Friday
July 26, 1991
Part VI
i •' •
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Coke By-Products Waste;
Proposed Rule and Request for
Comments '• -.- •• •, '•
-------
Federal Register /' Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
49 CFR Parts 261,271, and 302
[FRL-3901-8]
Hazardous Waste Management
Systems: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation; Reportable
Quantity Adjustment, Coke By-
products Waste Listings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today proposing to
amend the regulations for hazardous
waste listing under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
by adding seven additional wastes
generated during the production,
recovery, and refining of coke by-
products produced from coal to the list
of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
281.32. The EPA is also proposing to
amend appendix VH of 40 CFR part 261
to add the constituents for which these
wastes are being listed. The listings are .
being proposed pursuant to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
In addition, the Agency is proposing
amendments to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) regulations in 40 CFR part
302 that are related to today's proposed
waste listings. The EPA ia proposing to
designate all*of the wastes proposed hi
today's rule as hazardous substances
under CERCLA and is proposing to
adjust the reportable quantities (RQs)
that would be applicable to these
wastes from the statutory level of v
pound to their final RQs.
The effect of this proposed r
if promulgated, would be tt>
these wastes to the hazsr
regulations under 40 f"
through 266,268,270.
notification requirement
section 3010; and the notiu
requirements under CERCLK
103.
In addition to the listings, the AV y
is proposing a series of exclusions tc the
definition of solid waste designed to
facilitate the recycling of the wastes
proposed in today's notice. The effect of
these proposals, if promulgated, will be
to allow the reinsertion of the proposed
wastes Into a coke oven or mixing with
coal tar products in an environmentally
responsible fashion.
DATES: EPA will accept public
comments on this proposed rule until
September 24,1991. For the recycling
exclusions proposed in 40 CFR
261.4(a)(12), EPA will accept public
comments only until August 16,1991.
Comments received after these dates
will be marked late and may not be
considered. Any person may request a
public hearing on this proposed
regulation by filing a request with EPA,
to be received no later than August 12,
1991.
•ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and three copies of their
comments to: EPA RCRA Docket Clerk
(OS-305), 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The Docket
Number F-91-CBPP-FFFFF should
appear on all comments. The RCRA
docket is located in room M2427 at the
above address and is open from 9 a.m.
to 4p.m., Monday through Friday, .
excluding Federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials by calling (202) 475-
9327. The public may copy a maximum
of 100 pages of material from any one
regulatory docket at no cost; addition
copies cost $0.15 per page. Copies f
listing Background Document, H*"
and Environmental Effects Pro'
(HEEPs), and other reference
not readily available can V
copied in the RCRA doc'
sections of the backgr
contain ConfidennV
Information (CBB
to the public.
Copies of' *
Reportab' <&&
strearr A aijd
KW ^427 at the
j> ,on Agency,
,igton,DC
xailablefor
.ae hours of 9 a.JH.
,y through Friday,
!al holidays. As provided
»2, a reasonable fee may"
ior copying services,
.a on the CERCLA portion of
, proposal should be sent in
.oate to: Emergency Response
vision, Superfund Docket and
.information Center, Attention: Docket
Clerk (OS-245), Docket No. 102RQ-
7COKE, room M2514, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket number 102RQ-7COKE should
appear on all cbmments.
Requests for a hearing should be
addressed to Mr. David Bussard, .
Director, Characterization and
Assessment Diyision, Office of Solid
Waste, U.S Environmental Protection
Agency (OS-330), 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
«»R FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)
424-9346 or (202) 382-3000. For technical
information on the RCRA portion of the
proposal, contact Mr. Ron Josephson,
Listing Section, Office of Solid Waste /
(OS-333), U.S. Environmental Protect'
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washin/
DC 20460, (202) 382-4770. For tecb'
information on the CERCLA poK
the proposal, contact Ms. Cer
Response Standards and Cf
Branch, Office of Emerge'
Remedial Response (p/
Environmental Prater
Street SW., Washir
382-2190.
SUPPLEMENT*'
contents of'
inihefo)'
A.-'
jiing Wastewaters
.c Rule
,cules
M Proposed Regulation
of the Proposal
/ Description
option of Wastes
rocess and Waste Descriptions
„ Coke By-Products
t>. Tar Refining
2. Quantities of Waste Generated
3. Waste Management Practices
D. Basis for Listing
1. Summary of Basis for Listing
a. Leaching Protocols
b. Groundwater Models
2. Waste Characterization and Constituents
of Concern
3. Mobility of Constituents of Concern
4. Persistence of Constituents of Concern
S. Health Effects of Concern
6. Mismanagement Case Histories
7. Conclusions
E. Recycling
1. Classification as a Solid Waste
2. Rationale for Exclusions from the
Definition of Solid Waste for Coke By-
products Residuals Recycled to the Coke
Oven or when Mixed with Coal Tar
. 3. Descriptions of Management Practices
for the Wastes Proposed for Listing as
Hazardous from the Point of Generation
to the Point of Reinsertion into Coke
Ovens or Mixing with Coal Tar
a. Management Practices for Residuals
from their Point of Generation to the
Point of Reinsertion into Coke Ovens
(i) Conveyance to storage or blending unit
fli) Blending of residuals with coal
(iiij Feeding the coke oven
b. Management Practices for Residuals
Proposed for Listing as Hazardous Prior
to Blending with Coal Tar
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 /Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules . ^35759
4. Similar Exclusion for Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (K087) when Reinserted into Coke
Ovens or Blended with Coal Tar
5. Generator Requirements
6. Other Options
7. Conclusions
F. Proposal Not to List Coke By-Products
Wastewaters
G. Impact of Future Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) Determinations
1. Request for Comment on the Agency's
Approach to Pollution Prevention hi the
LDR Program
2. Request for Comment on the Agency's
Approach to the Development of BOAT
Treatment Standards
3. Request for Comment on the Agency's
Approach to the Analyses of BOAT
Treatment Capacity
HI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
IV. CERCLA Designation and RQ Adjustment
V. Cost and Economic Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Compliance and Implementation
A. Section 3010 Notification
B. Compliance Dates for Facilities
IX. References
I. Background
A. Introduction
Pursuant to section 3001 of subtitle C
of RCRA, EPA proposes to list as
hazardous seven wastes generated from
the production, recovery, and refining of
coke by-products produced from coal.
Three wastes generated by this industry
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K035—
Wastewater treatment sludges
generated in the production of creosote:
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K060—
Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operations; and EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K087—Decanter tank tar sludge
from coking operations) currently are
listed and are regulated as hazardous
wastes. Another waste (process
wastewater from the production of
creosote) was proposed for regulation
under RCRA previously (see 45 FR
33136): however, this proposal has never
been finalized. The following discussion
provides a brief overview of prior
regulatory action affecting wastes from
this industry as well as summarizes the
Agency's basis for proposing to list as
hazardous the wastes covered by this
rule.
B. Previous Listings
As part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of
RCRA, EPA published several lists of
hazardous wastes generated from
specific and nonspecific sources. These
lists have been amended several times
and are-published in 40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32. Among other things, on May 19,
1980, EPA listed ammonia still lime
sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K060) under the category of iron and
steel, and wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of creosote (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K035) under the
category of pesticides (see 45 FR 33123-
33124).l Decanter tank tar sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K087) was added
to the list of hazardous wastes on July
16,1980, under the category of coking
(see 45 FR 47832).
C. Proposal to List Tar Refining
Wastewaters
The Agency also proposed to add
process wastewaters from the
production of creosote (i.e., tar refining)
to the list of hazardous wastes from
specific sources (see 45 FR 33136, May *
19,1980).' This proposed listing was
never made final. The Agency has now
tentatively decided not to list process
wastewater from creosote production
for the reasons explained later hi this
preamble (see Section I.F of today's
proposal).
D. Toxicity Characteristic Rule
On March 29,1990, as part of its
regulations implementing the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
the Agency amended the Toxicity
Characteristics rule fTC) (40 CFR 261.24)
by adding 25 additional organic
hazardous constituents to the list of
toxic constituents of concern and
substituting a new leaching procedure
called the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (55 FR
11798-11862). With the promulgation of
the Toxicity Characteristic, a number of
wastes generated by coke by-products
plants and tar refining operations,
including wastes proposed for listing in
today's proposal, are expected to be
characteristically hazardous because
they fail'the Toxicity Characteristic for
benzene (one of the 25 additional
organic compounds). Some wastes
generated by coke by-products plants
and tar refining operations may also fail
the TC levels for ortho-, meta- and/or
para-cresol. For some of the wastes
addressed hi today's proposal,
analytical results from the TCLP may
not completely reveal the true nature of
1 Creosote, one of the major products produced
by the refining of coal tar in coke by-products
plants, is used as a pesticide in the preservation of
wood. The Agency elected to list K035 under the
industrial category of pesticides and used the term
creosote production to describe the overall
operation of tar refining. All tar refining operations
produce creosote; therefore, there is no substantive
difference In scope between the terms tar refining
and creosote production.
the toxicity of these wastes owing to the
difficulties that may be experienced
while performing the test.2 Specifically,
tarry samples pose problems with
sample homogenization, filtrati jn, and
dispersion of solids in the leadang
medium. Because of these difficulties,
EPA believes that the TCLP tends to
provide analytical results which
underestimate the concentrations of
hazardous constituents hi leachate from
these wastes. Further details on the
relationship of the TC and these wastes
are discussed hi section II.D.l of today's
proposal.
E. Industrial Furnace Rules
On January 4,1985, EPA promulgated
amendments to the definition of solid
waste which made clear that secondary
materials that are burned hi boilers and
industrial furnaces for energy and
materials recovery were solid wastes
(see 50 FR 614, et seq.]. The Agency also
defined industrial furnaces as a specific
. list of ". . . enclosed devices that are
integral components of manufacturing
processes and that use controlled flame
devices to accomplish recovery of
materials or energy. . ." (40 CFR
260.10). Coke ovens were included on
the list of devices considered to be
industrial furnaces, although coke ovens
do not "burn" coal.
On February 21,1991 (see 56 FR 7134-
7240), EPA promulgated permitting
standards for boilers and industrial
furnaces that burn hazardous waste.
The standards include controls for
emissions of toxic organic compounds,
toxic metals, and hydrogen chloride. In
addition, the rule includes provisions
that subject owners and operators of
boilers and industrial furnaces that burn
hazardous waste to the same general
facility standards applicable to
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities.
In the preamble to the February 21,
1991 rule, EPA stated that the permitting
standards apply to boilers and industrial
furnaces that burn hazardous waste for
the purpose of both materials and
energy recovery. The February 21,1991
preamble identified coke ovens as
industrial furnaces that use hazardous
waste for these two purposes and stated
that these devices would be subject to
regulation. However, the February 21,
1991 rule also excludes from the
definition of solid waste coke and coal
tar from the iron and steel industry that
contain or are produced from EPA
* Research Triangle Institute, Evaluation and
Modification of Method 1311 for Determining the
Release Potential of Difficult-to-Filter Wastes, Final
Report. April 1990.
-------
35760
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 144 / Friday. July 26, 1991 /
Hazardous Waste No. K087, decanter tar
tank sludge (see 50 FR 7202-7203). This
exclusion extends to by-products
recovered from coke oven gas generated
by coke ovens charged with mixtures of
coal and decanter tar tank sludge which
otherwise would be considered
hazardous. The Agency is today
proposing to modify this exclusion for
K087 wastes somewhat, and is
proposing a similar exclusion for the
wastes proposed to be listed in today's
notice.
F. Today's Proposal
EPA is proposing today to amend 40
CFR part 261 by adding seven waste
streams to the list of hazardous wastes
from specific sources. Five wastes
generated during the production and
recovery of coke by-products will be
added to the "Coking" section of the list,
and two wastes from the refining of coal
tar will be added to the "Pesticides"
section.
Sections 3001 (a), (b)(l), and (e}(2) of
RCRA and the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) requires
that EPA determine whether to list
wastes from the coke by-products
industry as hazardous. A wide variety of
materials fall within the scope of the
term coke by-products, including coal
tar, light oil, naphthalene, phenol, and
coke oven gas. EPA has extensively
studied the coke by-products industry
and proposes, based on this evaluation
and pursuant to the HSWA mandate, to
list as hazardous the following seven
wastes that are associated with the
production, recovery, and refining of
coke^ by-products:
K141 Process residues from the recovery
of coal tar, including, but not limited to,
tar collecting sump residues from the
production of coke from coal or the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal. This listing does not include
KG87 (decanter tank tar sludge from
coking operations).
K142 Tar storage tank residues from the
production of coke from coal or from the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal.
K143 Process residues from the recovery
of light oil, including, but not limited to,
those generated in stills, decanters, and
wash oil recovery units from the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal.
K144 Wastewater treatment sludges from
light oil refining, including, but not
limited to, intercepting or contamination
sump sludges from the recovery of coke
by-products produced from coal.
K145 Residues from naphthalene
collection and recovery operations from
the recovery of coke by-products
produced from coal.
K147 Tar storage tank residues from coal
tar refining.
K148 Residues from coal tar distillation,
including, but not limited to,-, still
bottoms.
The wastes covered in today's
proposal (which are more fully
described in Section II) include process
residues and storage tank residues. The
constituents of concern that are present
in the proposed listed wastes are
benzene and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), including
benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b and lijfluoranthene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-
cdjpyrene, and naphthalene. The
proposed listings do not include
residuals already listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K035, K060, and
K087. Rather, these proposed listings, if
finalized, would supplement the existing
listings and increase the quantity of
waste from coke by-products recovery
processes and tar refining processes
regulated under subtitle C of RCRA. As
discussed below, the proposed listings
do not include wastewaters from coke
by-products recovery and tar refining.
The Agency has collected data
showing that ^he wastes proposed today
for lising typipally contain significant
concentrations of hazardous
constituents that cause carcinogenic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, and chronically
toxic effects in laboratory animals. The
hazardous constitutents are
demonstrated to be mobile and
persistent in the environment and, thus,
can reach environmental receptors in
harmful concentrations when the wastes
are mismanaged. The Agency has
evaluated these wastes using the criteria
for listing hazardous wastes, which are
identified in 40 CFR 261.11(a). The
Agency has determined that these
wastes are hazardous because they
contain toxic constituents that are
capable of posing a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health and
the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, disposed, or
otherwise mismanged.
The sources of the wastes proposed
for listing as hazardous are described in
section II below and in more detail in
the background document (available
from the public docket at EPA
Headquarters—see "ADDRESSES"
section—and from the EPA Regional
Libraries). Certain sections of the
background document, however, contain
CBI material and are not available to the
public. EPA will accept petitions
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR
part 2 for declassifying CBI material.
A number of wastes included in
today's proposal are recycled by a
substantial segment of the coke by-
products industry. For managing
proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K141 through K145, K147, and K148, two
recycling techniques are commonly
used: (1) Combining the residue with
coal feedstock prior to or just after
charging the coal into the coke oven;
and (2) mixing the residue with coal tar
prior to its being sold as a product. In
addition, these same recycling practices
are typical for tar decanter tank sludge,
already listed as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K087.
To address both of these recycling
practices, EPA today is proposing, first,
to exclude the wastes proposed for
listing in today's proposal from the
definition of solid waste at the point of
their reinsertion with feedstock into
coke ovens, and, second, to exclude
from the definition of solid waste coal
tar products that contain or are
produced from these wastes. EPA is
extending the promulgation (contained
in the February 21,1991 Boiler and
Industrial Furnace rule) of an exclusion
from the definition of solid waste for
K087 when reinserted into coke ovens
(see section II.E of today's proposal1 and
56 FR 7202-7203).
The current and proposed exclusions
would not apply prior to the point of
reinsertion of the wastes into the coke
ovens or prior to the point at which they
are mixed with coal tar. (See 56 FR
7203.) Therefore, management of the
wastes from their point of generation
through the point at which they are
reinserted into the coke oven or mixed
with coal tar, including interim storage,
would be regulated under subtitle C of
RCRA. The Agency believes that
recycling of wastes from these facilities
achieves its goals of waste minimization
in a beneficial, environmentally
responsible manner. Discussion of the
details of the recycling exclusion may be
found in section II.E of today's proposal
and in a future separate rulemaking.
Generators should note that, under 40
CFR 261.6(a)(l), hazardous wastes that
are recycled are subject to the
requirements for generators,
transporters, and storage facilities of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of that section,
except for materials listed in (a)(2) and
(a)(3) of that section. Under 40 CFR
261.6{b), generators and transporters of
recyclable materials are subject to the-
applicable requirements of parts 262 and
263, and notification requirements under
section 3010 of RCRA, except for
materials listed in § 261.6 (a)(2) and
(a)(3).
Under 40 CFR 261.6(c)(l), owners or
operators of facilities that store
recyclable materials before they are
recycled are regulated under all
applicable provisions of subparts A
through L of parts 264 and 265, and
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 56. No. 144 / Friday. July 26, 199J /
35761
under parts 124, 266, 268. and 270, and
the notification requirements under
section 3010 of RCRA, except for ,
materials listed in § 261.6 (a)(2) and
,(a)(3). Under 40 CFR 261.6(q){2), owners .
or operators of facilities that recycle
recyclable materials without storing
them before they are recycled are
subject to the following requirements.
except for materials listed in § 261.6
(a)(2j and (a)(3):
(i) Notification requirements under
section 3010 of RCRA.
(ii) Section 265.71 and 265.72 (dealing
with the use of a manifest system and
manifest discrepancies).
Today's proposal does not list
wastewaters from the production.
recovery, and refining of coke by-
products. The Agency expects that some
of ithese wastewaters may be TC
hazardous for benzene, The Agency
does not have sufficient data showing
that PAHs are typically present in these
wastewaters at levels of regulatory
concern. The Agency solicits comment
and any information relevant to ,
hazardous constituents found in these
wastewaters. If such data are received
and they demonstrate that several
hazardous constituents are typically and
frequently present in wastewaters at
levels of regulatory concern, the Agency
may reconsider whether to list these
wastewaters as hazardous.
The Agency is also not proposing to
list process wastewaters from the
production of creosote (tar refining
operations) as hazardous. Sludges
generated from the treatment of these
wastewaters are already regulated
under subtitle C of RCRA since they are
listed as hazardous wastes (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K035).
HSWA requires the Agency to
promulgate standards restricting the
land disposal of newly identified wastes
within six months of promulgating new
listings. While today's notice does not
propose land disposal restrictions for
these wastes, the Agency will propose
such standards in the future. The
Agency's information requirements as
they relate to land disposal restrictions
are outlined hi section II.G of this
proposal.
II, Summary of the Proposed Regulation
A. Overview of the Proposal
This notice proposes to add seven
^wastes from the production, recovery,
and refining of coke by-products to the
list of hazardous wastes from specific
sources (40 CFR 261.32).
The seven wastes are:
K141 Process residues from the recovery
of cofc! tar, including, but not limited to.
tar collecting sump residues from the
production of coke from coal or the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal. This listing does not include
K087 (decanter tank tar sludge from
coking operations].
K142 Tar storage tank residues from the
production of coke from coal or from the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal.
K143 Process residues from the recovery
of light oil, including, but limited to, those
generated in stills, decanters, and wash
oil recovery units from the recovery of
coke by-products produced from coal.
K144 Wastewaier treatment sludges from
light oil refilling, including, but not
limited to, intercepting or contamination
sump sludges from the recovery of coke
by-products produced from coal.
K145 Residues from naphthalene collection
end recovery operations from the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal. . •• • •
K147 Tar storage tank residues from coal
tar refining.
, K148 Residues from coal tar distillation.
including, but not limited to, still
bottoms.
EPA has found that these wastes
typically contain toxic constituents,
including some that may be
carcinogenic, that when mismanaged
may pose a substantial present or
potential threat to human health and the
environment. In addition, the Agency
has compiled evidence to demonstrate
that the toxic constituents are mobile
and persistent hi the environment and
are. capable of reaching receptors in
harmful concentrations. The information.
that supports these findings is
summarized in this preamble and is
presented in detail in the background
document and other supporting
materials that are available in the' RCRA
Docket for this proposal (see
"ADDRESSES" section).
