim-mqry of Analytical Limitations
and;Qualifications
As described above, the benefit ;
assessment has estimated benefits
alternatively in terms of reduced health
risks/damages and water supply cost
savings. Many uncertainties and
assumptions made in developing-the
quantitative estimates could lead to •
over- or underestimates. Specific factors
noted in the analysis are summarized
below* Paragraphs or factors in this
section marked with * relate to health
risk factors that would be precluded or
.aieu by groundwater source supply
replacement or public system drinking
water treatment
1. Factors That Tend To Overestimate
Benefits.
Simplified VHS Model used in
groundwater transDort. The VHS model
is a steady state model that projects
long-term equilibrium groundwater
plume contaminant levels based on the
assumption that contaminant releases
are continuous (i.e., the site acts as an
infinite source). Although steady state
modeling is efficient, it ignores many
important temporal factors and can tend
to overestimate the geographical extent,
duration, and maximum contaminant
levels. In addition, the VHS model, by
failing to address specific retardation
factors and dilution in an unsaturated
zone, can tend to substantially
overestimate contaminant levels for
certain chemicals in the aqueous phase
of the oil/water plume.
Agency dose-response functions.* The
Agency's, procedures for estimating
dose-response relationships, upon which
the health benefit estimates are based,
result in an upper limit of health risks.
Carcinogenic potency factors are
conservative, tending to overstate risk.
.Furthermore, with respect to the
carcinogenic potency of PAHs the
Agency used the potency factor for
benzo(a)pyrene (the PAH for which
there is a potency assessment, albeit a
relatively high potency among
carcinogenic PAHs) for all the analyzed
carcinogenic PAHs in the sludge data
base. Similarly, the reference level used
for lead represents a level that could
result in neurotoxicological damage to
sensitive persons (infants or pregnant
women), not an average population. The
estimates also assume that individuals
in the exposed populations drink 2 liters
of untreated contaminated ground water
per day over 70 years. To the extent that
the average person consumes less water
and/or obtains liquids from other
sources over a lifetime, actual risks will
be lower. Thus the benefits do not
represent "most likely" or "best"
estimates of risk in this respect.
Assumed hydraulic connection with
drinking water wells. The Agency's -
health benefit estimates are based on
the assumption that downgradieht
drinking water wells withdraw water
from a geologic zone that can be •
contaminated by waste ponds,-landfills,
or land treatment units at petroleum
refineries. Moreover, the estimates
assume that wells are located along the
downgradient centerline of a
contaminant plume and that they draw
water from the. surface layer of the
plume, which would have higher •
. contaminant concentrations than
locations on either side :of the centerline
or deeper in the aquifer. Downgradient
drinking water wells may actually be .
protected from contamination by
impervious geologic strata and/or may
be located in less concentrated areas of
a contaminant plume.
Other intervening regulations* * EPA's
health benefit estimates do hot take into
account contemporaneous or future
regulatory actions initiated fay other
regulatory authorities; including other
EPA offices. In particular EPA's Office
of Drinking Water has promulgated or ,
proposed major rules that require the
installation of treatment technologies at
public water systems. The health risks
that are estimated to be avoided in Jhis
rulemaking may be already
substantially prevented for the
populations of public water users as a
result of these or future regulatory
actions. There still can be risks,
however, for private well users, not
protected under the Safe Drinking Water
Act; In addition, some constituents may
not yet be covered by the current
regulations. ' ;• '. . • . • - . -• .
Taste and odor. * In cases where taste
and odor thresholds in contaminated tap
water are exceeded, households or -
public water systems may take a variety
of actions to avoid exposures to
contaminated supplies and thus .
preclude any health effects. Our
analysis has shown that benzene and
toluene are sometimes in this .range
where taste or odor threshold
exceedances could tend to preclude use
of water. Highly sensitive persons can
detect toluene (the more critical of the - .