Upon promulgation of these proposed
listings, all wastes meeting the listing
descriptions would become hazardous
wastes under RCRA. Wastes generated
prior to promulgation, however, would
not be subject to regulation as
hazardous waste as long as thay are not
actively managed after the effective
date of this rule.
B, industry Description
The proposed regulations would list
residuals from the production, recovery,
and refining of coke by-products
produced from coal as hazardous
wastes. Coke oven gas, a coke by-
product, is produced from coal along
with the main product, coke. Coke by-
products recovered from the coke oven
gas include naphthalene, light oil, coal
tar, and other marketable products.
Light oil is processed further to recover
benzene, toluene, and xylene. The
processing of light oil to produce these
products is not included in today's rule
because these products are not
necessarily by-products of the coke
manufacturing process but may be *
produced by a variety of other'
processes. By-products and sludges
generated by the light oil recovery
process itself, however, are included for
listing in today's proposal (K143 and
K144). Coal tars usually are shipped to
other facilities for coal tar refining.
Because these operations usually are
conducted at separate locations, the
descriptions of coke production and coal
tar refining industries are presented
separately in this section.
In 1987, 21 domestic companies
produced approximately 28 million •
metric tons (MT) of coke at 34 plants.
The coke by-products industry is
divided into two distinct segments—
captive coke producers (23 plants) and
merchant coke producers (11 plants).
Table 1 provides the distribution of coke
plants (captive and merchant) and tar
refining plants by state. The 23 captive
coke plants are operated by major iron
and steel companies and produce blast
furnace coke that is generally used on-
site at integrated iron and steel plants-to
produce steel.
The 11 merchant coke plants generally
produce coke for sale on the open
market. These plants produce blast
furnace coke for sale to iron and steel
companies, and metallurgical coke for
sale to iron and steel foundries and to
other metallurgical and chemical
industries.
TABLE 1.—DISTRIBUTION OF COKE PLANTS AND TAR REFINING PLANTS BY STATE
State
Alabama
Illinois u
Number of coke plants
Captive
1
3
• Merchant
4
0
Total
5
3
Number of tar
refining plants
2
2
-------
35762
... ••• \ i - I . .,'.,>... i r •'. • ' \ ,».,-' I ."' • , • , f
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.-144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—DISTRIBUTION OFCOKE PLANTS AND TAR REFINING PLANTS BY STATE—Continued
State
Indtartt ......................
Kontucky..... „
Mmytand _......,.... „.„ _. . ,
Michigan .»™™......-.™_... „
New York™.. ........
Ohto»™,..~ _ :
Pennsylvania ............... ......
Tor>nosr*a_. _._.......... _ „ „
Texas ,
Utah™..,..,
West Virginia. -
Total
Number of coke plants
Captive
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
0
0
1
1
23
Merchant.
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
11
TotaS
6
'1
:1
2
2
6
6
0
0
1
1
'•' 34
Number of tar
refining plants
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1 .
2
1
1
11
The major by-products from coke
production are coke oven gas, coal tar,
naphthalene, sodium phenolate, and
light oils. The coke oven gas is
processed to remove the coal tars,
phenols (which are used to produce
sodium phenolate), naphthalene, and
light oils and then is used as a fuel for
noncontact heating of the coke ovens or
in other processes in the coke or steel
plant In 1985, about 1,200 million liters
of coal tar, 3.7 million liters of sodium
phenolate, 7,700 short tons of
naphthalene, and 580 million liters of
light oil were produced by coke plants.
Historically, coal tar refining was a
part of the coke by-products recovery
operation at coke-making facilities.
However, most coke plants have
eliminated-or have sold their tar refining
operations. The crude coal tar that is
produced at most coke plants now is
sold to independent tar refiners for the
production of other coal tar by-products.
In 1987, four companies operated 11
tar refining operations (see Table 1).
Because tar refining plants depend on
coke plants for their raw material, they
are generally located in the vicinity of
coke-making facilities. The primary
products produced from coal tar at these
refining faculties are light oil, creosote
oil (middle fraction), refined tar (heavy
fraction), and tar pitch (bottom fraction).
The 1985 production of these products
was approximately 45 million liters of
light oil, 500 million liters of creosote
oils, 550 million liters of refined tar
(excluding tar used as road tar), and
470,000 metric tons (MT) of coal tar
. pitch. 1
C. Description of Wastes
•1. Process and Waste Descriptions
a. Coke By-products. While coke-
making operations vary somewhat with
respect to the products formed, oven
size, and coking time, the general
process is common to all plants. Coke
by-products recovery operations,
however, vary to a greater extent from
plant to plant, and each plant is unique
in terms of the coke by-products
recovered and the specific steps used for
recovery operations. The most common
processes invplve recovery of light oil
and coal tar, as well as production of
ammonia, naphthalene, and phenol.
Further refining of light oil and coal tar
also may occur at coke plants, but,
generally, these products are sent to off-
site refiners for further processing. The
following description provides an
overview of the coke production and
coke by-prodilcts recovery processed.
For completeness and continuity,
background information on currently
listed wastes also is presented.
However, EPA is not soliciting and will
not respond to comments pertaining to
those wastes currently listed (K087,
K060, and K035).
For coke production, coking coals are
selected mainly on the basis of quality
and amount of coke they will produce.
About 65-70% of the coal charged is
converted to coke. Mature coals (>75%
carbon) are comprised mainly of
polynuclear carbon ring systems
connected by a variety of functional
groups. Volatile matter in the coal,
arising from coal decomposition, is
released as coke oven gas during the
coking (carbonization) process. The
coke oven gas, containing benzene and
PAHs, is captured to recover coke by^
products and finally used as a fuel. Coke
produced in the coking process is used
in the manufacture of steel.
Figure 1 is a general process flow
diagram that shows the points where the
proposed wastes typically are
generated. This process flow diagram is
presented for illustrative purposes only
and should not be construed to show all
the unit operations in the manufacture of
coke by-products. Individual facilities
may have processes that are different
from those shown in Figure 1 and may
generate the proposed wastes at
different points in the process.
BILLING CODE 6560-80-M
-------
PRMAR
COLLECTING MAIN
Coke to ' -
Quench <
Coa*
f-
f Sfudot
I
Coke
Ovens
f
i
Tar
Decanter
• r
V=^-4»
COG
T
YCOOLER TAHREMOVAI
(ESP)
EXHAUSTER
i
: ^ ' -TV
Tara |
" Water v
x — i
1 L Tar
Cotecting
.1 r Sump
) LcT*
r Tar
f-| Dewaiering
i
Wastewater
Tar _X"SL
•
Tar
Tar
""*• Rennk
>•— "•>.
•D
Exeen ...,„
Ammonh ^| Pfte
Liquor Tank ~*| Extra
i^N
>. Chemical
— i or Oil
Storage
to ' '.
T-HK^
Wastewater 1 Wastewater j_
1 Tmaiinani P
|(0nsile)j ^ .J.
Imij Taf P»ch (5)
^ ^ Relined Coal Tar
Creosote
Swircvi Mckgrounrt DKwwnt - " " '
BILUNQ CODE BSSO-SO-C
AMMONIA
1 . ABSORBER
REHEATEB
: Add
Storage
••' A^EP
_L ^ 1
i Tr 1
! x> ^.
Separator }oJ . rTTITS ,Xv7 7S.
d
El I ^-lJ r^^t—L—, Light
^ £ Decanter j^j Decant f-» _ Oil
•/ 1 ' ' Plnrano
I • T •— : =— '
L NapMhatene sieam
' Drying i ^ ^
^J Wastewater 1
1 Conlbig
w^ T
-------
35761
Federal Register / Vol.
/
%*• ***^P0e
The following discussion describes
the processes illustrated in Figure 1.
Coal is charged to the coke oven and
heated to temperatures between 700°
and 900* C to produce coke and coke
oven gas (COG). In coke ovens, the
carefully blended coal charge is heated
on two opposite sides so that heat
travels toward the center and thus
produces shorter and more solid pieces
of coke. Air is excluded so that no
burning takes place within the oven; the
heat is supplied completely by the Sues
on the sides. The raw coke oven gas
exits the oven at temperatures ranging
from 760* to 870* C through the
collecting main where it is sprayed with
flushing liquor. The flushing liquor,
composed primarily of wateri tar, light
oils, and heavy hydrocarbons, cools the
coke oven gas to temperatures between
80* and 100* C. At these temperatures,
the tar precipitates, and most of the
nonvolatile organlcs condense from the
gas. Coal tar, water, and ammonia are
carried with the 'flushing liquor to the tar
decanter tank (i.e., flushing liquor
decanter tank). The uncondensed gas
flows from the collecting main through
crossover mains to the suction main,
from which it enters the primary cooler.
About 40 percent of the coke oven gas,
after being stripped of its by-products, is
returned and burned for the underfiring
of a battery of ovens, and some is used
on-site as fuel gas or for other purposes.
The uncondensed gas that leaves the
collecting main enters the primary
cooler where the gas temperature is
reduced to approximately 40° C. The
temperature reduction causes
condensation of additional tar and
liquor. Primary cooling is accomplished
directly, by contacting the gas with
cooling liquor in a baffled tower, or
indirectly, by using countercurrent water
flow in a heat exchanger. The
condensate from the primary cooler
flows into a tar collecting sump and is
discharged into a tar decanter. The
sludge that accumulates at the bottom of
the collecting sump, tar collecting sump
residue, must be removed periodically.
The tar collecting sump residue is
proposed to be listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K141. In most cases, this
residue is recycled to the tar decanter.
The gas that exits the primary cooler
is compressed in an exhauster and sent
to an electrostatic precipitator (ESP),
which removes entrained coal tar. The
coal tar typically is routed to the tar
collecting sump. In some facilities, tar
from the primary cooler and ESP is
discharged directly into the tar decanter
tank, thereby eliminating the need for a
tar collecting sump.
In the tar decanter tank, the material
separates into three phases: the top
layer is a dilute ammonia flushing
liquor; the middle layer is coal tar; and
the bottom layer contains heavy
carbonaceous [deposits that were
entrained with the tar and liquor in the
collecting main. Ammonia is a coke by-
product and is removed with a dilute
ammonia flushing liquor that is skimmed
from the top layer in the tar decanter
tank'. A portion of this liquor is recycled
to the collecting main. The flushing
liquor system is a net generator of
excess ammonia liquor that is sent to
the excess ammonia liquor tank for
storage. Phenols can be extracted from
the excess ammonia liquor by direct
contact with a countercurrent flow of
light oil from the light oil recovery unit.
The phenol containing light oil flows to
the phenol column where the phenols
are removed by reaction with caustic
[sodium hydroxide or NaOH) to form
sodium phenolate. The sodium
phenolate and the separated light oil
fraction are both sold as by-products.
Excess ammonia liquor leaving the
phenol recovery unit is then sent to
ammonia stills for ammonia recovery.
The ammonia stills employ either
caustic (NaOH) or lime (calcium
hydroxide or Ca(OH)2) to react with any
fixed ammonium salt to render 'free*
ammonia. Alternatively, lime can be
added to the ammonia liquor before it
enters the ammonia still in a vessel
called a prelimer. Ammonia still lime
sludge is generated in the ammonia
stills. This ammonia still lime sludge is
currently listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K060. No sludge (K060) is
generated if only NaOH is used in the
process. The waste ammonia Liquor
resulting from the ammonia recovery
ultimately is sent to a wastewater
treatment system.
The tar is drained from the middle
layer of the tar-decanter tank and sent
for tar dewatering and then for storage.
Tar dewatering reduces the water
content of the tar by gravity separation.
The water from tar dewatering is sent to
the wastewater treatment system.
Dewatered tar is sent for storage. The
Agency does not have any data
indicating that sludges are generated
from the tar dewatering step.
Over time, a jtar residue, identified in
today's proposal as proposed EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K142 for coke
by-products facilities and K147 for tar
distillation facilities, accumulates at the
bottom of the tar storage tanks. This tar
residue must be removed periodically to
maintain capacity of tar storage tanks.
The accumulated carbonaceous deposits
at the bottom of the tar decanter tank
currently are listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K087—Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge, This residue is collected
continuously by scrapers and is either
recycled via ball mills to the coke ovens
or treated and disposed.
Coke oven gas exiting the electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) and the reheater, is
sent for ammonia recovery. The
recovery of ammonia from coke oven
gas is practiced at most coke by-
products plants. Ammonia may be
recovered from the gas stream (i.e., coke
oven gas) using either the direct or
indirect recovery process. The direct
process involves contacting the entire
gas stream with a solution of sulfuric
acid (HgSOi) in an absorber to produce
ammonium sulfate crystals (after a
series of drying and crystallization
steps). The ammonium sulfate crystals
are sold or disposed depending on
market conditions. When indirect
ammonia recovery is used, the gas is
scrubbed with cooling water to absorb
the ammonia, and the scrubbing liquor is
distilled with steam in ammonia stills to
yield ammonia vapor. This vapor is then
reacted with sulfuric acid to produce
ammonium sulfate crystals.
Coke oven gas exiting the ammonia
absorber (saturator) is sent to the final
cooler for naphthalene removal. Coke
by-product plants use one of two
distinct processes for final cooling. The
most common method is direct contact
final cooling (see Figure 1), which uses
water as a cooling medium. The
alternative cooling process uses
counterflow wash oil as a cooling/
collection medium.
When water is used in the final
cooler, naphthalene in the coke oven gas
condenses and must be removed from
the recirculating cooling water. The
effluent stream from the final cooler is
first sent to a sump called the
naphthalene separator where the
naphthalene is skimmed mechanically
from the surface of the water.
Naphthalene collection and recovery
residue (proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K145) accumulates at the
bottom of the naphthalene separator
sump over a period of time. From the
separator sump, the water is discharged
to a hot sump, which acts as a collection
or surge vessel for the cooling tower.
From the hot sump, the water is routed
at a constant flow rate through the
cooling tower to a cold sump, which
serves as a collection or surge tank for
the cooled water before it reentera the
final cooler. Naphthalene collection and
recovery residues (proposed EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K145) also
accumulate in the hot and cold sumps,
and on the surfaces of the cooling tower.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules^
35765
Naphthalene may also be separated
from the final cooler water by sending
the coke oven gas stream through a
layer of tar at the bottom of the final
cooler. The use of a tar-bottom final
cooler allows the naphthalene to
dissolve in the tar and to be included
with the tar in any further refining
operation. The same effect can be
produced by sending the final cooler
effluent stream to the tar collecting
sump. The naphthalene dissolves in the
tar, and the water separates out by
gravity. This separated water can either
be recycled to the cooling process or
sent for wastewater treatment.
When the alternative wash oil cooling
process is used, the material recovered
from the final cooler contains
naphthalene and some light oil. This
stream is sent to a wash oil decanter (to
remove condensed water) and then to a
wash oil circulation tank. Some of the
wash oil from the recirculation tank is
recycled back to the final cooler through
an indirect heat exchanger. The
remainder is routed eventually to the
light oil recovery plant (or benzol plant),
which is described below, for removal of
both the naphthalene and the light oil.
Naphthalene collection and recovery
residues (K145) are formed hi the final
cooler and the wash oil decanter.
After final cooling, the gas stream
enters the light oil recovery stage in
which the gas is scrubbed
countercurrently with petroleum wash
oil in a scrubber called the light oil
scrubber (or benzol plant scrubber) to
absorb the light oil. Material that builds
up in this scrubber over time will be
listed as light oil recovery residues
(proposed EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K143). From the scrubber, the
"benzolized" wash oil is sept to the light
oil stripping still or stripper to separate
the wash oU from the light oil. Light oil
recovery residue (proposed EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K143) also
includes material that accumulates hi
the still. Recovered light oil is then
stored and subsequently sold. The wash
oil is recycled to the light oil scrubber.
As the wash oil recycles through the
light oil recovery process, a high-boiling-
point resin is formed through
polymerization reactions, which
degrades the quality of the wash oil. A
portion of the wash oil is removed
continuously and is treated to separate
this polymerized resin. The cleanup can
be accomplished thermally hi a wash oil
purifier, gravitationally hi wash oil
decanters, or by using the difference in
densities between the resin and the
wash oil in a centrifuge (only
gravitational separation in a decanter is
shown in Figure 1). The polymerized
resin known as wash oil muck or muck
oil (proposed EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K143) accumulates over time and is
removed periodically from the decanter.
The cleaned wash oil is recycled to the
light oil recovery cycle via the wash oil
storage or recirculation tank. The
material that accumulates in the storage
or recirculation tank is also referred to
as a light oil recovery residue (proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K143).
Most plants that practice light oil
recovery have a sump that collects
wastewaters generated hi the light oil
recovery area. Such wastewaters would
include decanter water from the
primary, intermediate, and secondary
separators, as well as equipment and
floor wash water. The primary purpose
of the intercepting sump is to provide
sufficient residence tune for oil and
water to separate. The separated light
oil fraction is recovered by skimming
and returned to the process. Sludge that
accumulates in the bottom of the
intercepting sump typically is removed
on a periodic basis. These settled solids
are residues that are defined as
wastewater sump sludges from light oil
recovery (proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K144). Wastewater from the
intercepting sump usually is treated
onsite prior to disposal or is used to
extinction in the coke quench system.
The coke oven gas (COG) that exists
from the light oil plant has a relatively
high heating value. At captive plants,
about 40 percent of the COG is used as
fuel for the coke ovens, and the
remainder is used as. fuel in other steel
plant operations. Merchant plants use
about 40 percent of the COG as fuel for
the coke ovens, and the remainder is
sold as a fuel or flared. Historically, the
gas from the light oil scrubber has been
used as a fuel without further
pretreatment However, because the
COG contains significant quantities of
hydrogen sulfide (HzS) (roughly 1 g of
HzS per 100 ms of COG) that are
converted to sulfur dioxide (SOz) and
sulfur trioxide (SOs) when the gas is
burned, many plants now practice COG
desulfurization to reduce SO, (SO2 and
SO3) emissions. The three basic types of
COG desulfurization processes are (a)
liquid absorption processes, (b) wet
oxidativs processes, and (c) dry
oxidative processes. Sulfur compounds
recovered from these processes may be
sold or disposed, depending on market
conditions.
In the coke by-products recovery
plant, Wastewaters from the light oil
recovery process, waste ammonia
liquor, and final cooler blow-down
constitute the majority of liquid wastes.
Other minor sources of aqueous waste
are barometric condenser wastes from
ammonia crystallizers, desulfurization
wastes, and contaminated waters from
air pollution emission scrubbers used at
charging, pushing, preheating, or
screening stations.
Based on the information available
from RCRA 3007 questionnaires, 49
percent of the facilities discharge these
wastewaters to a POTW, 25 percent of
the facilities discharge these
wastewaters to surface water, 21
percent reuse these wastewaters in their
process (e.g., use as quench water), and
the remaining four percent of the
facilities dispose of these wastewaters
hi underground injection wells.
According to the information available
to the Agency, a significant number of
facilities use biological treatment to
treat these wastewaters before
discharging diem to a POTW or through
their NPDES permitted outfall. However,
some facilities do discharge their <
wastewaters to a POTW without any
treatment onsite. Most of the facilities
treat their wastewaters in tanks.
However, six facilities use surface
impoundments to manage their
wastewaters.
Based on the limited information
available to the Agency, four facilities
have reported storing sludges resulting
from wastewater treatment hi surface
impoundment, one facility has reported
storing sludges from wastewater
treatment in waste piles, three facilities
have reported disposing of sludges from
wastewater treatment in landfills, one
facility has reported incinerating sludges
from wastewater treatment.
b. Tar Refining. Coal tars typically are
refined at facilities other than coke
plants. Coal tar is refined by either
batch or continuous distillation into a
number of products, including pitch,
creosote, naphthalene, and tar acids.
The following paragraphs discuss the tar
refining steps.
A batch still is a horizontal tank used
to heat the crude coal tar. Vapors from
the material being distilled leave the top
of the still and pass through a water-
cooled condenser. The pitch (at the
bottom of the horizontal tank) is heated
until it reaches its softening point. At
that point, the pitch is discharged from
the still, cooled, and poured into barrels
for storage. In the batch distillation
process, high-boiling-point residues
accumulate on the fire tubes and at the
bottom of the still and must be removed
periodically. This residue is called tar
distillation bottoms or residue (proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K148).
When coal tar is refined using
continuous distillation, the crude
material is first heated in a dehydration
-------
35766
Federal Register /Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
column, then flashed to separate its
components. The heavy liquid
components such as pitch and creosote
are sent to a distillation column for
further refining. Vapors from the flash
chambers and distillation columns are
sent to a fractionating column. Finished
commercial products include heavy
naphtha, naphthalene, creosote, and
anthracene oil. No still residues are
generated from the continuous process.
Tar from either of these processes is
stored in tanks and, over time, a tar
residue may accumulate at the bottom of
the storage tanks and, if it reaches a
certain level, is removed periodically.
This tar residue is identified in today's
proposal as FPA Hazardous Waste No.
K147 (for the refining facilities).
Currently EPA does not have any data
that indicate residues are generated
from chemical or oil storage.
The Agency realizes that the tar
refining industry generates products
from still bottoms, as opposed to relying
purely on distillate products. The
Agency seeks comment as to which
bottoms are really products, by-
products, or co-products and which are,
in fact, wastes. The Agency is proposing
to limiting the [listings to materials that
are wastes, not legitimate products. The
Agency also seeks comments and
suggestions as to the wording of the
K147 and K148 listings, so that there is
no confusion in the regulated community
as to the scope of the listings, if
promulgated.
2. Quantities of Waste Generated
Table 2 presents estimates of the
quantities of waste generated from the
production of coke and coke by-
products, recovery of coke by-products,
and coal tar refin&g. These estimates
are based en dt*« supplied to EPA by
the.industry in response to the
questionnaires sent to each operating
facility in 1985, and on supplemental
data collected from all tar refiners and
approximately 50 percent of the coke
plants in'1987. The industry
questionnaires were issued under the '
authority of RCRA Section 3007. The
estimates were calculated using a best-
estimate, production-normalized waste
generation rate for each residual stream.
Plant-specific waste /residual estimates
of waste quantities were made based on
the process description or residual
characterization supplied'by the plant,
and using plant-specific production rates
for those plants that were known to
generate the residual stream. The
assumptions and data used to generate
these estimates are provided in detail in
the Background Document for this
proposed listing and in confidential data
memoranda referenced in the
Background Document. EPA will accept
petitions submitted in accordance with
40 CFR part 2 for declassifying CBI
material.
TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE WASTE QUANTITIES (MT/YR)
Wasta
Quantity
K141—Process residues from the recovery of coal tar. Including, but not limited to, tar collecting sump residues from the production of coke from coal
or tha recovery of coke by-products produced from coal. This listing does not include K087 (decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations)
KHz—Tor storage tar* residues from the production of coke from coal or from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal
K143—Process residues from the recovery of light oil, including, but not limited to, those generated in stills, decanters, and wash oil recovery units
from ma recovery of coke by-products produced from coal i
K144—Wastewator treatment sludges from light oil refining, Including, but not limited to, intercepting or contamination sump sludges from the recovery
of eok» by-products produced from coal .„...„. „. „.
K145—Residues from naphthalene collection and recovery operations from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coai ......
K147—Tnr storage tank residues from coal tar refining .'. „ „ , .
KH8—RosWuflS from coal tar distillation, Including, but not limited to, still bottoms :
3,100
10,000
4,500
800
450
2,800
270
Source: Background Document (USEPA 1890).
3. Waste Management Practices
The principal sources of information
on waste management practices are the
responses to the 1985 EPA
questionnaires, the supplemental
information collected in 1987, arid
information from States and other
government agencies. Table 3
summarizes the information obtained on
management practices for the coke plant
residual streams. Coal tar refining waste
management practices are summarized
in Table 4.
TABLE 3.—WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR COKE BY-PRODUCTS RECOVERY WASTES (PERCENT) l
Waste management practice
Rouse, returned to process™.. ..
Removad by was'.a removal contractor™ .™ „
Bum®d In boilor/ussd as fuel
Undfffl "
Other. ;
No, of facStios responding ™™ [
Percent of total coke production by responding facilities ,
K141
Residues
from tar
recovery2
2 -fog
o
0
Q
Q
•1
5
K142
Tar storage
tank
residues
31
8
31
qi
0
•4O
44
K143
Residues
from light oil
processing
C'l
13
10
fj
a Q
17
27
K144
Wastewater
treatment
sludges
from light-oil
refining
43
29
14
27
K145
Residues
from
naphthalene
collection,
recovery
100
o
0
, , t , A
,16
TI bass<1 °" "S^ST of fadlitie3 responding to RCRA 3007 questionnaire, which reported management practices, not number of facilities that
. Totals may exceed 100 percent because many facilities reported more than one management practice. .-
fW ** collectinfl 8TP resStlue3 *"* that P|ant Indicated that residues are recycled to the tar decanter. This
a Sold or stored.
Source: RCRA 3007 quesfionnarfes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 144 / Friday, July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
35767
TABLE 4.—WASTE MANAGEMENT PRAC-
TICES FOR TAJ? REFINING WASTES (PER-
CENT) »
Waste management practice
Reuse, return to process
Removed by waste removal
contractor —
Burned in boiler/used as fuel _.
Landfill
Thermal evaporation in tanks ....
Other
Number of facilities respond-
ing „.«. »......w.mw««.w.
Percent of total tar production
by responding facilities
K147tat
storage
tank
residual
0
50
0
50
0
0
4
50
K148tar
distilla-
tion
residue
33
33
0
33
0
0
6
55
1 Percentages are based on number of facilities
responding to the RCRA 3007 questionnaire, which
reported management practices, not number of fa-
cilities that generated waste. Totals may exceed 100
percent because many facilities reported more than
one waste management practice.
Source: RCRA 3007 Questionnaires.
The four primary waste management
practices for coke plant residual streams
are landfilling, removal by designated
contractors for off-site disposal,
combustion as a fuel, and reuse in the
process. Further details on off-site waste
management practices utilized by the
contractors were not reported hi the
RCRA 3007 questionnaires, but
presumably the wastes are either
landfilled or used as a fuel because of
their high heating value (> 12,000 BTU/
Ib),
Several recycling options are
available for reuse of residuals hi the
process. For example, for residues from
tar recovery (proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K141), one option is to
recycle the residue to the tar decanter.
Tar storage tank residuals (proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K142) are
generally recycled to the coke oven and
introduced with the coal as feedstock.
Residues from naphthalene production
(proposed EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K145) can be returned to the coke oven
or dissolved in the tar and processed as
a component of the crude coal tar. The
two light oil recovery residues (proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K143 and
K144) can be dissolved in the tar,
dissolved in the wash oil and recycled
in the light oil recovery process, or
recycled to the coke oven with the coal.
Two facilities reported recycling tar
distillation residue (proposed EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K148). One plant
recycled the residue with the tar. The
other plant recycled the residue to a
coke plant where it was returned to the
coke oven with the coal feed.
D. Basis for Listing
I. Summary of Basis for Listing
Each of the seven wastes from coke,
coke by-products, and tar refining meets
the criteria for listing wastes .as
hazardous that is presented hi 40 CFR
281.11(a}(3). Consequently, EPA is
proposing that they be added to the list
of hazardous wastes from specific
sources appearing at 40 CFR 261.32.
Hazardous constituents are typically
present in these wastes at such levels
that ground-water concentrations of
these constituents are expected to
exceed health-based levels of concern
when the wastes are improperly
managed. As discussed later, all the
constituents of concern are carcinogens •
and/or systemic toxicants. All of the
constituents of concern are listed as
hazardous constituents hi 40 CFR part
261, appendix Vffl. Under plausible
mismanagement scenarios, the Agency
believes that these proposed hazardous -
wastes (proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K141 through K145, JC147,
TABLE 5.—CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
and K148) are capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment. By
mismanagement scenario, the Agency
means disposal in a sanitary or
industrial {RCRA subtitle D) landfill,
surface impoundment, open dumping,
etc.
Table 5 presents the selected
constituents of concern in each of the
proposed wastes. Tables 6 and 7 present
the range of measured concentrations of
constituents in coke by-products and tar
refining wastes. EPA selected the
constituents of concern based on two
principal factors: their known toxicity
and their average concentrations hi the
waste. In the past, EPA's selection of
constituents of concern for listed
hazardous wastes has relied on
comparisons of maximum reported
waste constituent concentrations'with
health-based levels of concern. The
Agency used the same selection
procedure to identify the constituents of
concern hi the wastes being proposed
for listing as hazardous. In this case, the
Agency has found, as is shown and
discussed later in Tables 8 through 8F,
that the concentrations of constituents
of concern hi coke by-products wastes
are so high that even projections of
ground water contamination levels
based on average waste concentrations
(rather than maximum concentrations)
exceed health-based levels of concern.
Other constituents were detected in
these wastes but were hot selected as
constituents of concern at this time
because then- levels of toxicity are not
well established or because they
typically are not present in
concentrations of regulatory concern.
Data on these constituents can be found
in the Background Document for today's
proposal.
Constituents
Benzo(a)pyrene .„...«...........»„.» . »..„»». . ..... .......»HH.«.....».H..................«^.». ..............
Ben7o(b and k)fluoranth'ene - - „ »,„.««..„..»„
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene « .. . ... « .. ........ «....
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene....... „
Naphthalene ........»»»«..«.«.». »..„..„...„.„».. ...«. .„.»..„.....«.».»..«.»..
K141
X
X
X
X
X
X
K142
X
X
X
X
X
X
K143
X
X
X
X
-
K144
X
X
X
X
X
-
K145
X
X
X
X
X
K147
X
X
X
X
X
X
K148
X
X
X
X
X
Note.—X indicates that the constituent has been found to be present at levels of regulatory concern in His individual waste stream.
-------
35768
Federal Register / Vol. 56, NQ. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—Coke and Coke By-Product Wastes: Constituents of Concern and Range of Measured Concentrations (All-Values in
PPM)
Constituent
Benr(a) anthracene
B6f)zo{Q)pyrane .»«.«........»
Berno(b)(luofanUiene ".......
Bonzotkjduoranlhena ** ,.....„
Diboru(a,h)anthraceno
K141—
Process
residues
from coat
tar
recovery*
3,850
7,850
8,450
5,450
1,750
6.150
95,000
K142— Tar storage tank
residues
Range
i
230-290 [
5,400-7,400
4,500-8,300
5,200-10,000
720-1,600
2,000-4,100
32,000-84,000
Avg.
260
6,600
6,500
7,500
1.000
2,900
55,000
K1 43— Residues from
light oil processing
Range
39-8,500
ND-320
<10-130
<5-230
ND-C250
ND-"250
,1,400-480,000
Avg.
1,600
"69
"34
» 59
"38
"40
52,000
K144— Wastewater
treatment sludges from
light oil refining
Range
200-14,000
<15-140
<20-130
15-220
<7~C31
< 15-77
360-53,000
Avg.
3,000
"68
b65
"75
"15
"36
27,000
K145 — Residues from
naphthalene collection and
recovery
Range
120-3,000
<3-c48
ND-22
ND-5
ND-5 .
ND-9,9
5.7-300,000
. Avg.
1,000
"22
"7
"26
"1.3
"4
. 140,000
• Only one data point exists. However, this residual is presumed to be comparable in composition to tar decanter sludge (listed waste K087).
'Arithmetic averages are based on one half the quantitation limjt for constituents detected below quantitation limits and zero for constituents not detected (ND).I
«Value represents on« half the quantitation limit because the constitutent was detected at trafce levels. . I
«GC pe&K resolution was not adequate to provide quantitajion of the two isomers individually. The results shown are the sum of the two isomers.)
TABLE 7.—TAR REFINING WASTES: CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND RANGE OF MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS (ALL VALUES IN PPM)
Constituent
Bonzo(b)fluoranthen«b. ,
K147— Tar storage tank
residuals
Range
230-290
5,400-7,400
4,500-8,300
5,200-10,000
720-1,600
2,000-4,100
32,000-84,000
Avg
" 260
6,600
6,500
7,500
1,000
2,900
55,000
K148— Tar Distillation
residuals
Range
NA«
160-10,000
330-7,300
150-13,000
36-1,400
110-3,300
17-2,400
Avg
NA'
4,500
3,600
6,100
800
1,700
850
•Constituent not analyzed (volatiles were not anticipated in still bottoms that have been heated to high temperatures).
»GC peek resolution was not adequate to provide quantitation of the two isomers Individually, The results are the sum of the isomers.
Source: Background Document i
The Agency lists a waste as
hazardous if the waste poses a potential
hazard to human health or the
environment. In order to assess the
potential hazard that a waste may pose,
the Agency evaluates the potential
human health and environmental risk if
the waste is disposed of improperly.
This risk is estimated as a function of
the amount of exposure and the toxicity
of hazardous constituents present hi the
waste stream of concern. In evaluating
the risk posed by today's wastes, the
Agency considered human exposure and
exposure to environmental receptors
from contaminated ground water. The
amount of exposure to humans through
ingestion of contaminated drinking
water and environmental receptors via
ground water is estimated from the
expected concentrations of hazardous
constituents in drinking water and the
average amount of water consumed over
the entire life span of an individual.
The expected drinking water
concentrations of hazardous
constituents from the wastes can be
estimated as follows. First, the
concentrations of these constituents
released to a leachate generated from
the wastes are estimated. Then, the
concentrations of these constituents in
drinking'water are, estimated after
transportation of the leachate to a
drinking water well. Various
alternatives, discussed below, were
considered for estimating the exposure
concentrations.
In order to estimate the concentration
of the constituents of regulatory concern
present in the proposed coke by-
products wastes, EPA considered the
use of teachability models and
subsurface fate and transport models to
estimate concentrations of these
constituents in drinking water.
Specifically, the Agency considered the
use of the Organic Leachate Model
(OLM) aind the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to estimate
the leachate concentrations that are
likely to result from the proposed
wastes. This would be followed by the
use of EPA's Composite Model for
Landfills (EPACML) to estimate the
migration of the hazardous constituents
to the drinking water well. However,
due to limitations in the applicability of
these models to the wastes being
addressed in today's proposal, the
Agency has determined that they may
not be appropriate for these wastes.
These limitations are discussed below.
a. Leaching Protocols. On November
27,1985, the Agency proposed an
organic leachate model (OLM) to
estimate the amount of organic
contaminants that will leach from a
waste (see 51 FR 41082 and 50 FR 48886),]
The OLM is an empirical equation
which was developed through
application of modeling techniques to a
data base of waste Constituent
concentrations and experimentally
measured leachate concentrations. The
OLM takes into account the
concentrations of organic constituents of]
concern and their aqueous solubility.
However, OLM does not consider
cosolvency effects and therefore, tends
to underestimate pollutant mobility in
waste matrices where cosolvency may
be significant. EPA believes that, with
the possible exception of tar distillation |
residues, wastes addressed in today's
proposal may be subject to significant
cosolvency effects.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991
•35769
EPA also analyzed samples of the
wastes addressed in today's proposal
•for selected organic constituents, using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TGLP) (see 55 FR11798-
11862 for details on the TC rule).
Problems were encountered in applying
the leaching procedure to these wastes.
The principal problem with the samples
of these wastes is associated with the
variable amounts of tar (Le., percent
solids). Tarry samples pose problems
with sample homogenization, filtration,
and dispersion of solids in the leaching
medium when performing the TCLP. The
tendency of tar to adhere to surfaces
causes mass balance problems. Because
of these difficulties, EPA believes that
the TCLP procedure tends to provide
analytical results which may
underestimate the concentrations of
hazardous constituents in leachates
from these wastes if they are disposed
of in a landfill environment. (The
analytical results are provided in the
Background Document for today's
proposal.)
b. Groundwater Models. The
modelling method referred to as
EPACML has been used to estimate the
attenuation and dilution of specific
constituents during their migration
through the unsaturated zone beneath a
municipal landfill, and their transport
through the saturated zone to a potential
drinking water source (exposure point).
EPACML accounts for dispersion in the
longitudinal, lateral, and vertical
directions; one-dimensional steady and
uniform advective flow; sorption; and
chemical degradation from hydrolysis.
EPACML accounts for the unsaturated
zone transport modules and implements
them using the Monte Carlo
(probabilistic) framework.
The input concentration to the
unsaturated zone transport module of
EPACML corresponds to the leachate
concentration at the bottom of the
landfill. Under certain conditions,
particularly very high constituent
concentration, immiscible liquid flow
can occur. For such situations, the
model's inability to account for the
immiscible flow condition may result in
an underestimation of the receptor well
concentrations. As discussed below, the
wastes addressed in today's proposal
typically have very high concentrations
of certain hazardous constituents.
Therefore, use of EPACML may result in
an underestimate of concentrations of
these constituents at-drinking well sites.
For the reasons stated above, EPA
believes that the use of available
leaching and subsurface fate and
transport models is not optimal for the
wastes addressed in today's proposal. In
addition, analytical results from the
application of the TCLP to waste
samples tend to understate the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in leachates which may
possibly originate from the wastes.
However, in spite of the limitations of
available methodologies for evaluating
the potential health threats from these •
wastes, the Agency believes that the
methodologies reveal high
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in these wastes. For .that
reason and because of the toxicity of
these constituents, the mobility of the
hazardous constituents, and tha
persistence of the constituents in the
environment, EPA believes that the
wastes are hazardous.
After considering all of the factors of
40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), EPA concludes that
these wastes are capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of. The
concentrations and toxicities of
hazardous constituents in the wastes are
of such a magnitude that, even under
conservative assumptions regarding the
potential for release of these
constituents to the environment and
their subsequent transport in the
subsurface environment, improper
management of the wastes poses an
unacceptable health risk. The following
discussion illustrates this concern.
Tables 8 through 8F summarize the
average concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the wastes and the
health-based concentrations of these
constituents in drinking water at
specified risk levels. For illustrative
purposes, the tables also indicate the
concentrations of these constituents
when hypothetical environmental
exposure factors (HEEFs), ranging from
100 to 10,000, are applied to the
concentrations in the wastes. The
purpose of this illustration is to indicate
the concentrations of the constituents
which result under a range of
assumptions regarding the release of .
these constituents and their fate and
transport in the environment.
TABLE 8.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K141
Hazardous constituent
Benzene ............. .
B3nz(a)anthrac8n0....«...~ .... .......
8enzo(a)pyrone
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzofkjfluoranthene1"
Dibenz(a,h)anthrac6ne
Indenofl ,2,3-cd)pyrene.. , ...
Average
waste
concen-
tration
detected
(ppm)
3,850
7.850
8,450
5.450
1,750
6,150
Health-
based water
concentra-
tion limits
(ppm)
5.0x10-
1.1x10-
3.0x10-
4.0x10-
7.1X10-
2.0x10-
Basis"
MCL (A)
RSD (B,)
RSD (Bj)
RSD (B?)
RSD (Bs)
RSD (C)
Estimated drinking well
concentration " (ppm)
HEEF
100
38.5
78.5
84.5
54.5
17.5
61.5
HEEF
1000
3.85
7.85
8.45
5.45
1.75
6.15
HEEF
10,000
0.385
0.785
0.845
.0545
0.175
0.615
Calculated concentration to health-
based limit ratios c
HEEF 100
7,700
7.100,000
28,'000,000
14,000
25,000,000
3,100
HEEF 1000
770
710,000
2,800,000
1,400
2.500,000
310
HEEF
10,000
77
71,000.
280.000
140
250.000
31
• Reference Dose (RfD), Risk-Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained later in the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs.
Class A and B carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 10~e risk level. .Class C carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 10s n'sk level.
" Calculated for three hypothetical environmental exposure factors (HEEFs).
f Ratio obtained by dividing values in estimated drinking well concentration column by values in health-based, water concentration limit column for all three
HEEFs. , -
" GC peak resolution was not adequate to provide quantisation of the two isomers individually. The results show the sum of tha two isomers.