two constituents in the present analysis)
in water at 0.024 mg/1, and our
groundwater modeling-results indicate
that this threshold concentration level
could be exceeded at the MEI risk
location (nearest residential user) at
about 20 percent of refineries with ...'•
estimated MEI risks. ,-.'.:..-
However, for persons of more average
taste and odor sensitivity at MEI , *
residences and/or for-other (non-MEI)
residences further downgradient,'taste
and odor for individual constituents like
toluene or benzene rapidly diminish as
factors protecting against consumption
of contaminated drinking water. For
residences using private weHs where
taste and odor thresholds are not -
exceeded, substantial health risks can
still be present, either fctf -other- • •: -;*
constituents like lead or arsenic where
-------
jjgjg*• Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday. November 2. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
lasts and odor are not a factor, or for
constituents like benzene, for example,
where the taste and odor threshold even
for the most sensitive persons averages
0.07 ing/), about 14 times higher th'an the
benzene MCL (0.005). For oil itself, the
taste and odor threshold is particularly
low; and since oil tends to stay at or
very near the surface of the contaminant
plume, households withdrawing from
the surface of the contaminated aquifer
may thus detect the plume at substantial
distances and avoid using contaminated
water.
2. Factors That May Underestimate
Benefits
Toxic constituents not included in the
anafysis."Xbe risk modeling was based
on a limited list of constituent chemicals
expected to be present. Additional
chemicals may be present that were not
analyzed or for which health-risk factors
have not yet been developed. For
example, there is very recent evidence
that dioxlns are present in some refinery
sludges at levels that'could pose health
risks. In addition, lead has recently been
listed as a Class B-2 carcinogen, but
was not so treated in the risk
assessment
Background response not included in
the analysis.*The health risk analysis
did not account for segments of the
population exposed to background
doses of carcinogenic or
noncarcinogenic toxicants from work
place or other sources. Segments of the
population already subject to significant
background doses of either carcinogens
or noncarcinogenic toxicants from work ,
place or other exposures were not
included in the analysis.
Pathways not explored or quantified.
The risk assessment did not attempt to
quantify any health risk pathways other
than groundwater-to-drinking w'ater
ingcslion. Other health risk pathways
would include: dermal absorption and
inhalation via water supply (showering,
for example)*; inhalation of volatiles or
dust particles from landfarming of
sludges; food chain ingestion via crops
grown on contaminated land surfaces;
food chain via contaminated surface
waters (fish and shellfish).
Ecological damages not quantified.
Damages, to natural ecosystems—either
through overland flows during flooding
or erosion or via groundwater
contamination and seepage to land or
surface waters—were not quantified in
this study. It was shown however, that
surface waters exist downgradient
within 1200 meters at 75 percent of
refineries and that other wetlands
(swamps, bogs, etc.) are equally nearby
at over 25 percent of refineries.
Modeling results indicated that
contaminants could migrate over these
distances and several chemicals present
in the sludge are known to
bioaccumulate and/or concentrate hi the
benthic layer which is critical to the
invertebrate elements of the food chain.'
Fractured flow systems. The VHS
model assumes a homogeneous isotropic
subsurface. Certain sites are subject to
fractures or are particularly porous,
leading to exceptionally rapid transport
and less dilution than predicted by the
model. •
Risk/damages related to future
population growth or regional
development were not counted. The
Agency has only attempted to estimate
health risks or groundwater resource
damages for existing populations and
water use patterns. No account has been
made for possible future residential
development or other future growth in
water resource demands upon aquifers
presently contaminated or subject to
future contamination by these petroleum
refinery sludges.
Only benefits within one mile are
quantified. Due to data limitations and
modeling constraints, the Agency only
considered the health risks and resource
damages prevented within one mile
downgradient from refineries. The
Agency acknowledges, however, that
contamination from the sludge could
extend for greater distances, making the
overall benefits from this rulemaking
greater than estimated.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening
Assessment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 90-34), which amends
the Administrative Procedures Act,
requires Federal regulatory agencies to
consider "small entities" throughout the
regulatory process. The RFA requires, in
section 603, an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determine whether a
substantial number of small entities will
be significantly affected by a regulation.