Source: Background Document •
-------
35770
Federal Register / Vol. 56, fto. 144 / Friday. July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8A.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K142
Hazardous constituent
Bsnzone... „
Benztajanthracene.............. ..
B«tto(a)pyrano. ...„ „
Bonzoftjfluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene *d !.I~!"
Dibonz(a,h) anihracena ..
Indono (1.2,3-cd)pyrerwt ™"
Average
waste
concen-
tration
detected
(ppm)
260
6,600
6,500
7,500
1.000
2,900
Health-
based water
concentra-
tion limits
(ppm)
5.0x10->
1.1X10-'
3.0x10-*
4.0x10-'
7.1x10-'
2.0X10-'
Basis*
MGL (A)
BSD (Ba)
RDS (Ba)
RSD (B,)
RSD (Ba)
RSD (C)
Estimated drinking well
concentration » (ppm)
HEEF
100
2.6
66
65
75
10
29
HEEF
1000
0.26
6.6
6.5
7.5
1.0
2.9
HEEF
10,000
0.026
0.66
0.65
0.75
0.1
0.29
Calculated concentration to health-
based limit ratios '
HEEF 100
520
66,000,000
22,000,000
19,000
14,000,000
1,400
HEEF 1000
52
600,000
2,200,000
1,900
1,400,000
140
KEEF
10,000
5
60,000
220,000
190
14,000
14
HEEFsT ^ by dividin9 Values '" esfimated ^nking well concentration column by values in health-based, water concentration limit column for aH three
Sc^c^BKa&^n^montde<1Uate '° l*W*to quantitation of *• **» isomere Individually..^ results show the sum of the two isomers.
TABLE 8B.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K143
Hazardous constituent
Bfiraena ...™_ „
Benz(a)an!hracane
B«nzo{a)pvrene — .. — „
Bonzo{b)f!uoranthena B9nzo(k)fluoianthene «,
Average
waste
concen-
tration
detected
(ppm)
1,600
69
34
59
Health-
based water
concentra-
tion limits
(ppm)
5.0x10-"
1.1X10-'
3.0X10-'
4.0X10-'
Basis*
MCL (A)
RSD (Bs)
RSD (82)
RSD (82)
Estimated drinking well
concentration D (ppm)
HEEF
100
16
0.69
0.34
0.59
HEEF
1000
1.6
0.069
0.034
0.059
HEEF
10,000
0.16
0.007
0.003
0.006
Calculated concentration to health-
based limit ratios e
HEEF 100
3,200
63,000
110,000
150
HEEF 1000
320
6,300
11,000
15
HEEF
10,000
32
630
1,100
1.5
HEEFs.
y
^ <™J'n9 value* "" eslimatetl drinWl19 well concentrati
. are explained later In the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs.
carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 10"? risk level.
drinking well concentration column by values in health-based, water concentration limit column for all three
iion of the two isomers individually. The results show the sum of the two isomers.
TABLE 8C.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K144
Hazardous constituent
** . * *
Benzona „.«......„,„..
Bonz(a}anthracen«_, M
Bonzo(a)pyrana »_-„....,....„...., ~......'.™!""!"™
Daxjoz(a,h)anthrancona ZZZZ.Z!
Average
waste
concen-
tration
detected
(ppm)
3,000
68
65
75
15
Health-
basod water
concentra-
tion limits
(ppm)
5.0X10-
1J1X10-
3.0x10-
4.0X10-
7.1X10-
Basis*
MCL (A)
RSD (62)
RSD (B2)
RSD (Ba)
RSD (Bj)
Estimated drinking well
concentration " (pprn)
HEEF
100
30
0.6S
0.65
0.75
0.15
HEEF
1000
3.0
0.068
0.065
0.075
0.015
HEEF
10,000
0.30
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.002
Calculated concentration to health-
based limit ratios *
HEEF 100
6,000
61,000
210,000
ISO
210,000
HEEF 1000
600
6,100
21,000
18
21,000
HEEF
10,000
60
610
2,100
1.9
2,100
•——/ «•« GXp'ainsd later in tns ^IWCUHVIV, ao we ui« uitmsoa 01 nous.
tr^-hypptheticarei>viciHr^nlaTex^s^farto^(H^ "*" MaS5 C carcin°9ena are based on exP°s««» W» <* a ™-> risk level.
HEEF87 J ^ dMdm8 Values in ^"ma'ed drinking well concenVaBon column by values in health-based, water concentration limit column for all three
Sc^Bkack^±?r^metntdS<'Uata to Pr°Vfde c'uantitation of •» ««» ho™» Individuaily. The results show the sum of the two isomers.
TABLE 8D.—BASIS. FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K145
Hazardous constituent
Bonzorio „..„_„
B
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
35771
" Reference Dose (RfD), Risk-Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MGL) are explained later in the preamble, as are the Masses of RSDs.
Class A and B carcinogens ere based on exposure limits at 10-° risk level. Class C carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a ,Q-5 nsk level.
b Calculated for three hypothetical environmental exposure factors (HEEFs).
e Ratio obtained by dividing values in estimated drinking well concentration column by values in health-based, water concentration limit coluttr, for alt three
HEEFs.
Source: Background Document.
TABLE 8E.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K145
Hazardous constituent
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene . . .
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fiuoranth6ne Benzo(k)fluoranthene d
Dibenz(a h)anthracene .
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ....
Average
waste
concen-
tration
detected
(ppm)
260
6,660
6,500
7,500
1,000
2,900
Health-
based water
concentra-
tion limits
(ppm)
5.0x10-"
'1.1x10-'
3.0 X10'6
"4.0X10-'
7.1X10-'
2.0x10-=
Basis"
MCL (A)
RSD (82)
RSD (B2)
RSD (B2
RSD (B2)
RSD (C)
Estimated drink
concentration
HEEF
100
2.6
66
65
75
10
29
HEEF
1000
0.26
6.6
6.5
7.5
1.0
2.9
ng well
' (Ppm)
HEEF
10,000
0.026
0.66
0.65
0.75
0.1
0.29
Calculated concentration to health-
based limit ratios c
HEEF 100
520
66,000,000
22,000,000
19,000
14,000,000
1,400
HEEF 1000
52
600,000
2,200,00
1,900
1,400,000
140
HEEF
10,000
5
60,000
220,000
190
140,000
14
• Reference Dose (RfD), Risk-Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained later in the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs.
Class A and B carcinogens are based on exposure limits at 1Q-« risk level. Class C carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 1Q-5 risk level.
b Calculated for three hypothetical environmental exposure factors (HEEFs).
0 Ratio obtained by dividing values in estimated drinking wall concentration column by values in health-based, water concentration limit column for all three
HEEFs.
d GC peak resolution was not adequate to provide quantisation of the two isomars individually. The results show the'sum of the two isomers.
Source: Background Document.
TABLE 8 F.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K148
Hazardous constituent
Benz(a)anthracene.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene "
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene .... . .
lndeno(1 ,2,3,-cd)pyrene
Average
waste
concen-
tration
detected
(ppm)
4.500
3,600
6,100
800
1,700
Health-
based water
concentra-
tion limits
(ppm)
1.1x10-
3.0x10-
4.0x10-
7.1x10-
2.0X10-
Basis •
RSD (B3)
RSD (B.)
RSD (82)
RSD (82)
RSD (C)
Estimated drinking well
concentration b (ppm)
HEEF
100
45
36
61
8
17
HEEF
1000
4.5
3.6
6.1
0.8
1.7
HEEF
10,000
0.45
0.36
0.61
0.08
0.17
Calculated concentration to health-
based limit ratios c
HEEF 100
44,100,000
12;000,000
15,000
11,000,000
860
HEEF 1000
410,000
1,200,000
1,500
1,100,000
86
HEEF
10,000
41,000
120,000
150
110,000.
8.6
• Reference Dose (Rfd), Risk-Specific Dose (RSD), and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained later in the preamble, as are the classes of RSDs.
Class A and B carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 10"6 risk level. Class C carcinogens are based on exposure limits at a 10 5 risk level.
b Calculated for three hypothetical environmental exposure factors (HEEFs).
'Ratio obtained by dividing values in' estimated drinking well concentration column by values in health-based, water concentration limit column .for all three
• GC peak resolution was not adequate to provide quantitation of two isomers individually. The results show the sum of the two isomers.
Source: Background Document.
The constituent levels, once the HEEF
multipliers have been applied to them,
are compared to their health-based
numbers. Health-based numbers are
based upon consideration of risk-
specific doses for the constituent (see
section II.D.3 of today's proposal). If the
calculated level of the applicable
constituent in a well is above the health-
based number, the Agency considers the
constituent to be ,one of concern and,
therefore, a part of the basis for listing.
The Agency also proposes to add these
constituents to 40 CFR part 261
appendix VII for each of the proposed
waste codes in today's proposal. The
data in the tables illustrate that the
wastes examined pose a potential threat
tb human health and the environment
across an extremely broad range of
assumptions regarding the mobility, fate,
and transport of constituents in the
wastes. •
Tables 8 through 8F show that for
each of the proposed wastes, the
concentrations of the constituents of
concern in ground water would exceed
the corresponding health-based levels of
concern. The calculated ratios of
estimated drinking water concentration
values to'health-based water-
concentration-limit values presented in
.these tables also illustrate that even if
only 0.01 percent of the average
constituent levels in the wastes (i.e.,
HEEF of 10,000) reaches environmental
receptors, the exposure concentrations
could exceed the health-based levels of
concern by up of three orders of
magnitude.
In addition to the high concentrations
of hazardous constituents and the
toxicity of the hazardous constituents in
the wastes, the Agency also considered
the mobility and persistence of the
constituents in the environment.
Information on the mobility and
persistence of the constituents of
concern are provided in sections II.D.3
and II.D.4, respectively. Information on
the toxicity of these constituents is
provided in section II.D.5. Based on
considerations of the concentrations of
hazardous constituents hi the wastes, on
the toxicity of these constituents, on the
mobility and persistence of these
constituents in the environment, and on
the other factors of 40 CFR 261.il(a)(3),
EPA is proposing to list these wastes as
hazardous.
2. Waste Characterization and
Constituents of Concern
Tables 5, 6, and 7 list selected
constituents of concern found hi wastes
from the production and recovery of
coke by-products and tar refining, as
well as the range and average
concentrations for these constituents.
The constituents of concern listed in the
tables are carcinogens and/or systemic
toxicants. All of the constituents of
concern are already listed as hazardous
constituents in 40 CFR part 261,
appendix VIII. Waste composition data
-------
35772
ederal
/ I?1: 56- 'No- 144 / Friday. July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
were obtained from sampling and
analysis of representative waste
Btreams at various coke plants and tar
refineries. All of the selected
constituents of concern were found in
concentrations of regulatory concern
(I.e., under plausible improper
management scenarios, the constituent
concentration likely to be present in
ground waters are expected to be
significantly higher than their health-
based levels of concern for these
constituents). *
Other constituents that were detected
in the proposed waste streams were not
selected as constituents of concern for
today's proposed listings because they
were either not present in
concentrations of regulatory concern or
they do not have an established health-
based number. The Agency may,
however, add other constituents that
were detected in today's proposed
wastes to the list of constituents of
concern for these wastes when the
listing is promulgated based upon
consideration of comments and/or
additional data. Following is a list of
constituents known to be present in the
proposed wastes that were not selected
as constituents of concern:
acenaphthene, acenaphthylene,
anthracene, benzo(g,h,i) perylene,
chrysene, 2,4-dimethyl phenol, 2,4-
dinitrotoluene, ethyl benzene,
fluoranthene, fluorene, 1-methyl
naphthalene, 2-methyl naphthalene, 2-
methyl phenol, 4-methyl phenol,
phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene, styrene,
and toluene. The Agency solicits
comments on the list of constituents that
have not been included as constituents
of concern. The measured
concentrations of these compounds in
the proposed K141 through K145, K147
and K148 wastes, and available^health
data on their toxicity are presented in
the Background Document for this
proposed rale. The addition of any or all
of these constituents as constituents of
concern would not affect the Agency's
decision regarding listing these wastes.
3. Mobility of Constituents of Concern
The exposure pathway of principal
concern is leaching and migration to
ground water. The water solubility of a
given hazardous constituent is one of
the indicators of its mobility (i.e., the
likelihood that it will be released from a
management site, will dissolve in water,
and would reach a water resource of
concern), and is considered by EPA
among other factors in evaluating the
potential of the constituent to migrate in
the environment. Leaching is of concern
because several of these compounds are
soluble in water and could, therefore,
leach from the wastes and potentially
contaminate ground water. For example,
the water solubility of benzene is
significantly greater than its
corresponding health-based level in
drinking water. Thus, this constituent is
capable of existing in water at
significant concentrations. The
solubilities and projected ground-water
mobilities of the selected constituents of
concern from the production, recovery,
and refining of coke by-products wastes
are presented in Table 9,
TABLE 9.—GROUND-WATER MOBILITY AND PERSISTENCE OF CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
Constituents of concern
Banians _„.„„,„ 4, ,
B«H(«)«nthfacen9u..m.M.....M.,.,m
Banzofrjoyrena ~_~
Bw«o{b)(luofantheno,'Benzo(k)nuoranUien«'. _.
DJbenz(8«h)«jYthfacon» ._..„„...„.„._..„
Iod0fio{1,2,3-cd)pyrana , „. ,.
Naphthalona.. „.....„
Health-based
water
concentration
limits (ppm) !
5.0 x 10-'
1.1 x 10-«
3.0 x 10-"
4.0 x 10-'
7.1 x 10-*
2.0 x ID'3
14
Water
solubility
(ppm)
1.780 x 10s
5.7 x 10-»
3.8 x 10-2
4.3x10-»
5 x 10-4
5 x 10-*
31.7
LOG"
KOW
2.13
5.61
6.06
6.0S
6.84
6.50
3.29
Koc"
65
20,000
550,000
550,000
3,300,000
1,600,000
940
Mobility'
Slightly*
contaminat-
ed medium
moderate
low.
low..................
tow.
low.
low. _
low.
Highly'
contaminat-
ed medium
moderate
high
high..
high
high
high
high _..
Persistence*
low.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
high.
a - .
•K(M,«pctanc4-water partition coefficient
*Ke-SoH soratipn coefficient
by
ase ^ ^^ soiuWty, log KOW, and KM-.
f" «"««*> "•«» «*§»S haSardous^nstituents.does not result In saturation of the underlying soil
cuo represents " "^management scenario where release of hazardous constituents results In saturation of the underlying soil by
«GC peak resolution was not adequate to provide quantitation of the two isomers Individually. The results are the sum of the two isomera
Also, data available to the Agency
indicate that toxic PAHs are present in
ground water at concentrations that far
exceed their water solubility. At one
site, benzo[a)pyrene was measured in
ground water at a concentration of 0.08
ppm, which is greater than its reported
solubility. Although the exact reason for
this phenomenon is not fully understood,
it is believed that the presence of these
constituents in ground water is due to
the oily nature of these wastes and
multiphase transport This phenomenon
is discussed in greater detail in the
Background Document to today's
proposal.
Another factor that can provide an
indication of the mobility of each
constituent is its log octi/nol/water
partition coefficient (log K,,w). The log
KOW value for benzene is 2.13. According
to Briggs (1977), this value indicates that
benzene is moderately mobile in, soil.
The PAHs [Le., benz(a) anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
difaenz(a,h)anthracene, ideno(l,2,3-
cdjpyrene, and naphthalene) have high
log octanol/water partition coefficients
and may be predicted to be relatively
immobile in soil and sediment.
However, available evidence indicates
that these constituents may move more
readily than would be predicted in soil
with a low organic content or when
codisposed with other solvents or oils,
or when the waste itself is of an oily
nature. They can also be transported
while suspended on particulate matter
in air or water.
The exact transport mechanisms for
the constituents of concern hi proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K141
through K145, K147, and K148 are not
fully understood. However, under the
plausible types of improper management
to which the wastes could be subjected,
the constituent concentrations that
reach ground waters could be
significantly higher than corresponding
health-based numbers. This is shown by
concentrations of some PAHs found in
ground water samples as a result of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 28, 1991 /Proposed.Rules
35773
solvent assisted transport. The
Background Document for today's
proposal provides information on PAH
levels found in the ground water
samples. This conclusion is consistent
with the conclusions derived from
application of HEEFs in the range of 100
to 10,000 for these wastes, as discussed
in section II.D.l of today's proposal.
4. Persistence of Constituents of
Concern
The persistence of a constituent in the
environment is an important criterion
considered by the Agency when
determining the potential of a waste to
pose a threat to human health and the
environment. The chemical and
biological reactivity of the constituents
of concern present in today's proposed
wastes indicate that they are persistent
and, thus, capable of posing a significant
hazard to human health and the
environment. All the constituents of
concern in today's proposed wastes are
sufficiently persistent to result in human
exposure if they are released into
ground water. The principal processes
that limit the persistence of these
constituents in ground water are
hydrolysis and biod'egradation.
None of the constituents are expected
to hydrolyze in water between pH 2 and
12 at ambient temperature at a rate high
enough to be a limiting factor in human
exposure. This is because none of the
constituents of concern have structural
components that would be expected to
react with water under those conditions.
Benzene, for example, does not react
with acidic (pH 2) or alkaline (pH 14)
water. Therefore, it is unlikely that
hydrolysis is a significant fate for
benzene. The PAHs of concern do not
contain groups amenable to hydrolysis.
Hydrolysis is, therefore, not thought to
be a significant fate process for PAHs
(Radding et al, 1976). PAHs are known
to be persistent in the environment.
PAHs have also been detected in
drinking water, surface water, ground
water, soils, sediments, and air.
Persistence of benzene and PAHs in the
environment has been confirmed by
detection of these constituents hi ground
water, surface water, drinking water,
soil, and air.
Biodegradation is another potential
degradation mechanism for each of the
organic constituents of concern. Under
certain aerobic conditions, organic
hazardous constituents are
biodegradable, as shown in controlled
laboratory experiments. Although
benzene is expected to biodegrade in
biologically active surface water
systems, it is not expected to undergo
biodegradation in ground water due to
the relatively low level of biological
activity in ground-water systems.
Biological degradation processes are
not known to occur at a rate sufficient to
prevent the spread of PAHs in the
environment. Three studies reported no
appreciable degradation of
benzo(a)pyrene in contaminated water
and sediment (Herbes and Schwall,
1977; Muller and Korte, 1975; Herbes,
1981).
5. Health Effects of Concern
The Agency has obtained data
demonstrating that the constituents
found in the wastes generated oy the
production, recovery, and refining of
coke by-products and tar refining are
systemic toxicants and/or carcinogens.
These toxic constituents are present in
concentrations capable of causing
adverse health effects as shown by
Tables 8 through 8F. These tables
illustrate that even if only 0.01 percent
of the average constituent levels in the
wastes reaches environmental
receptors, the exposure concentrations
are often three orders of magnitude
higher than the health-based levels of
concern. The health-based levels of
concern are calculated using the three
basic indicators of toxicity discussed in
the following paragraphs. If the Agency
assumes more conservative hypothetical
environmental exposure factors
(projecting less dilution prior to reaching
environmental receptors) the exposure
concentrations would be even higher.
For the purpose of listing wastes as
hazardous under RCRA, the Agency
often uses three basic indicators of toxic
levels of concern: (1) Maximum
Contaminant (MCLs); (2) Risk-Specific
Doses (RSDs) for known carcinogens;
and (3) Reference Doses (Rfds) for
systemic toxicants.
MCLs are final Drinking Water
Standards promulgated under Section
1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1974, as amended in 1986, for both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
compounds. In setting MCLs, EPA
considers a range of pertinent factors
(for details, see 52 FR 25697-25701, July
8,1987).
Where MCLs are not yet established,
the Agency has developed oral RSDs for
many carcinogenic constituents. The
RSD is a dose that corresponds to a
specified level of risk of an individual
contracting cancer over a 70-year
lifetime due to the presence of the
toxicant in drinking water. In order to
develop an RSD, a risk level must'be
specified. EPA specifies the risk level for
a constituent of concern by using a
weight-of-evidence scheme that is based
on an assessment of the quality and
adequacy of experimental data and the
lands of responses induced by a suspect
carcinogen. The carcinogenic •
constituents of concern utproposed EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K141 through
K145, K147, and K148 for which no
MCLs exist are either probable human
carcinogens (Class 82)—based on a
combination of sufficient evidence, hi
animals and inadequate human or no
human data—or possible human
carcinogens (Class C)—based on limited
evidence in animals and the absence of
human data. Details on the other classes
of carcinogens are given in the
Background Document. The oral RSDs
for carcinogenic agents are calculated at
the 10~s risk level for Class B
carcinogens and at the 10~5 risk level for
Class C carcinogens. These risk levels
are consistent with the risk levels used
to delist specific waste streams.
In addition, oral Reference Dose
numbers (RfDs) are established for non-
carcinogenic constituents for which
MCLs have not been developed. An RfD
is an estimate of the daily exposure to a
substance for the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that
appears to be without an appreciable
risk of deleterious effects during a
lifetime of exposure. If frequent
exposures that exceed the RfD occur,
the probability that adverse effects may
be observed increases. The method for
estimating the RfD for non-carcinogenic
end points was described in the
proposed rule for the Toxicity
Characteristic (51 FR 21648, June 13, .
1986).
The hazardous constituents of
concern found in the wastes proposed
for listing today have produced
carcinogenic or other chronic systemic
effects in laboratory animals or humans.
EPA has established RfDs, RSDs or
MCLs for all of the constituents of
concern in coke by-products and tar
refining wastes. These constituents have
been detected hi the wastes from the
production, recovery, and refining of
coke by-products in concentrations
sufficient to pose 'a substantial threat to
human health and the environment. The
health-based levels of concern
calculated for the constituents of
concern in Table 8 through 8F are based
on two assumptions: (1) That the
average person has a body mass of 70 kg
and, (2) that a person drinks an. average .
of 2 liters of test solution daily over a
period of 70 years. The Agency's
Carcinogen Assessment Group (GAG)
has determined that there is substantial
evidence to suggest that benz (a)
anthracene, benzene, benzo (a) pyrene,
benzo (b and K) fluoranthene, dibenz (a,
h) anthracene, and indeno (1, 2, 3-cd)
pyrene are carcinogens. Epidemiological
-------
35774
I •• P6' N°' k* I Friday- July 26.1991/ Proposed Rules
evidence from studies of coke oven
workers and tar roofers demonstrates
the carcinogenic potential of the
materials generated by coke ovens and
tar refining. A brief summary of the
toxidty and health effects of these
constituents is presented in this
preamble. A more detailed discussion is
included in the Background Document
for today's proposal.
Benzene is a class A carcinogen.
Benzene is carcinogenic in rats after
exposure by gavage and in mice
following exposure by inhalation (IARC,
1982). An epidemiological study that
correlated benzene exposure with the
incidence of leukemia provides
sufficient evidence that benzene is
carcinogenic in humans (NTP 85-002).
Benz(a) anthracene (BA) is a Class B2
carcinogen. BA has been found to be
carcinogenic in experiemental mice
following oral administration, dermal
application, subcutaneous injection, and
bladder implantation (IARC, 1973). Oral
exposure to BA resulted in an increased
incidence of hepatomas and pulmonary
adenomas in the mouse (Klein, 1963).
Benzo (a) pyrene (BaP) is a Class Bz
carcinogen. BaP is perhaps one of the
most potent animal carcinogens known.
Microgram quantities have been shown
to induce tumors in a number of
experimental animal species via several
routes of exposure, including oral,
inhalation, and dermal application
(IARC, 1973). The types of tumors seen
after exposure to BaP include mammary
tumbors in rats (IARC, 1973); squamous
cell papillomas and/or carcinomas of
the forestomach in mice (Rigdon and
Neal, 1968); and skin tumors in mice
(Poel, 1983). BaP can also act as a
tronsplancental carcinogen in mice
(Bulay and Waternberg, 1971).
Benzo (b and K) fluoranthenes (BbF
and BkF) are class Bj carcinogens. BbF
and BkF have both been shown to be
dermal carcinogens in mice (IARC,
1973). BkF also induces tumor formation
when injected subcutaneously in mice
(Lacassagne et al., 1963) and directly
into the pulmonary tissue of rats
(Deutsch-Wenzel et al, 1983).
Dibenzfa, h) anthracene (DBA) is a
Class Ba carcinogen. DBA produced
tumors in mice following oral, dermal, or
subcutaneous administration (IARC,
1973). The types of tumbors seen in mice
after exposure to DBA by various routes
include adenomas carcinomas of the
skin (Wonder and Hoffman, 1959);
pulmonary alveologenic carcinomas and
adenomatosis; mixed-type mammary
tumors; hemangioendoth'eliomas
involving the pancreas and mesenteric
and abdominal lymph nodes; and
precancerous lesions of the small
intestine (Snell and Stewart, 1962).
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (IP) is a Class
C carcinogen, IP is considered
carcinogenic to experimental animals
based on dermal application and
subcutaneous injection studies on the
mouse. Dose-related increases in the
incidence of skin tumors have been
observed in mice that received dermal
applications of this chemcial (IARC,
1973).
Several of the constituents of concern,
including bsnzene (IARC, 1982), BaP
(Shum et al, 1979), DBA (Wolfe and
Byran, 1939), and naphthalene (Harris et
al, 1979) have also been shown to be
embryotoxic and/or teratogenic in
experimental Animals. Also,
nephthalene has been shown to be
embryotoxic in humans (Zinkham and
Childs, 1958; Anziulewisc et al, 1959).
In addition to their ability to act as
carcinogens, several of these
constituents (as well as other PAHs that
express no carcinogenicity on their own)
have been found to act as initiators or
promoters (cooarcinogens) of skin
tumors in mice. Chemicals found to
initiate skin tumors after a single
application or multiple applications
followed by crpton oil treatment (a
classical promoter) include BA (Hadler
et al, 1959); BbF (Van Duuren et al,
1966); BkF (LaVoie et al, 1982); DBA
(Klein, I960); and IP (IARC, 1973).
It is important to note that PAHs other
than the constituents of concern, are
known to be present in the wastes
proposed for listing in today's notice,
and may have the ability to act as
cocarcinogens. PAHs such as
benzo(g,h,i)peiylene (BghiP),
fluoranthene, and pyrene are not
carcinogenic per se. When applied to the
skin of mice alpng with a carcinogen
such as BaP, however, they can often
enhance the carcinogenic effect of BaP
(e.g., IARC, 1983; Van Duuren and
Goldschmidt, 1976). This cocarcinogenic
phenomenon is of concern because
many of the waste streams proposed for
listing in today's notice contain mixtures
of PAHs that are carcinogens and
cocarcinogens. *This factor indicates
that, for some PAH mixtures, the health-
based levels of iconcern presented
earlier (which are based on exposure to
individual compounds) may
underestimate the toxicity of these
compounds when found in the wastes as
mixtures of PAHs.
Almost all of .the PAHs considered
here possess some degree of
mutagenicity in short-term tests for
genotoxicity. Chemicals found to induce
mutations in at least one strain of
Salmonella typhimurium include BA
(e.g., Claxton, 1983); BaP (e.g., McCann
et al., 1975); and IP (e.g., LaVoie et al,
1979). Other evidence for genotoxicity
includes induction of sister chromatid
exchanges by BA (Tong et al., 1981a,
1981b) and by BaP, BbF, and DBA
(Rozinski and Kocher et al., 1979); and
morphological transformation in a
number of in vitro test systems by DBA
and IP (Chen and Heidelberger, 1969 and
Emura et al, 1982).
6. Mismanagement Case Histories
A number of environmental damage
incidents have occurred in the past due
i .he mismanagement of coke by-
products and tar refining wastes. These
incidents show that constituents present
in these wastes are capable of reaching
environmental receptors in potentially
harmful concentrations. The cases
describing environmental contamination
with coke by-products and tar refining
wastes can be found in the docket
supporting the listing of EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K141 through K145, K147,
andK!48.
As a basis for illustrating the
environmental contamination associated
with coke by-products, EPA has
identified several incidents where the
management of the coking wastes hi
question has resulted in environmental
damage and increased risk to human
health. To illustrate the hazards posed
by these wastes when mismanaged, EPA
has summarized the following studies:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Sediment Investigations conducted in Region
V, including five sites involved in coke
production; and,
Six specific case studies conducted at
plants that engage in various 'types of
activities that involve coal tar and other
coking by-products.
The case studies presented below
illustrate the threat posed to human
health and environment by these
wastes. As discussed previously, these
wastes may contain levels of benzene
and PAHs including
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzofb and kj-fluoranthene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-
cd)pyrene, and naphthalene. When
improperly treated, stored, transported,
or disposed, the PAHs and benzene in
these wastes have been shown to
migrate into the environment. In such a
case, these wastes pose a threat to
human health and the environment.
In previous discussions (sections
ILD.l.a and H.Dil.b of this proposal),
EPA focused upon quantifying the levels
of constituents (benzene and select
PAHs) that would pose a hazard to the
environment when mismanaged. In
summarizing these case studies, EPA
provides actual examples where the
mismanagement of the coking wastes of
concern has resulted in environmental
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5ft No. 144 / Friday, July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
35775
damage. Specifically, the Agency
supplies examples where the
concentrations of benzene or select
PAHs in ground water exceeds
acceptable health levels.
a. PAH. Sediment Investigation.
Results of sediment studies conducted
downstream of the coke operation
discharges on the Black River in Ohio
indicate that high levels of PAHs are
present and that these contaminants
adversely affect fisheries located on the
river. For example, it is documented
(Baumann and Fabacher, 1985) that
elevated levels of PAHs are responsible
for the occurrence of tumors on fish from
the Black River. Due to these results and
because of the large number of coke
plants in EPA Region V, the Region
decided to undertake a series of surveys
to determine the extent of sediment
contamination by PAHs in the Region.
The case studies include six sites in '
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan
that are or were engaged in the
production of coke and steel. As a result
of operations at these plants, the
surrounding rivers, including the
Calumet, the Cuyahoga, the Mahoning,
the Ohio and the Rouga Rivers, have
beefi contaminated by. PAHs through the
discharge of treatment wastewaters
bearing coking processing wastes.
The wastewaters from the sites
resulted from such processes as cok?
quenches, ammonia liquor distillation,
and processing of coal tars. These
wastewaters varied in the degree of
both contamination and treatment that
they underwent before discharge and
contained some or all of the wastes that
are considered under this listing. The
exact percentage of coke wastes
discharged with the wastewaters,
however, has not been quantified.
At each facility, river sediments were
collected above and below each
wastewater discharge, as well as the
area immediately surrounding the
discharge. At each site, these samples
confirmed that high levels of PAH
contamination had occurred below and
near the site being studied. The levels of
contamination varied directly with the
distance away from the outfall from the
plant, both upstream and downstream
with downstream concentrations
markedly higher than those upstream.
The PAHs were found to have
contaminated the rivers at the various
sample sites at levels up to and
including the following concentrations:
naphthalene—38,000 ppm,
benzo(a)anthracene—7,600 ppm,
benzo(b)fluoranthene—8,000 ppm,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene—6,000 ppm, and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene—1,100 ppm.
These levels of contamination were
found to be significantly higher than the
levels that are acceptable by health-
based standards.
The sampling measurements,
however, reflect concentrations in
sediments while the health-based
standards refer to maximum allowable
concentrations in water, While this
difference may limit the comparability
of the two measurements, the studies
still indicate a hazard since the water
and sediment at the sites are in direct
contact. Further, since the PAHs occur
in the sediments in high concentrations,
the constituents may migrate to the
surface and drinking waters and present
an even greater hazard to human health
and the environment.
b. Specific Site Evaluations.
Summaries of selected cases describing
environmental contamination by
constitutents of concern present in coke
by-products and tar refining wastes are
described below. These sites include a
manufacturing plant (which conducted
coking operations), a coal tar by-
products manufacturing plant, a coal
gasification plant, a tar refiner, a wood
preserving and coal tar distillation
facility, and a disposal site for wastes
from three sources. Each of these sites
described below involved ground water
contamination by PAHs and benzene.
Site 1
A steel manufacturing plant operating
in New York from 192O through 1983 on
Lake Erie was the site of contamination
caused by several different wastes,
including coking wastes. Various coking
wastes were mixed with other wastes at
most of the sites involved, although two
disposal areas received coking wastes
almost exclusively.
At this facility, excess blast furnace
and steelmaking slags, as well as steel
scrap and coking wastes were initially
dumped directly into Lake Erie and then
into pits and landfills located on a man-
made peninsula created at the point
where a creek discharges into Lake Erie.
The slag fill extended approximately
1,700 feet off the shoreline of the lake
and raised the subsurface elevation
more than 50 feet. Of ieq pits/landfills
located on the peninsula, two waste
management areas, a pit and a landfill,
have been identified as areas that were
designated to receive coking wastes.
Ground-water monitoring wells were
installed in the areas to assess the
migration of contaminants from these
hazardous waste management areas to
ground water. Coking wastes that were
co-disposed in the pit and landfill
include K060, K087, and the proposed
K141-K145 wastes, As a result of this
co-disposal, constituents in the coking
wastes have migrated from the fill
materials to the ground water and
possibly to the lake.
The concentrations of naphthalene
and benzene (up to 720 ppm and 340
ppm respectively) from these two sites
were found to be well above the
accepted health-based levels for these
constituents. Although the source of
these constituents may include non-
coking process wastes, the coking
process wastes have contributed
significantly to the problem. Coking
waste is the main contributor to the
PAH problem, although non-coking
process wastes may also affect the level
of PAHs and benzene present hi the
samples. The ground-water monitoring
results indicate that the levels of PAHs
and benzene hi this case are significant
and that they pose a threat to human
health and the environment.
Site 2
A manufacturer of coal tar by-
products along the east bank of the Ohio
River in West Virginia was involved in
ground-water monitoring to examine the,
level of contamination resulting from
plant activities. These activities
included using crude coal tar as
feedstock to produce three major
products: refined chemical oil, creosote,
and industrial pitch. Monitoring results
showed that activities both at this plant
and at a nearby coke facility led to
ground water contamination by coal tar
residuals (proposed K147 and K148). The
studies examined the shallow, perched
aquifer and the alluvial aquifer. These
investigations revealed varying extent of
contamination in all aquifers. This
contamination was due to uncontrolled
seepage and discharge of pollutants into
the Ohio River. The following
constitutents were found to have
contaminated the aquifers at levels up to
and including the following
concentrations: naphthalene—92,000
ppm, benzo(a)anthracene^—4,000 ppm,
benzo(b)fluoranthene—-4,100 ppm,
indeno(l,2,3-cd}pyrene—•1,200 ppm, and
dibenz(ajb.)anthracene—21 ppm. These
concentrations are well above the
accepted heaithbased levels for these
constituents.
Site 3
A coal gasification plant was the site
of soil and groundwater contamination.
Tar and soil contaminated with tar were
widely distributed over the site as a
result of plant operations. Materials
found at coal gasification sites are
similar in nature to those found at coke
by-products facilities. The site is listed
in the National Priorities List (NPL) of
hazardous waste sites.
-------
35776
Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday. July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
The coal gasification site is known to
have coal tar and other coal gasification
wastes present in three locations: a tar
pit, two ponds, and in an area of tar
boils (tar refining). The total estimated
volume of tar in these areas is 5000 yd3.
The deepest penetration of tar was
observed at a location adjacent to the
ponds where a slight tar odor was also
detected at a depth of 50 feet.
Three shallow, water-bearing strata
(aquifers) exist at a depth of less than 60
feet under the site. In some locations at
the site these three aquifers are
separated by fine clay materials, while
in other locations one aquifer is in direct
contact with a deeper aquifer, allowing
waters from the two aquifers to mix.
There is evidence of contamination in
the two shallower aquifers.
Concentrations, of benzene, phenols, and
PAHs ranging from 5 to 30 jig/L were
detected in the shallowest aquifer water,
while PAH concentrations up to 14,000
jig/L were detected in wells tapping the
middle aquifer. Surface water quality
was determined on several occasions at
five locations. Analytical data indicate
that a variety of organic compounds are
present in surface waters, including
some of the constituents of concern in
today's proposal
Site 4
A former sand and gravel pit was the
disposal site of wastes from three
sources from 1945 to 1977. Wastes from
a tar refining plant, foundry sand from
an iron foundry, and wastes from a
gravel company were disposed at this
site. The site was assigned to the NPL in
September 1983 due to the extent of its
soil and ground-water contamination.
Both soil and ground water in areas
around the pit showed evidence of
contamination. Soil boring and ground-
water samples confirmed that the
ground water below and near the site
was contaminated with organics. This
contamination reaches the Ohio River
with a north plume extending to the iron
company's production wells, in which
benzene has been measured from
nondetectable levels to 38 ppb (parts per
billion).
Evidence of ground-water
contamination below the pit includes
trace levels of anthracene and
phenanthrene detected in nine out of ten
wells drilled through the north end of
the pit at varying depths (detection
limits for these compounds ranged from
10 ftg/L to 16,000 fig/L).
Benz(a)anthracene was also detected at
trace levels in four of these wells. The
highest ground-water concentration of
benzene was at 18,000 ;ig/L.
In addition, analysis of soil borings
indicated that a 10 to 15 foot layer on
top of the bedrock underlying the pit
appears to be contaminated with
organics (the bedrock begins at a depth
of 80 ft). The intermediate zone between
the bottom of the pit and the lower
contaminated zone appears to be only
slightly contaminated. This phenomenon
suggests that nonaqueous phase
substance contaminants have moved
through the sand and gravel aquifer to
the underlying impermeable layer.
SiteS .
At another site, a tar refiner
functioned from 1917 to 1972. As a result
of PAH contamination of four area
aquifers, this site is now included on the
NPL. According to the Record of
Decision (ROD) report, contamination of
one of the deeper aquifers is believed to
be the result of injection of creosote and
process waste products directly into the
facility's deep well located on-site. The
well permeates the deep aquifers.
Another method of migration of
contaminants into this aquifer, called
the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer, is ,
believed to be from overflow into the
well casing during on-site runoff events
and spills.
Primary methods of contamination of
the •uppermost aquifers, the Drift and
Platteville aquifers, are believed to be
through contaminated soil at the site
and at the bog south of the site.
Contamination is not evenly distributed
throughout the bog but appears to be
more representative of a channel
through the bog. According to the ROD
data, the migration of contaminants
from the ditches used to dispose of
wastes has caused contamination of the
aquifers, the Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH) believes that the St. Peter
Aquifer, which is located to the east of
the site probably is contaminated due to
ground-water migration from the Drift
and Platteville aquifers. Further
sampling of wells near the site is
expected to confirm this assumption.
Site 6 '•
An NpL site was used as a wood
preserving and coal tar distillation
facility from 1910 to 1962. Stonhwater
runoff flows to two stormwater drainage
ditches which, flow into an aquatic
habitat. Sampling of the site indicated
that there were two discrete areas of
contamination: (1) the southern portion
of the site, which was where the coal tar
refining and wood treating operations
were located, and (2) the northern
portion of the site where an inactive
disposal pond was situated. The.average
attenuation depth of organic compounds
in the'soils in the southern site area is
about 58 feet. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water,
soils, and sediments are volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene,
toluene', and xylenes; other organics,
including PAHs; and metals.
Soil staining was observed at 15 of
139 auger boring locations and at 29 of
82 soil boring.locations. Total surficial
soil PAH concentrations in the four
surface/surficial soil samples which
were analyzed ranged from below
detection limits to 8,567 mg/kg.
Benzo(a)pyrene was measured at a
;%incentration as high as 210 mg/kg,
benz(a)anthracene was measured as
high as 340 mg/kg, and the
concentration for combined benzo[b and
K) fluoranthene was measured as high
as 290 mg/kg.
The primary compounds found in the
shallow aquifer below the site were
PAHs, VOCs, and metals. The maximum
concentrations of total PAHs were
measured at 22,000 mg/L.