If so, regulatory alternatives that
eliminate or mitigate the impacts must
be considered. •
According to EPA's guidelines and
criteria for conducting regulatory
flexibility analyses, if over 20 percent of
the population of small businesses is
likely to experience financial adversity
based on the costs of a rule, then the
Agency is required to consider that the
rule will have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of
entities and to perform a formal RFA
assessment. The Agency has conducted
an initial screening analysis to evaluate
the potential economic effect of today's
final rule on small entities and has
concluded that the rule will not have a •
significant adverse effect on a
substantial number of small petroleum
refining companies,
Ar Definition of Affected Small Entities
EPA has identified the enterprises
directly affected by this rule as
petroleum refineries that use primary
settling ponds or other non-regulated
structures for oil/water/solids sludge
separation from oily wastewaters. The
Agency has estimated in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) for this regulation
that about 182 put of 204 U.S. refineries
produced such sludges at the beginning
of 1989,: primarily under unregulated
conditions, and could therefore incur
costs for new regulatory controls under
Subtitle C of RCRA. However, as noted,
a substantial portion of these sludges—
possibly the major part—would come
under the recently promulgated Toxicity
Characteristic Rule (55 FR11798) and
would therefore be subject to regulation
prior to the effective date of today's
regulation.
According to current U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) records, these 204 U.S.
refineries are owned and operated by
106 identifiable business entities,
primarily U.S. corporations (Petroleum
Supply Annual, 1989). These 106
companies vary widely in size and
general character. The largest 25
companies are either fully integrated
petroleum companies or broadly based
natural resource or other conglomerates
ranking high among the nation's top 100
or 500 largest corporations. The majority
are smaller, nonintegrated companies
that typically operate only one
petroleum refinery.
For purposes of this regulatory
analysis, the Agency has chosen to
define affected small entities as those
small petroleum refining companies that
control comppnyrlevel crude oil refining
capacity of under 50,000 barrels per day
(BPD). This definition of small company
was chosen for the following reasons:
(1) A capacity level of 50,000 BPD
represents 60 percent of the total number of
companies (64 put of 106), but these 64
companies together control only 9 percent of
capacity.
(2) Companies operating at less than 50,000
capacity BPD are predominantly
nonintegrated, independent companies that
operate only one refinery each.
(3) The 50,000 BPD cutoff is consistent with
one of the Small Business Administration's
(SBA) criteria for defining small businesses in
the petroleum refining industry (SIC Code
2911), as published in SBA's Small Business
Size Regulations (13 CFR121).
The Agency has chosen pot to use
SBA's second criterion, which would
define a small business as one that has
less than 1,500 employees, because (a)
very few refineries employ more than
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday. November 2. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 46395
1,500 employees, and (b) data on the
number of employees per facility/
refinery are much less readily available
than are production capacity data.
It may be noted that the concept of a .
small entity as applied to petroleum
refining companies is a strictly relative
concept. For example, the 50,000 BPD
company used as our cutoff criterion
would, under current market conditions,
generate an average annual sales'
revenue of about $350 million per year.
This revenue level would rank such a
company well above 95 percent of all
U.S. corporations in annual sales. A
company with 5,000 BPD capacity would
generate about $35 million in annual
sales.
B. Impact Screening Analysis
In conducting the RIA for this rule, the
Agency used a data file that included
167 of the 204 operable refineries in the
United States. Compliance costs and
annual sales were estimated for all
facilities in this data base, including 46
refineries operated by 40 companies
meeting the Agency's criterion as small
petroleum refining companies with
under 50,000 BPD of crude oil refining
capacity. The Agency has based its
screening analysis for small business
impacts oh a review of the compliance
cost and sales estimates for these 40
comp'anies, which comprise 63 percent
of all small refining companies.
Using a criterion of annual
compliance costs greater than 1 percent
of annual sales as the measure of
"substantial" adverse impact, the
Agency estimates that no more than 13,
or so small refining companies (20%)
would experience substantial impacts
from today's rule even under the highest
cost set of costing assumptions used in
the RIA. Conversely, using lower cost
assumptions from the RIA, the number
of firms with compliance cost-to-sales
ratios greater than one percent
approaches zero. Given unexploited
potentials for waste minimization and
recycling as a preferred option to
incineration for sludge disposal, the
Agency's best estimate is that less than
six (10%) of the small (less than 50,000
BPD) refining companies would be
adversely affected at the one percent of
sales criterion level.
Based on this screening analysis and
the criteria presented, the Agency has
concluded that this regulation will not
have a substantial adverse impact on a
significant proportion of small
companies in the petroleum refining
industry. The Agency has not, therefore,
conducted a formal Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for this rule.