Benzo(a)pyrene was measured at a
maximum concentration of 570 jig/L,
and benzo(b and k) fluoranthene was
measured at a maximum concentration,
of 1,200 fig/L. The ROD data indicate
that the same contaminants were
present in an adjacent deeper aquifer,
but at lower concentrations.
A total of eighteen surface water
samples and five sediment samples
were collected from on-site drainage
ditches bordering the site. Surface water
data did not show any site-specific ..
contamination. In the sediment samples,
PAH compounds were detected in
concentrations ranging from 2.3 mg/kg
to 240 mg/kg. Benzo(a)pyrene was
measured at a concentration of 30 mg/
kg. Benz(a)anthracene was measured at
5.6 mg/kg, and benzo(b and k)
fluoranthene was measured at 59 mg/kg.
7. Conclusions
The criteria in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)
specify that.the Agency will list a waste
as hazardous if it contains constituents
listed in Appendix VIII and, after
considering the factors enumerated in 40
CFR 261.11(a)(3), the Agency concludes
that the waste is capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly managed. After
considering these factors, particularly
the toxicity, mobility, persistence, and
the concentration of hazardous
constituents in these wastes, the Agency
concludes that these wastes meet the
criteria for listing. The Agency,
therefore, is proposing to add the wastes
described in this notice to the list of
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.32.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 144 / Friday. July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
35777
E: Recycling
A number of residuals proposed to be
listed as hazardous wastes are recycled
by a substantial segment of the coke by-
products industry (see Tables 3 and 4 for
waste management practices for the
residuals proposed for listing). Two
recycling techniques are currently in
use: (I) Using mixtures of the residuals
and coal to charge coke ovens and (2)
mixing the residuals with coal tar prior
to its being sold or refined. These
recycling practices are also commonly
used for ter decanter sludge, which is
already listed as a hazardous waste
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K087) from
the coke by-products industry. Coke and
coal tar containing tar decanter sludge,
K087, are currently exempt from
regulation as hazardous wastes under 40
GFR 261.4(a}(10); however, the sludge is
still considered a solid waste if not .
recycled. In the November 29,1985 final
rule (50 FR 49170) and the February 21,
1991 final rule (56 FR 7203), EPA
concluded that the hazardous
constituents are not present in coke
derived from K087 at levels that would
pose substantial risk to human health
and the environment and that the
recycling of K087 into coke by-products
does not increase levels of hazardous
constituents in coal tar.
EPA has studied and analyzed these
practices for each of the proposed listed
residuals to determine (a) whether these
practices constitute waste management
and should, therefore, be regulated as
such or (b) whether the proposed
residuals are being used in ongoing,
continuous manufacturing processes and
should/therefore, not be regulated under
RCRA. Based on this analysis, the
Agency has determined that while the
proposed residuals would be solid
wastes under 40 CFR 261.2, the Agency
has determined it is appropriate to
exclude proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K141 through K145, K147,
and K148 from the definition of solid
waste when these wastes are reinserted
into coke ovens and when blended with
coal tar product that is sold. As
explained fully below, EPA believes that
regulation of the material when
reinserted is not necessary to protect
human health and the environment, and
will further the objectives of waste _
minimization and pollution prevention.
The effect of these exclusions would
be that the coke oven, using mixtures of
these residuals as feedstock, and the
materials derived from them in the
coking process, would not be regulated
under Subtitle C of RCRA. Also, the tar
refining process, using mixtures of these
residuals and coal tar as feedstock
would not be subject to regulation under
Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA's rationale for
providing these exclusions from the
definition of solid waste is presented in
section 2.
The proposed exclusions would not
apply prior to the reinsertion of the
wastes into coke ovens or mixtures with
coal tar for use as product. Management
of these wastes up to that point may
•present a hazard to human Health and
the environment and would, therefore,
be regulated under RCRA subtitle C.
These waste management practices
include removal and transportation,
interim storage, or processing of the
residuals at any time from their point of
generation to the point of reinsertion
into coke ovens or mixing with coal tar.
In addition, residuals which are not
reinserted into coke ovens or otherwise
excluded from RCRA regulations would
be subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulations. Section 2 provides a
description of management practices for
the wastes proposed for listing as
hazardous from the point of generation
to the point of reinsertion into coke
ovens or mixing with coal tar.
The recycling of wastes from this
industry is affected by the combined
promulgation of two major rules. One of
them, the Toxicity Characteristic, was
promulgated on March 29,1990. The
other, the Boiler and Industrial Furnace
rule, was promulgated on February 21,
1991. Because these rules were
promulgated before this listing (with its
attached exclusions) could become
effective, the Agency is proposing a set
of exclusions (§ 261.4(a)(10), (11), and
(12)) for wastes from the coke by-
products industry that are recycled.
These exclusions will be discussed in
sections.
1. Classifications as a Solid Waste
The definition of solid waste (40 CFR
261.2) states that certain secondary
materials, when used as or to produce a
fuel, are solid waste (see 40 CFR
261.2(c)(2)(i)(B)). The regulations also
state that materials which are reused as
ingredients hi an industrial process or as
substitutes for commercial products are
not solid wastes; however, those used in
production of a "fuel" are considered to
be solid wastes (see | 261.2(e)(2)(ii).
Waste-derived coke and coal tar are
considered by-products for regulatory
purposes and are sometimes burned,
albeit not exclusively, or necessarily, for
energy recovery. Since some energy
recovery ultimately occurs, they are
considered solid wastes under the
current classification scheme.
2. Rationale for Exclusions from the
Definition of Solid Waste for Coke By-
products Residuals Recycled to the Coke
Oven or when Mixed with Coal Tar
The residuals being proposed for
listing as hazardous when recycled into
the coke ovens act as feedstock to the
process, providing a source of carbon
that is needed for the manufacture of
coke. Although the iron and steel
industry generally uses only small
volumes of residuals with respect to the
amount of cpal used, the Agency
believes that the practice of reinserting
these residuals into coke ovens serves to
replace the raw material (i.e., coal).
Similarly, the practice of mixing the
proposed residuals with coal tar prior to
its sale or refining constitutes replacing
a product (i.e., coal tar). The Agency has
concluded that the quality of coke (i.e.,
levels of hazardous constituents)
produced is unaffected by the use of
mixtures of the residuals and coal as a
feedstock as typicai!y practiced by the
industry. Similarly, EPA believes that
the quality of coal tar is unaffected by_
mixing certain wastes with coal tar prior
to its sale or refining as typically
practiced by the industry (see 50 FR
49170, November 29,1985 and 56 FR
7203, February 21,1991.) For these
reasons, the Agency believes that
reinsertion of these residuals into coke
ovens and mixing of these residuals
with coal tar to be sold as a product are
recycling practices that do not increase
the levels of hazardous constituents hi
the final coke by-product, and therefore
do not pose any significantly increased
risk to human health and the
environment.
EPA has evaluated whether
concentrations of toxic constituents in
the residuals were likely to have a
significant effect on the products of the
recycling processes as compared with
the products derived solely from raw
materials (i.e., coal that is feedstock for
coke ovens and coal tar that is feedstock
for tar refining). This evaluation was
performed by using the results and
supporting data considered in
developing the Agency's exclusion of
coke and coal tar produced from or
containing recycled tar decanter sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K087) from
the definition of solid waste. This
exclusion was based on the Agency's'
findings that: (1) The recycle of tar
decanter sludge by application to the
•coal charge does not appear to have a-
signficant effect on the chemical make-
up of coke, (2) the organic chemical
make-up of the sludge does not appear
to be significantly different from the
coal tar, and (3) although the
-------
35778
Federal Register / Vol. .56. No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
concentration of one metal, lead,
appears to be slightly higher in the
sludge than in the coal tar; the increase
does not appear to be statistically
significant. EPA, therefore, has
determined that recycling of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K087 does not
significantly affect the concentrations of
toxic metals and organic constituents in
coal tar or coke. Based on this
determination and on the fact that coke,
coal tar, and sludge arise from a single
process, are similar materials, and
contain the same contaminants, EPA
had excluded coke and coal tar
containing or produced from K087 (see
66 FR 7202—7203, February 21,1991).
Since EPA does not have analytical
data for coke or coal tar produced from
feed containing the wastes being
proposed for listing, the Agency's
approach for evaluating these wastes
was to compare the concentrations of
the hazardous organic constituents in
these wastes with the same constituents
in EPA Hazardous Waste No. K087. In
performing this comparative analysis,
the Agency used data available for K087
that demonstrates the effects of using .
recycled materials on quality of coke .
and coal tar produced. The Agency
believes the same results would also
apply to wastes that are recycled in the
same manner, are physically similar to
K087, and have concentrations of
hazardous constituents similar or lower
than the concentrations of these
constitents in EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K087. In general, EPA found that
typical concentrations of the
constituents of regulatory concern in the
wastes (/.e,, organic constituents)
proposed for listing were similar to or
lower than the concentrations of the
same constituents in EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K087. These results are
summarized in the Background
Document to this proposal. The
Agency's general understanding of the
process would indicate that the levels of
toxic metals would npt increase from
K087 to the other wastes proposed for
listing today.
3. Descriptions of Management Practices
for the Wastes Proposed for Listing as
Hazardous from the Point of Generation
to the Point of Reinsertion into Coke
Ovens or Mixing with Coal Tar
For the purposes of determining and
clarifying at what point the recycling
exclusions apply, the Agency is
describing existing practices in the coke -
by-products industry. (These practices
apply to K087 wastes as well as to the
wastes proposed in today's notice.) The
Agency considered the reclamation
process involved, the manner In which •
these residuals are handled, the
transportation methods employed (i.e.,
mechanisms used to transport the
residuals from the point of generation to
the point of their recycling), and any
intermittent storage that takes place.
The waste management practices are
discussed below. Since, up to the point
of reinsertion, the listed materials are
solid and hazardous waste, the
requirements of § 26l.6(a)(l), (b), and (c)
apply. See part 5 of .this section and
section I.F of today's proposal.
The Agency considered excluding the
wastes proposed for listing from the
definition of solid waste when destined
for recycling, rather than when
reinserted. The rationale for this was
based on interpretations of certain court
decisions as Whether or not materials
were part of the waste disposal
problem. However, due to concerns
about hazardous constituents in the
waste as well as real and potential
waste mismanagement scenarios
(particularly placement on the land), the.
Agency tentatively prefers the option of
excluding these wastes only at the point
of reinsertion into the coke ovens or.
mixing with crude coal tar.
'
a. Management Practices for Residuals
From Their Point of Generation to the '
Point of Reinsertion Into Coke Ovens.—
(i) Conveyance to Storage or Blending
Unit .
Based on the information available to
EPA, the transportation of these
residuals from their point of generation
to the storage or blending site typically
takes place in tracks or hopper cars.
Facilities involved in recycling these
residuals transport them to the blending
site or store theni in tanks (see 40 CFR
260.10 for EPA's definition of tanks).
Hopper, cars or trucks are currently used
to transport these residuals from the
point of generation to the point of
reinsertion into coke ovens or mixing
with coal tar. Interim management
practices include storage of these
residuals and mixing with coal. Wastes
recycled on site may be stored up to 90
days without a permit.
To comply with Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR, 40 CFR Part 268),
many facilities'have had to discontinue
putting K087 wastes on the ground, in a
pit, or on a low-walled concrete pad in .
order to mix these wastes with coal.
Instead, these wastes are managed in a
unit such as a tank to accommodate
K087 (and other) wastes. The Agency
believes that recycling the proposed
wastes will cause minimal extra
requirements to construct recycling
equipment over and above what already
exists, and solicits comment on this •
point.
Some of the wastes proposed for
listing may also be transported from one
facility to another (in particular, K147
and K148). .Such transportation may
occur across a property boundary of
adjacent facilities or over several
hundred miles and across state lines.
The Agency requires a manifest to
ensure proper transport and delivery of
these hazardous wastes prior to
recycling. In addition, storage of wastes
received from another facility may
require a permit.
(u) Blending of Residuals With Coal
The blending of these residuals with a
portion of the coal feed is typically
practiced to make the recyclable
material physically similar to the coal
feed [i.e., to give the feedstock-blend a
solid consistency as opposed to the
semisolid form in which some of the
residuals are generated). Based on the
limited information available to the
Agency, a homogenizing agent may also
be used in some cases in the blending
process. In a limited number of cases,
earthmoving equipment is used for
mixing these residuals with coal..In
other cases, ball milling of the residuals
is required to make a homogeneous
mixture with the coal feed. Most of the
processing steps' involved in preparing
the residual/coal mixture are carried out
to avoid "hot spots" in the coke oven,
operational problems that may be
encountered, and any long term damage
to the coke oven as a result of using • ,
these residuals as a part of 'the
feedstock. However, the recycling
process is typically carried out in a way
such that the quality of coke
manufactured is unaffected. The'.
residual mixture thus prepared is then
usually transported to the coal feed site.
(Hi) Feeding the Coke Oven
Typically, the residual mixture is put
on the conveyor that feeds the coke
oven, or it is sprayed on the coal as it
ascends a conveyor belt. In many cases,
the residual mixture is heated before it
is combined with the main coal feed to
ensure an even feed mix and easier
material handling. It should be noted
that the residual mixture would be a
hazardous waste before it is fed to the
coke oven. '
b. Management Practices for
Residuals Proposed for Listing as
Hazardous Prior to Blending with Crude
Coal Tar. Today's .proposed residuals
would be solid and hazardous wastes
subject to RCRA subtitle C regulations
prior to their mixing with the crude coal
tar and subsequently sold as a product.
The goal tar itself is subsequently
refined into tar, pitch, or creosote. The
-------
Federal Register:/ Vol. 56. No. 144 / Friday. July 26. 1991;/ Proposed Rules
35779
management practices for these
residuals prior to blending with coal tar
are similar to the management practices
described above for residuals mixed
with coal to be fed to the coke oven.
Some of the proposed residuals are sent
to ball mills to produce a uniform
material before they are mixed with coal
tar. The proposed exclusion under 40
CFR 261.4(a)[ll) would only exempt the
residuals proposed for listing as
hazardous at the point where blending
with crude coal tar occurs.
4. Similar Exclusion for Decanter Tank
Tar Sludge (K087) When Reinserted Into
Coke Ovens or Blended with Coal Tar
EPA also proposes today to modify
slightly this same exclusion for decanter
tank tar sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K087) when it is reinserted into coke
ovens. Coke and coal tar containing
decanter tank tar sludge currently, are
excluded from regulation as a hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(10) when
used as a fuel. The exclusion classifies
mixtures of the waste and coal tar, and
coke derived from such mixtures, as
products rather than wastes. However,
other by-products, such as light oil
recovered from coke oven gas generated
• by coke ovens charged with mixtures of
coal and the waste, would have been
hazardous wastes without the exclusion
because of the "derived from" rule.
Therefore, EPA excluded decanter tank
tar sludge from the definition of solid
waste at the point of reinsertion into
coke ovens. ','••'
In addition, the wording of the
exclusion in § 261.4(a)(10) is being
corrected to delete the phrase "when
used as a fuel." The Agency has found
that inclusion of this phrase in the
regulations will lead to confusion as to
the scope of the exclusion, since coal tar
is not generally used as a fuel (although
it has high fuel value).
5. Generator Requirements
Generators should note that, under
CFR 261.6(a)(l), hazardous wastes that
are recycled are subject to the
requirements for generators,
transporters, and storage facilities of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of that section,
except for materials listed in (a)(2) ,and
(a)(3) of that section. Under 40 CFR.
. 261.6(b), generators and transporters of
recyclable materials are subject to the
applicable requirements of parts 262 and
263, and notification requirements under
section 3010 of RCRA, except for
materials listed in (a)(2) and (a)(3) of
that section. *
Under 40 CFR 261.6(cJ(l), owners or
operators of facilities that store
recyclable materials before they are
recycled are regulated under all.
applicable provisions of subparts A
through L of parts 264 and 265, and
under Parts 124.266,268, and 270, and
the notification requirements under
section 3010 of RCRA, except as
provided in paragraph (a) of that. .
section. Under 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2),
owners or operators of'facilities that
recycle materials without storing them
before they are recycled are subject to
the following requirements, except as
provided in paragraph (a) of that
section:
(i) Notification requirements under
section 3010 of RCRA.
(ii) Section 265.71 and 265.72 (dealing
with the use of a manifest system and
manifest discrepancies).
a Other Options
Recognizing the significant role
recycling plays hi this Industry, and the
implications of the definition of solid
waste and RCRA Subtitle C regulations,
the Agency has considered various
options hi designing a regulatory ;
structure to allow recycling of certain
coke by-products wastes. :The options
considered are oriented around: 1)
whether or not to facilitate the recycling,
2) at what point would the wastes be
outside the scope of RCRA regulation,
and 3) an exclusion for wastes which
exhibit the newly-promulgated Toxicity
Characteristic (TC).
On March 29,1990, the Agency
promulgated the amended Toxicity
Characteristic rule (55 FR11798). The
Agency believes that many of the
wastes proposed to be listed as
hazardous in today's rule already may
be hazardous wastes because they
contain levels of organic constituents,
(e.g., benzene) in excess of levels of.
these constituents published-hi the
Toxicity Characteristic rule. Since these
wastes may already be hazardous,
recycling the wastes into the coke oven
may also subject coke ovens to the.strict
management standards of the Boiler and
industrial Furnace rule mentioned
above, unless an- exclusion from the
Definition of Solid Waste as described
in this section were also effective.
In the period of time between the
promulgation of the Boiler and Industrial
Furnace rule and the K141-K145, K147,
and K148 listings, recycling of these
wastes would be discouraged if they are
TC hazardous. As explained in Section
1.1 of this proposal, aiiy hazardous
waste (listed or characteristic) that is
used as a fuel or to make a fuel is still
considered a solid waste. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing (here and in a
separate rulemaking) an exclusion from
the definition of solid waste for
characteristically hazardous wastes
generated at coke by-products
manufacturing facilities that are
recycled into the coke oven (40 CFR
261.4(a)(12)). Those wastes which fail
the TC for benzene and are recycled into
the coke oven (as described above in
this section) will not be considered
solid wastes at the point they are
inserted into the coke oven. The Agency
is not proposing tb limit the scope of the
exclusion to wastes which fail the TC
for organic chemicals only. Since natural
coal contains inorganic constituents,
limiting the proposal only to organics
would be anomalous.
The Agency notes that if the wastes
proposed for listing today are TC
hazardous for benzene, and they are i
mixed with K087 wastes prior to
•recyclinginto the coke ovens, the entire
mixture would assume the K087 listing. .
Since under 40 CFR 268.43, JC087 waste
already has a treatment standard for
benzene, no additional notification for
TC hazardous wastes is required for the
combined wastes. (This classification
scheme is clarified hi the technical
corrections to the Third Third rule at 56
FR 3872, January 31,1991.) The Agency
will still promulgate the exclusions for
recycled TC hazardous wastes at coking
facilities in order not to cause confusion
among the regulated community, and tp
avbid'any difficulties for facilities that <
find prior mixing of these wastes with ,
K087 is not always possible.
The Agency is also considering . •
options other than the onespresented in
the description of management
practices. Some of these options maybe
addressed by!commenters as to the ,
specifics of recycling practices (see
requests under "Conclusions" in this
section). The Agency is also considering
whether to exclude or exempt those
wastes from this industry that are
destined for recycling, as long as these
wastes do not touch the ground or are
placed on land. Specifically, the Agency
is concerned with: (1) transportation of
the wastes from one point to another
(whether on one plant site or from one
site to another), (2) what sort of facilities
for handling the wastes could keep the
wastes qualified for this exclusion
(particularly in light of the recently
promulgated land disposal restrictions
regulations hi 40 CFR part 268), (3) what''
alternatives may exist for specific w^ste
streams if the .wastes are chemically
incompatible with the process
equipment or with each other, (4) the
legal jurisdiction the Agency has over
the wastes at various points hi the
process, and (5) the extent of closed-
loop recycling that takes place at coke
by-products facilities. • .
-------
•357BO " Federal Register .A Vol. .$6, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, ,1991 / Proposed Rules
'- ' ^^'^'^^^^"''"^•"•^•••^'^^••^•'^^•^^••^•••••••••••••^••••••••••••••a
7 Conclusions , •: .-.•'••
la conclusion, the practice of """ "• ~
reinsertmg these residuals CptSposeS
K141 through K145, K147, and K148)
back Into the coke ovens serves to :
replace the raw material, coal, and the
practice of mixing these residuals with
coal tar serves to replace the product,.
coal tar. The practice, based on
available information, seems to pose no
additional hazard to human health and
the environment Therefore, the Agency
is proposing to exclude these residuals
when reinserted into the coke ovens or
when mixed with product coal tar from
the definition of solid waste under 40
CFR 261.4(8) (10), (11), and (12).
EPA recognizes that certain common
management practices for coke by-
products wastes may present a threat to
• human health and the environment
Even in cases where the wastes are
recycled, some of the management steps
prior to recycling could provide
opportunity for the release *of hazardous
materials. As such, the proposed listing
and recycling exclusions have been
developed to require that the wastes be
handled in accordance with subtitle C -
regulations after generation and up to .
thepotat of recycling.
The Agency notes that waste
management practices are subject to
change as new technologies are
developed, economic incentives change,
or as the Agency publishes other
regulatory programs. Specifically, new
regulations under the Clean Air Act
(National Emissions Standards for
hazardous Air Pollutants, or NESHAPs)
published in September 1989 and March
1900 affect the coke by-products .
industry,, and may have a direct effect
on industrial operations and waste
management practices. The Agency
believes that compliance with NESHAP
regulations will further reduce the
potential for hazardous constituent
releases into the environiment; however,
the Agency requests comment oh this '
particular postulation. Given the fact
that several of the wastes contain
constituents of relatively high molecular
weight EPA does not expect that••mixing
—rOf the proposed wastes with coal tar
emissions for the most part. Depending
on the location of tar refining, storage,
and mixing operations, the NESHAP
regulations may apply to the mixing of
coal tar with, the wastes proposed in
today's notice at certain facilities.
However, the exclusions from the
definition of solid waste will mean that
facilities will not be subject to RCRA air
rules (sections 264 and 265, subparts AA
and BB) when mixing wastes with coal
tar or reinserting wastes into the coke
oven.
The February 21,1991 Boiler and
Industrial Furnace rule concluded that
the sludge recycling does not affect the
amount of toxic constituents in coke or
coal tar, or emissions from their
manufacturing processes. Furthermore,
management of the wastes in question
does not contribute to the waste
disposal problem, rendering the
regulation of coke and coal tar as RCRA
solid wastes unnecessary. Additionally*
the process of making coke and coal tar
from K087, K060. K141-K145, K147, and
K148 need not be subject to RCRA
control Since making coke and mixing
coal tar are subject to special criteria
under the Clean Air Act RCRA
regulation of some of these practices
may be disruptive and inappropriate to
the CAA regulatory scheme. As
described above, the K087, K060, K141-
K145, K147, and K148 wastes are subject
to full RCRA regulation prior to entering
the recycling process. Exclusions would
not apply to the coking or coal tar
producing process if other hazardous
wastes [e.g., spent solvents) are mixed
into the process. (See 58 FR 7203.)
EPA requests comment on its decision
to exclude the proposed residuals when
reinserted into coke ovens or mixed
with coal tar product from the definition
of solid waste under 40 CFR 261.4{a)
(10), (11), and j[12). Comments and data
on the extent and nature of recycling
and reclamation practices of these
wastes, and the relationship of these
practices to the definition of solid waste
are requested. Specific information on
the following is requested: the length of
time over which residuals accumulate*,
the manner in which they are returned
to the process; (he chemical
. compatibility of the wastes with the
industrial process and with each other;
the percentage of material recycled or
reclaimed: the eibility of the materials in
question to be wastes under some
circumstances and products in others;
whether the recycling or reclamation-
fcaSaes place continuously; and, any other
relevant information or data on the
recycling or reclamation of these
wastes.
R Proposal Not To List Coke By-
Products Wastewaters
EPA is not proposing to list coke by-
products wastewaters as hazardous
wastes. This decision is based on the
Agency's expectation that at least some
of the wastewater streams at coke by-
products facilities may fail the TC test
for benzene. EPA, therefore, expects that
such wastewaters could be effectively
regulated under the TC rule. In
particular, final cooler blowdown and
wastewaters from light oil recovery
contain benzene levels ranging from 0.44
to 140 ppm. Table 10 presents the ranges
of concentrations found for the
hazardous constituents present in these
wastewaters. EPA found that out of
twelve samples, seven analyzed by, EPA
had benzene levels higher than the
promulgated TC level of 0,5 ppm.
Therefore, these wastes are now
regulated Subtitle C wastes because
they are characteristically hazardous.
As shown in Table 10, wastewaters do
not typically and frequently contain
PAHs at quantifiable levels of
regulatory concern. The Agency notes
that if the wastes proposed for listing in
today's notice (or any other listed
hazardous waste) were to be
deliberately mixed with coke by-product
wastewaters, the mixture would become
a hazardous waste pursuant to the
mixture rule in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv).
TABLE 10.—COKE BV-PROOUCTS PLANT WASTEWATERS
CoreStaerte*
B»m*ne ..
•ftfiraeent
B»mo(a)p>™oe.
Health-
based
water
Won
. Mta •
,(ppro)
&oxto-»
MX10-*
aoxto-*
Be*1
HO. — ;_
RSO
(ClSM
RSO
BJ.
1C
reguto-
(ppm)
' 0.5
NA
NA
Coke bj^procJuets wastewater concentrations (ppm) • . .
Wast* ammonia liquor
'Range
C0.002 '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, Nd. 144 /Friday, July 28, 1991 / Proposed Rules
35781
TABLE 10.—COKE BY-PRODUCTS PLANT WAStEWATERS-^Continued
Constituent of
concern
Benzo(b and
k)fluoranthene
Dibenzfa.h)
Qnthrscflrtfi
Health-
water
concen-
tration
• limits
(ppm) ,
4.0X10-'
7.1x10-'
Basis'
RSD
(Class
RSD
(Class
B,).
regula-
level"
(ppm)
NA
NA
: Coke by-products wastewater concentrations '(ppm) ' '•'••"
.Waste ammonia liquor
Range
<0.05-0.38
ND-<0.1
No. of
data
points
2
2
Average
0.19
0.03
Final cooler blowdown
-
Range
NO
ND
No. of
data
points
' 2
. 2
Average
ND
;
NO
Light oil recovery wastewater
Range
ND-<1
ND-<2.5
No. of
data
points
2
' .2
Avemge.
i0.2S
' i
-0.63
Mixed coka plant wastewatera
, Range
. :NP-<0.08
JND
No: Of
data.
points
' 2
2
Average
0.02
; NO . .
Source: Background Document . • . •• . •
1MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level. . • ;
> RSD—Risk Specific Dose—Toxicity Characteristic (TC) levels were promulgated on March 29,1990 (See 65 FR 11798-11862).
* RSD—Risk Specific Dose— - Not Reported.
ND =* Not Detected.
< = Detected but not quantifiable.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 261.11(a)(l) the
Agency could have listed other
wastewater streams from coke by-
Eroducts plants (e.g., final cooler
lowdown and wastewaters from light
oil recovery) on the basis of the
concentrations of benzene present in
these waste streams. However, the
Agency has currently decided not to list
them and considers their regulation by
the promulgated TC rule to be
sufficiently protective of human health
and the environment (for details on the
TC rule, see 55 FR 11798-11862).
EPA does not have analytical data on
the concentrations of benzene and other
hazardous constituents of concern hi
sludges generated from the treatment of
coke by-product wastewaters. However,
since concentrations of most of these
constituents in wastewaters with the
exception of benzene are not typically
and frequently present at levels of
regulatory concern, the Agency does not
believe that listing of sludges is
warranted.
G. Impact of Future Land Disposal
Restrictions (LOR) Determinations
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) impose.
substantial new responsibilities on
those who handle hazardous waste.
HSWA prohibits, in particular, the
continued placement of hazardous
waste-in or on the land unless the
Agency makes the determination that
the prohibition is not required to protect
human health and environment for as -
long as the waste remains hazardous.
Land disposal of these wastes is only
allowed if the wastes meet treatment
standards promulgated by the Agency.
These standards must substantially
reduce the toxicity of or the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the wastes. The statute also
established a rigorous schedule for
making determinations regarding the
continued land disposal of these wastes.
This schedule placed special emphasis
on all hazardous wastes that were
identified prior to the enactment of
HSWA (November 8,1984).
The Agency is also required to make a
land disposal prohibition determination
for any hazardous waste that is newly
identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261
after November 8,1984, within six
months of the date of identification or
effective date of listing (section
3004(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)). Once
promulgated, the coke by-products
wastes being proposed in today's rule
would, therefore, be subject to this
requirement.
This section of today's preamble
addresses activities EPA is planning, to
perform hi order to comply with the.
mandatory requirements to develop land
disposal restrictions for coke by-
products wastes. The Agency is
requesting comments and information in
the areas of pollution prevention,
recycling, treatment, and treatment
capacity for these wastes.
1. Request for Comment on the Agency's
Approach to Pollution Prevention in. the
LDR Program
EPA has made considerable progress
over the years in improving.
environmental quality through its mediar
specific pollution control programs.
Standard practice hi several industries,
however, has relied traditionally on land
disposal of solid wastes, including those
residuals generated from the control of
air and water emissions. Treatment of
many of these wastes was primarily
motivated by industry's desire to reduce
liability and costs of disposal. In part to
conserve energy, Industry began to
recycle and burn or otherwise process
many wastes as fuel substitutes where
such technologies were relatively easy
to implement. Elimination or reduction
of the generation of these wastes, while
instituted by a number of corporations,
was typically not a high priority :
management practice. • •
This changed dramatically in 1984, as
HSWA established a national policy
re versing this scheme of priorities that
was previously practiced by industry .. :
and inadvertently spawned by • ^ '•
regulatory efforts, HSWA thus
established elimination or reduction of
wastes as the first priority for managing
all wastes. Recycling and treatment
came next hi order, of priority. While
land disposal was established as the
least preferred means of managing
wastes, it was recognized as necessary
for some wastes, provided they wete
treated prior to disposal.
The Agency intends' to gather
information on pollution prevention
potential wherever feasible and thus is
requesting comment on particular
opportunities for volume and toxicity
reduction for coke by-products wastes. :
Through cooperative efforts such as
these, the Agency can better inform the
public and make enlightened decisions
on regulatory matters. At the same time,
the information collected as a response
to today's notice can be assembled, '•
evaluated, and potentially disseminated
through the Agency's technology
transfer program potentially resulting in
sho'rtTterm positive impact on volume
reductions. The Agency points out that
even if the listing-of these wastes is not
promulgated, the pollution prevention
ideas gathered from this notice can still
be very useful to regulatory agencies,
industry, and to,the.public. . j
Successful reduction in waste .'
generation is often erroneously
interpreted by industry to result only
from complex and/or expensive process
. .changes. Ofteti there are relatively
simple engineering solutions that can be
•easily implemented mat will achieve .
this goal. Evaluation of adherence to
existing process, control measures along
with slight modifications' of these can T
• often result in significant volume i
reduction. These evaluations may also
point out the need for more complex
-------
35782
Federal Register /Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 28, 1991 / Proposed Rules
engineering evaluations (e.g., mixing
effectiveness, process temperatures and
pressures, and mutual compatibility of '•
wastes). Simple physical audits of
current waste generation and in-plant
management practices for the wastes
can also yield very positive results.
'- These audits often turn up simple non-
engineering practices that can be
successfully implemented. They may
point out the need for the repair/
replacement of leaking pipes, valves,
and simple equipment, or may result in
modification of inspection and
maintenance schedules.
The likelihood exists that pollution
prevention opportunities for the
manufacturing processes generating the
.wastes proposed in today's notice may
potentially result in significant
reductions in waste generation and,
thus, considerable cost-savings for
industry. The Agency is interested in
comments and data on such
opportunities, including both successful
and unsuccessful attempts to reduce
waste generation, as well as the
potential for volume or toxicity
reductions. It Is also possible that, due
to previous implementation of waste
minimization procedures, some facilities
or specific processes have very little
potential for decreases in waste
generation rates or toxicity. The Agency
is particularly interested in specific
information such as: (1) Data on the
quantities of wastes that have been or
could be reduced; (2) a means of
calculating percent reductions that are
achievable (accounting for changes in
production rates); (3) potential for
reduction in toxicity of the wastes; (4)
the results of waste audits that have
been performed; (5) capacity for
recycling the wastes to the coke oven
(or another part of the process); and (6)
potential cost savings that can be (or
have been) achieved.
:In the case of wastes generated by the
coke by-products industry, the Agency
has some information concerning waste
recycling practices, as discussed in the
previous section of this preamble. EPA
has collected this information as a result
of other rulemaking efforts', such as the
Boiler and Industrial Furnaces Rule, and
is, in fact, proposing exclusions from the
definition of solid waste for certain
wastes as they are recycled. Any
additional information provided by ' '
commentera.will greatly ameliorate the
Agency's ability to take into account
past and present waste management,
practices for the purposes of LDR. ....'• ,. .
2. Request'for Comment on the Agency's
Approach to the Development of BOAT
Treatment Standards
While the Agency prefers source
reduction/pollution prevention and
recycling/recovery over conventional
treatment, inevitably some wastes (such
as residues from recycling and
inadvertent spill residues) will be
generated. Thus, standards based on
treatment using Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) will be
required to be developed, at a minimum,
for these wastes. (Note; The Agency
does recognize there may be some
special situations where the generation
of a particular waste can be totally
eliminated. This is unlikely, however, for
most wastes.) '
A general overview of the Agency's
approach in performing analysis of
BOAT for hazardous wastes can be
found in Section III.A.1 of the preamble
to the final rule for Third Third wastes
(55 FR 22535—22542, June 1,1990). If all
or part of the proposed listing of the
coke by-product wastes is promulgated
in a later rulemaking, the Agency may
develop BOAT treatment standards for
these wastes based on the transfer of
performance data from the treatment of
wastes (such as K087) with similar
chemical and physical characteristics or
similar concentrations of hazardous
constituents. Treatment standards will
be established for these wastes on a
constituent-specific basis) with the
regulated constituents selected based on
their presence in the untreated wastes.
These constituents are not necessarily
limited to the hazardous constituents of
concern (proposed for 40 CFR part 261
appendix VH) identified as present in
the wastes in today's rule.
The technologies required by and
those forming the basis of the treatment.
standards, in general, are determined by
whether the wastes contain organics
and/or metals. For wastes such as the
ones proposed in today's notice
containing primarily organics, the
'Agency has found that incineration and
other thermal destruction techniques
can destroy most organics to
concentrations at or near the limit of
detection as measured in the ash
residues. Many people, however, are
apprehensive about incineration of
hazardous wastes and prefer the use of
alternative treatment technologies for
wastes that must be treated. While the
Agency believes that incineration and
other thermal destruction technologies
achieve a level of relatively complete
destruction for the organics, it typically
establishes concentration-based
standards based on these data rather
than requiring the Wastes to be
incinerated. Thus, any alternative •
technologies that can achieve these
levels may be used, itn fact, where
alternative treatment technologies
cannot achieve these levels, but achieve
reasonably comparable results, the
Agency may promulgate adjusted
treatment standards achievable by both
incineration and the alternative
technologies.
As stated above, the Agency has
extensive information that the coking
industry recycles many of its wastes' by
reinjeqting them into the coke ovens.
Because of this practice, the likelihood
exists that this practice will be proposed
as the BOAT for treatment of these
wastes.
Thus, the Agency is soliciting or
updating data and information on
appropriate treatment technologies for
the wastes proposed in today's rule.
Information should include, but not be
limited to, the following: (1) Technical
descriptions of the treatment systems
that are currently used for these wastes;
(2) descriptions of alternative
technologies that might be currently
available or anticipated as applicable;
(3) performance data for the treatment
of these wastes (in particular,
constituent concentrations in both
treated and untreated wastes, as well as
equipment design and operating
conditions); (4) information on known or
perceived difficulties in analyzing
treatment residues or specific
constituents; and (5) quality assurance/
control information for all data
submissions.
3. Request for Comment on the Agency's
Approach to the Analyses of BOAT
Treatment Capacity
In today's notice, the Agency is
proposing to list coke by-product wastes
as hazardous under 40 CFR 261.32.
Although data on waste characteristics
and current management practices have
been gathered for the purpose of listing
the wastes, the Agency has not
evaluated these data iPor the purposes of
developing specific BOAT treatment
standards or assessing the capacity to
treat (or recycle) these wastes. As a '
result, we are soliciting comments on
the completeness of the existing data
(which can be found in the RCRA
docket) and requesting additional data
and information with respect to
treatment and capacity.
The Agency is particularly interested
in updating the following information
about the proposed wastes (identified
by the proposed waste codes): (1) The
total quantities of each waste generated;
(2) the quantities (on-site and off-site}
stored, treated, recycled, or disposed
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday. July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
35783
(and types of units) with particular
emphasis on those managed in units
designated as land disposal under
HSWA (Note: Besides landfills, this also
includes underground injection units,
surface impoundments, land treatment,
and waste piles); (3) the treatability
group classifications of the wastes (i.e.,
wastewaters or nonwastewaters as
defined in the Third Third rule); (4) the
chemical/physical characteristics of the
wastes, including information such as
total organic carbon content, BTU value,
concentration of organic 'and metal
constituents, etc.; and (5) specific
chemical composition or physical form
of the waste that could potentially
interfere or otherwise limit the
application of specific treatment or
recycling technologies and thus would
impact EPA's analysis of capacity.
The Agency also needs additional
data on the number of facilities and
volume of wastes currently regulated
under other regulations (e.g., the Clean
Water Act or the Clean Air Act), along
with State or local waste management
requirements. EPA needs to evaluate the
impact of shifting these wastes from
land disposal to on-site, captive, and
commercial treatment or recycling
capacity. The Agency is also soliciting
comment on the viability of treating or
recycling these wastes at commercial
treatment and/or recycling facilities. It
is particularly important that short-term
and long-term trends (including
potential capacity shortfalls) be
identified, especially for new treatment
and for recycling technologies. Finally, it
is important to have this information
provided on a facility-specific basis in
order to address the impacts of the land
disposal restrictions program on the
regulated community.
III. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in States
Under section 3008 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce RCRA programs
within the State. (See 40 CFR part 271
for the standards and requirements for
authorization.) Following authorization,
EPA retains enforcement authority
under sections 3008,7003, and 3013 of
RCRA, although authorized States have
primary enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final RCRA authorization
administered its authorized hazardous
waste program entirely in lieu of EPA.
The Federal requirements no longer
applied in the authorized State, and EPA
could not issue permits for any facilities
in the State which the State was
authorized to permit. When new, more-
stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State was ;
obliged to enact equivalent authority
within specified time frames. New
Federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized State until the State
adopted the requirements as State law..
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6926(g}}, new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA take effect hi authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States, EPA is
directed to implement these
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized States, including the issuance
of permits, until the State modifies its
program to reflect the Federal
standards, and applies for and is
granted authorization. While. States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in •
authorized States in the interim.
Today's proposal for listing EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K141 through
K145, K147, and K148 is being proposed
pursuant to'section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA,
a provision added by HSWA. When the
final rules are promulgated, EPA will
consider its HSWA obligation to make a
determination regarding listing coke by-
products wastes to be fulfilled.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
add these requirements to Table 1 in 40
CFR 271.1Q), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect hi all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
identified in 40 CFR 271.1Q) table 1, as
discussed in the following section of the
preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted previously, today's rule is.
being proposed pursuant to provisions
added by HSWA. The addition of K141
through K145, K147, and K148 to the list
of hazardous wastes from specific
sources is proposed pursuant to section
3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a provision added
by HSWA.