VIII. Cercla Designation and Reportable
Quantities
All hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
261.31 through 26i;33, as well as any
solid waste that meets one or more of
the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined at 40 CFR 261.21
through 261.24), are hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, pursuant !tO
CERCLA section 101(14). Therefore, the
waste streams Usted as hazardous in
today's notice will, on the effective date
of the final .rule, automatically become
hazardous substances. CERCLA
hazardous substances- are listed in
Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along with
their reportable quantities (RQs).
CERCLA section 103{a) requires that 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 shall immediately
notify the National Response Center of
the release. In addition, section 304 of
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
requires the owner or operator of a
facility to report the release of a
CERCLA hazardous substance or a
SARA Title III extremely hazardous
substance to the appropriate state
emergency response commission (SERC)
and local emergency planning
committee (LEPC) when the amount
released equals or exceeds the RQ for
the substance (or one pound where no
RQ has been set).
The release of a hazardous waste to
the environment must be reported when
the amount released equals or exceeds
the RQ for the waste, unless the
concentrations of the constituents of the
waste are known (48 FR 23566, May 25,
1983). If the concentrations of.the
•constituents of the waste are known,
then the mixture rule may be applied.
According to the "mixture rule" used in
notification under CERCLA and SARA
(40 CFR 302.6(b)), the release of
mixtures and solutions containing
hazardous waste would need to be
reported to the NRG, and to the
appropriate LEPC and SERC, when the
RQ of any of its component hazardous
substances is equalled or exceeded. RQs
of different hazardous substances are
not additive under the mixture rule
(except for radionuclides, see 54 FR
22536, May 24,1980), so that spilling a
mixture containing half an RQ of one
hazardous substance and half an RQ of
another hazardous substance does not
require a report;
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 CERGLA.
In order to coordinate the RCRA and
CERCLA rulemakings with respect to
new waste listings, the Agency today is
adding the wastes F037 and F038 to 40
CFR 302.4, the codified list of CERCLA
hazardous substances, and listing their
statutory RQs of one pound. In a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
the Agency proposes to adjust the
statutory RQs for waste streams F037
and F038 to one pound pursuant to
section 102(a) of CERCLA. -
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects
40 CFR,Part 261
Hazardous wastes, hazardous
constituents, recycling.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
Water supply, Interim and final State
authorizations.
40CFRPart302
Air pollution control, Chemicals*
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: October 19,1990.
F. Henry Habicht, H,
Deputy Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C.,6905, 6912(a), and 6922.
2. Section 261.31 is amended by
adding in alphanumeric order the
following hazardous waste listings:
§ 261.31 Hazardousjwastes from non-
specific sources.
-------
46306 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 213 / Friday. November 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Industry and EPA
hazardous wasto
No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard code
F037 Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/solids separation sludge—Any sludge generated from the gravitational separation of (T)
oil/water/solids during the storage or treatment of process wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters from petroleum
refineries. Such sludges include, but are not limited to, those generated in: oil/water/solids separators; tanks and
impoundments; ditches and other conveyances; sumps; and stormwater units receiving dry weather flow. Sludges
generated In stormwater units that do not receive diy weather flow, sludges generated in aggressive biological treatment
units as defined in §261.31(b)(2) (including sludges generated in one or more additional units after wastewaters have
been treated in aggressive biological treatment units) and K051 wastes are exempted from this listing..
F038 Petroleum refinery secondary (emulsified) oil/water/solids separation sludge—Any sludge and/or float generated from the (T)
physical and/or chemical separation of oil/water/solids in process wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters from
petroleum refineries. Such wastes include, but are not limited to, all sludges and floats generated in: induced air flotation
(IAF) units, tanks and impoundments, and all sludges generated in DAF units. Sludges generated in stormwater units that
do not receive dry weather flow, sludges generated in aggressive biological treatment units as defined in §261.31(b)(2)
(including sludges generated in one or more additional units after wastewaters have been treated in*aggressive biological
. treatment units) and F037, K048, and K051 wastes are exempted from this listing..
3. Section 261.31 is amended by
designating the introductory text and the
table as paragraph (a) and by adding
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 261.31 Hazardous wastes from non-
specific sources.
*****
(b) Listing Specific Definitions: (1) For
the purposes of the F037 and F038
listings, oil/water/solids is defined as .
oil and/or water and/or solids.
(2) (i) For the purposes of the F037 and
F038 listings, aggressive biological
treatment units are defined as units
which employ one of the following four
treatment methods: activated sludge;
trickling filter; rotating biological
contactor for the continuous accelerated
biological oxidation of wastewaters; or
high-rate aeration. High-rate aeration is
a system of surface impoundments or
tanks, in which intense mechanical
aeration is used to completely mix the
wastes, enhance biological activity, and
(A) the units employs a minimum of 6 hp
per million gallons of treatment volume;
and either (B) the hydraulic retention
time of the unit is no longer than 5 days;
or (C) the hydraulic retention time is no
longer than 30 days and the unit does
not generate a sludge that is a
hazardous waste by the Toxicity
Characteristic. •
pi) Generators and treatment, storage
and disposal facilities have the burden
of proving that their sludges are exempt ,
from listing as F037 and F038 wastes
under this definition. Generators and
treatment, storage and disposal facilities
must maintain, in their operating or
other onsite records, documents and
data sufficient to prove that: (A) the unit
is an aggressive biological treatment
unit as defined in this subsection; and
(B) the sludges sought to be exempted
from the definitions of F037 and/or F038
were actually treatecl in the aggressive
biological treatment unit.
(3) (i) For the purposes of the F037
listing, sludges are considered to be
generated at the moment of deposition
in the unit, where deposition is defined
as at least a temporary cessation of
lateral particle movement, (ii) For the
purposes of the F038 listing, (A) sludges
are considered to be generated at the
moment of deposition in the unit, where ,
deposition is defined as at least a
temporary cessation of lateral particle
•movement and (B) floats are considered
to be generated at the moment they are:
formed in the top of the unit. • .
4. Section 261 is amended by
amending Appendix VII to add the
following waste streams in ••.'.•
alphanumeric order as follows: , !
APPENDIX VII.—BASIS FOR LISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA hazarous
waste No.
Hazarous constituents for
which listed
F037.
F038
Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
chrysene, lead, chromium, .
Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene chry-
sene, lead, chromium. >
PART 271—REQUIREMENT FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS .
5. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926,
6. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding at the end the following entry to
Table 1.
TABLE 1 .—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
Effective date
November 2,1990..... Petroleum refineiy primary and secondary oil/water/sblids (Insert Federal Register page citation) .-. May2,1991.
separation sludge listings. . • .
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
7. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321
and 1361.
8. Section 302.4 is amended by adding in
alphanumeric order the waste streams F037
and F038 to Table 302.4. The appropriate
footnotes to Table 302.4 are republished
without change. • ••
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 213 / Friday, November 2, 1990 / JRules and Regulations 46397
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Statutory
Hazardous substance
CASRN
Regulatory synonyms
RQ
Proposed RQ
Code waste category . (kg)
RCRA
F037.
4 F037
Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/soods separa-
tion sludge—Any sludge generated from the
gravitational separation of oil/water/solids
during the storage or treatment of process
wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters from
petroleum refineries. Such sludges include, but
are not limited to, those generated in: oil/water/
solids separators; tanks and impoundments;
ditches and other conveyances; sumps; and
stormwater units receiving dry weather flow.
Sludges generated in stormwater units that do
not receive dry weather flow, sludges generated
in aggressive bological treatment units as de-
fined in §261.31(b)(2) (including sludges gener-
ated in one or more additional units after
wastewaters have been treated in aggressive
biological treatment units) and K051 wastes are
exempted from this listing.
* *
F038 , .'
Petroleum refinery secondary (emulsified) oil/
water/solids separation sludge—Any sludge
and/or float generated from the physical and/or
chemical separation of bll/water/solids in proc-
ess wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters
from petroleum refineries. Such wastes include,
but are not limited to, all sludges and floats
generated in: induced air flotation (IAF) units,
tanks and impoundments, and all sludges gener-
ated in DAF units. Sludges generated in storm-
water units that do .not receive dry weather flow,
.sludges generated in aggressive bological treat-
ment units as defined in § 261.31(b)(2) (including
sludges generated in one or more additional
units after wastewaters have been treated in
aggressive biological treatment unts) and F037,
. K048, and K051 wastes are exempted from this
listing.
1'(0.454)
F038
1 (0.454)
•Indicates the statutory source as defined by 4 below.
4 Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA section 3001.
'•Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.
IFR Doc. 90-25637 Filed 11-1-90; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
------- |