As noted above, EPA will implement
the HSWA portions of today's rule [i.e.,
the addition of K141 through K145, K147,
and K148 to the list of hazardous wastes
from specific sources) in authorized
States until they modify their programs
to adopt these rules and such
modifications are approved by EPA.
Because this rule will be promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final RCRA
authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or
3006(b), respectively, on the basis that
State regulations are substantially
• equivalent of fully equivalent to EPA's
regulations. The procedures and
schedule for State program
modifications for either interim or final
authorization are described hi 40 CFR
271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA
interim authorizations will expire on
January 1,1993 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c}).
It should be noted that 40 CFR
271.21(e) requires that States having
final RCRA authorization must modify
their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modifications to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which States
must modify their programs to adopt
today's proposed rule will be
determined by the date of promulgation
of the final rule in accordance with 40
CFR 271.21(e)(2). Once EPA approves
the modification, the State requirements
become RCRA subtitle C requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have regulations
similar to those proposed in today's rule.
Such State regulations have not been
assessed against the Federal regulations
behig proposed today to determine
whether they meet the tests for
authorization. Thus, a State is not'
authorized to implement its regulations
as RCRA requirements until the State
program modification is submitted to
EPA and approved. Of course. States
with existing regulations may continue
to administer and enforce those
regulations as a matter of State law. In
addition, hi implementing the Federal
program, EPA will work with the 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 their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of EPA's regulations are not required to
include regulations equivalent to the
EPA regulations in their application.
However, States must modify their
programs by the deadlines set forth hi 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. The requirements States
must meet when submitting final
authorization applications are set forth
hi 40 GFR 271.3.
IV. CERCLA Designation and RQ
Adjustment
Pursuant to section 101(14)(C) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
-------
35784
Federal Register'/ Vol. 56,'No. 144 /Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, the
wastes proposed to be listed as
hazardous in today's notice will, on the
effective date of the final rule,
automatically become hazardous
substances under CERCLA by virtue of
their listing under RCRA. The 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
persons in charge of vessels or facilities
from which a hazardous substance has
been released In a quantity that is equal
to or greater than its RQ shall
immediately notify the National
Response Center of thejelease at (800)
424-8802 or at (202) 426-2675. In
addition, section 304 of the Superfund
Amendments arid Reauthorization Act
of 1988 (SARA) requires the owners or
operator of a facility to report the
release of a CERCLA hazardous
substance or an extremely hazardous
substance to the appropriate State
emergency response commission (SERC)
and to the 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"
developed in connection with the Clean
Water Act Section 311 regulations (40
CFR 302.6[b)) and also used in
notification under CERCLA and SARA
(50 FR 13463,: April 4, .1985 and amended
on August 14,1939, 54 FR 33481), the
release of mixtures or solutions
(including hazardous, waste streams) of
hazardous substances would need to be
reported to the NRG, and to the SERC
and LEPC: (1) If the quantity of all of the
hazardous cpnstituent(s) of the. mixture
or solution is^own; when an RQ or
more of any hazardous constituent is
released, or (2) if the quantity of one or
more of the hazardous constituent(s) of
the mixture or solution is unknown,
when the total amount of the mixture or
solution released equals or exceeds the
RQ for the hazardous constituent with
the lowest RQ. RQs of different
hazardous substances are not additive
under the mixture rule, so that spilling a
mixture containing half an RQ of one
hazardous substance and'half an RQ of
another hazardous substance need not
be reported.
Under section 102{b) of CERCLA; all
• hazardous wastes newly designated
under RCRA will have a statutorily-,
imposed RQ of one pound unless and
until adjusted by regulation under. ,
CERCLA. In order to coordinate the
RCRA and CERCLA rulemaking with
respect to new waste listings, the
Agency today is proposing regulatory
amendments .under CERCLA authority
in connection with the proposed listing
of wastes K141, K142, K143, K144, K145,
K147, and K148. The Agency is
proposing to: (l) Designate wastes K141,
K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148
as hazardous substances under section
102(a) of CERCLA and (2) adjust the
RQs of wastes K141, K142, K143, K144,
K145, K147, and K148 to one pound.
Releases of a waste stream are
reportable if any hazardous constituent
of the waste stream is released in a
quantity greater than or equal to the RQ
for that constituent (50 FR 13463, April 4,
1985). Wastes K141, K142, K143, K144,
K145, K147, and K148 .each contain one
or more hazardous constituents that '
have a 1-pound RQ; therefore, the RQs
of the wastes are also proposed as 1
pound. The RQs for each .of the
hazardous constituents and the
proposed RQs for each waste are
identified in Table 11.
TABLE 11.—RQs FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR WASTES K141-K145, K147, AND K148
Hazardous
sufcstanco
Constituent
Waste No. K141
Benzene 1.™™!!™"™!.™™"" ' " "' in
Benz(a)anthracene ,... '_"Z'"T"~ ' ' 10
Benzo(a)pyrene ; '
Benzo(b)fluoranthene _ ; .• ,
Bonzo(k)fluoranthene...., ' ,nn),
Dibenz(a1h)anthracene "' ' " ; ' ^
1°°
Benzene ,™
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene .
Bonzo(k)fluoranthene ' "' " " '" '
Otbenz{a,h)anthracene
°°
Benzene ZZZZZZZZZ Z": ' - ' in
Benzfajanthracsne _ ZZZ '•' —;••- ; 10
Benzo(a)pyrene ' "
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene „... , ,-Ann
WasloNo,K144 _.„. ZZZZZZZ "" ' : ' ' " "
Benzene „ „„ v ZZZZZZ" " • " • • • in
Benz(a)anthraoene " ' '. ' ' ®
3enzo(a)pyrene '
3onzo(b)fluoranthene
3enzo(k)fluoranthene _ __
Otbenz(a,h)anthracene _ ' """" ' "•"•"•" • "
Waste No. K14S™. _
Jenzone _| 1ZZ!Z!Z!Z1ZZZ!Z1Z " n
3enz(a)anthracene ZZZZ"ZZZZZZZZ " in
3anzo(a)pyrene _ „ J™.!..ZZZ" "'"'
Jibonz(a,h)anthracen9. „_ ZZZZ" " " ' ".•"• . .
RQ (Ibs)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday. July 26. 1991 / Proposed Rules
35785
TABLE 11 .-RQs FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR WASTES K141-K145, K147, AND Kt48-Continued
Hazardous
substance
Waste No. K147
Waste No. K148
Constituent
'
Naphthalene ,~ „....._.-....—....—•.—«••••— ,.•....—.—••-••
Benzene ,...™....,.......~ —
8enz(a)anthracene - •'• ' [
Benzo{a)pyrena v» "~ '
Benzo(b)fluofsr.th8ne •• - - — ~
Benzo(k)fluoranihene •• -'- • — "
Dibenz{a,h)anthracene "
lndeno(1 23-cd)pyrene -> " "'"" ""
Benz(a)anthraoene « — — "•• "
Benzo(a)pyrene — «.• •' - — ~> •"• •/• '" "
Benzo(b)f!uorantnane < '
Benzo(k)fluoranthene....' • - - - ""
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene r
lndano(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ~ - - — ""
RQ(lbs)
100
1
10
10
1
1
5,000
1
100
10
1
1
5,000
1
100
V. Cost and Economic Analysis
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
EPA to prepare an analysis of the costs
and economic impacts associated with a
proposed regulation. The results of this
analysis are used to determine whether
the regulation will result in: (1)
Incremental annual costs that exceed
$100 million, (2) significant increases in
costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries, or (3) significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, innovation, or
international trade. If a proposed rule
meets any of these criteria, it is a "major
rule," as defined by Executive Order No.
12291, and a Regulatory Impact Analysis
must be completed before the rule is
promulgated.
Today's proposed rule is not a
"major" rule because it would not have
an annual economic effect of more than
$100 million and would not have
significant adverse effects on the coke
by-products and tar refining industries.
This section of the preamble discusses
the results of the cost analyses
undertaken to assess the effects of the
proposed rule. The draft Cost and
Economic Impact Analysis (DPRA, 1990}
is available in the public docket for this
proposal.
In order to assess the effects of the
proposed rule, EPA first identified
wastes and facilities which would be
affected by the rule. Incremental costs
for each facility were estimated based
on the changes hi waste management
practices that would be required once
the wastes are regulated as hazardous.
The incremental costs for the individual
facilities were aggregated to estimate
national costs of the rule.
To determine the nationwide costs of
the proposed rule, waste quantities,
baseline management practices, and
compliance management practices for
proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K141 through K145, K147, and K148 were
developed based on the information in
RCRA 3007 questionnaires and best
engineering judgment. For these wastes,
the baseline management practices
included recycling of wastes to coke
ovens, burning as fuels, and disposal in
off-site landfills. The most-costly
compliance management practice for all
these wastes was assumed to be
incineration in a permitted RCRA
incinerator.
Incremental costs were calculated by
subtracting costs of baseline
management practices from costs of
management practices if all of the
proposed wastes are regulated as
hazardous. Management practices were
developed for both the least-costly
compliance option and most-costly
compliance option based on waste types
and quantities.
EPA's analysis indicates that the total
annualized incremental cost to the
industry, excluding regulatory costs for
40 CFR parts 262 and 266, would range
from approximately $150,000 for the
least-costly compliance option to $18
million for the most-costly compliance
option. The least costly compliance
option involves costs associated with
managing today's proposed wastes as
hazardous before they are reinserted
into the coke oven. Costs involved in
this option would result from upgrading
existing storage and secondary
containment systems, and the
transportation of those tar refining
wastes that are not currently being
recycled to the coke ovens. The most
costly compliance option involves
incineration of all residuals in RCRA
permitted incinerators.
The annualized administrative costs
for complying with 40 CFR parts 262 are
estimated to be $52,000, which includes
costs for reporting and record keeping.
Therefore, even for the most costly
compliance option (i.e., incineration of
these wastes) the total annnalized
incremental cost of this rule is estimated
to be less than $100 million.
Additionally, the Agency's analysis •
concluded that these costs would not
result in significant price increases or
significant adverse effects on
competition, trade, employment or
investment. Therefore, because impacts
of the proposed rale do not meet the
criteria for major rules set by Executive
Order No. 12291, the Agency has
determined that today's rale is not a
major rule.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), whenever an
Agency is required to publish a General
Notice of Rulemaking for any proposed
or final rale, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) that
describes the impact of the rale on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No RFA is required,
however, if the head of the Agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Since EPA has determined the
hazardous wastes proposed for listing
here are not generated by small entities
(as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act), and the Agency believes that small
entities will not generate them in
significant quantities. This regulation,
therefore, does not require an RFA.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation wilLnot have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does hot contain any
information collection requirements
-------
35786
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
VIII. Compliance and Implementation
A Section 3010 Notification
Generally, when new hazardous
wastes are listed, all persons who
generate, transport, treat, store, or
dispose the newly listed waste(s) are
required to notify either EPA, or a State
authorized by EPA to operate the
hazardous waste program, of their
activities pursuant to section 3010 of
RCRA. However, under the Solid Waste
Disposal Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L.
96-482), EPA was given the option of
waiving the notification requirements
under section 3010 of RCRA following
revision of the section 3001 regulations,
at the discretion of the Administrator;
EPA is proposing to waive this
notification requirement for persons
who handle wastes that are covered by
today's proposed listing and have
already notified EPA that they manage
other hazardous wastes and have
received an EPA identification number.
This waiver is being proposed because
of the likelihood that persons managing
today's proposed wastes already are
managing one or more hazardous wastes
that generally are associated with the
generation of proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K141 through K145, K147,
and K148 and have, therefore,
previously notified EPA and received an
EPA identification number. In the event
that any person who generates,
transports, treats, stores, or disposes
these wastes and has not previously
notified and received an identification
number, that person must obtain an
identification numb er pursuant to 40
CFR 26Z12 before that person can
generate, transport, treat, store, or
dispose of these wastes.
B. Compliance Dates for Facilities
Today's proposed listings will be
promulgated pursuant to HSWA. HSWA
requirements are applicable in
authorized States at the same time as in
unauthorized States. Therefore, EPA will
regulate the wastes being-proposed
today until States are authorized to
regulate these wastes. Once these
regulations are promulgated in a final
rule by EPA, the Agency will apply
these Federal regulations to these
wastes and to then* management in both
authorized and unauthorized States.
Newly regulated facilities (i.e.,
facilities at which the only hazardous
wastes that are managed are today's
proposed wastes in units subject to
permit requirements when these listings
are finalized) must qualify for interim
status within jsix months of publication '
of the rule in order to continue managing
these wastes in such units. To retain
interim status, a newly-regulated land
disposal facility must submit a part B
permit application within eighteen
months after publication of the rule and
certify that the facility is in compliance
with all applicable ground-water
monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements (see RCRA section
3005(e)(3)).
Interim status facilities that manage
today's proposed wastes after these
listings are finalized, must file an
amended Part'A permit application
within six months of publication of the
final rule if they are to continue
managing these wastes in units that
require a permit. The facilities must file
the necessary amendments by. the
• effective date of the rule, or they will not
retain interim status with respect to
today's proposed wastes (i.e., they will
be prohibited from managing
additionally listed coke by-products
wastes until permitted).
Currently permitted facilities that
manage today's proposed wastes after
their listings are finalized by EPA, must
request permit modifications if they are
to continue managing these wastes in
units that require a permit. Since EPA
will initially be responsible for
processing these permit modifications,
the new Federal procedures for permit
modifications will be followed (see 53
FR 37934, September 28,1988). These
new procedures contain a specific
provision for newly listed or identified
wastes (see § 270.42(g)). This provision
generally requires that a permitted
facility that is "in existence" for the
newly listed or identified waste on the
effective date ojf the waste listing must
submit a Class i modification by that
date. Essentially, this modification
notifies the Agency and the public that
the facility is handling the waste and
identifies the units involved. By
submitting this notice, the facility is
temporarily allowed to continue
management of the newly listed wastes
until the Agency can make a final
change to the permit. Next, within 180
days of the effective date the permittee
must submit a more detailed permit
modification request (i.e., a Class 2 or 3
modification). This information will be
used by the Agency to develop a final
permit change. For more information on
permit modifications see the September
28,1988 preamble discussion referenced
above.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 262
Hazardous waste, Recycling.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian
lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous
materials, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, and water supply.
Dated: July 12,1991.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
IX, References
1. Van Osdel!, D.W., et al.. Environmental
Assessment of Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Publication No.
EPA-800/2-79-016. January 1979.
2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Benzene Emissions from Coke By-
Product Recovery Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Equipment Leaks, and
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Process Vents—
Background Information and Responses
to Technical Comments for 1989 Final
Decisions. Final. Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Publication No. EPA-
450/3-89-31. August 1989.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Development Document for Effluent
. Guidelines. New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category, Volume II.
Washington, DC Publication No. EPA
440/1-82/024. Final Draft. May 1982,
4. RCRA 3007 Questionnaire Responses. 1985.
5. RCRA 3007 Clarification Request ,
Responses. 1987
6. Shine, B. Memorandum to Coke Project File
documenting waste generation estimates.
February 1989.
7. Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc. (DPRA). Draft Final
Report on Cost and Economic Impact
Analyses of Listing Additional
Hazardous Wastes From the for the Coke
By-Products (Coking and Tar Refining)
Industry. Prepared for Economic
Analysis Branch, Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 1990.
8. Background Document for the Proposed
Listing of Coke By-Products Wastes. June
1990.
For the reasons set out in the
- preamble, it is proposed to amend title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 56, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 1991 / Proposed Rules
35787
PART 281—SDENTIFICATION AND
USTiNG OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 281
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 8912(a), 8921,
6922 and 6938.
2. Section 261.4 paragraph (a)(10) is
revised and paragraphs (a)(ll) and
(a}{12) are added to read as follows:
§ 261.4 ExeSueions.
(a) * * *
(10) Coke and coal tar from the iron
and steel industry that contain or are
produced by recycling EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K060, K087, K141, K142,
K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148. The
process of producing coke and coal tar
from these wastes is likewise excluded
from regulation. This exclusion does not
apply prior to the point of mixing wastes
with coal or coal tar.
(11) EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K080,
K087, K141, K142, K143, K144, K145,
K147, and K148 when reinserted into
coke ovens as feedstock to produce
coke. This exclusion does not apply
prior to the point of reinsertion of
wastes into coke ovens.
(12) All wastes from the coke by-
products industry that are hazardous
only because they exceed levels for
hazardous constituents in § 261.24, when
these wastes are reinserted into coke
ovens as a feedstock to produce coke.
This exclusion does not apply prior to
the point of reinsertion ol wastes into
coke ovens.
*****
3. Section 261.32 is amended by
adding the following hazardous waste
listings to the subgroups Coking and
Pesticides:
§261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific
sources.
Industry
and EPA
hazardous
waste no.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
Pesticides:
K147
K148
Tar storage tank residuals (T) .
from coal tar refining.
Residues from coal tar distil- (T)
lation, including, but not
limited to, still bottoms.
Coking:
K141 .........
Process residues from the (T)
recovery of coal tar, in-
cluding, but not limited to,
collecting sump residues
from the production of
coke from coal or the re-
covery of coke by-prod-
ucts produced from coal.
This listing does not in-
clude K087 (decanter tank
tar sludges from coking
operations).
K142-..... Tar storage tank residues (T)
from the production of
coke from coal or from the
recovery of coke by-prod-
ucts produced from coal.
K143. Process residues from the (T)
recovery of light oil, includ-
ing those generated in
. stills, decanters, and wash
oil recovery units from the
recovery of coke by-prod-
ucts produced from coal.
K144 Wastewater . treatment (T)
sludges from light oil refin-
ing, including, but not limit-
ed to, interception or con-
tamination sump sludges
. • from the recovery of coke
by-products produced from
coal.
K145 Residues from naphthalene fj)
collection and recovery
operations from the recov-
ery of coke by-products
produced from coal.
4. Appendix VTI of part 261 is
amended by adding the following waste
streams in alphanumeric order'as
follows:
APPENDJX VI!.—BASIS FOR LISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA
hazardous
waste no.
• • ' •
Hazardous constituents tot which listed
K141 Benzene, • benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b) fluorari-
thene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-
cdjpyrene.
K142 .. Benzene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)
pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene. dibenz(a,h)
anthracene, indeno(l A3-cd)pyrene..
K143 Benzene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b) fluoran-
thene, benzo(k)fluoranthene.
(Ci44 Benzene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b) fluoran-
thene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenz(a,h)antnracene.
K145......... Benzene, benz(a)(anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,n) anthra-
cene, naphthalene.
K147 Benzene, benz(a)anthracene,
. benzo(a)pyrenef
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranttiene, dibenz(a,h)
anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.
K148 Benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k) fluo-
ranthene, dibenz(a,h)antnracene,
lndeno(1,2,3-cdJpyrene.
PART 271r-REQUIREMENT FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
5. The authority citation for part 271
continues to: read as follows:
Authority: 42U.S.C. 6905.6912(a), and 6928.
6. Section 271.1Q) is amended by
adding toe,following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication: , ;
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * ' * ' ,
or * *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
Effective date
v * * » - •- ' -
Clnsert date of final rule publication] The listing of wastes from the produc- XX FR XX [Insert page citation of final [Insert effective date of final rule. J
lion, recovery, and refining of coke- rule.].
by-products produced from coal. '
-------
35788
Federal Register /VoL 56. NJX 144 /Friday,. July 26. 1991"./ Proposed Rules
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTmES, 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 1381.
§302.4 [Amended]
8. Section 302.4 is amended by adding
the waste streams K141 through K145^
K147 and K148 to Table 302.4. The .
appropriate footnotes to Table 302.4 are
republished without change.
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Statutory
Final RQ
Hazardous substance
CASRN
Regulatory synonyms
RCRA
RQ Codet waste Category Pounds (Kg)
No.
Kt41_
Process residues from the-recovery of coal tar, includ-
ing, but not Knitted to, tar collecting sump residues
from th« production of coke from coal or the
recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
This Hating does not include K087 (decanter tank
tar shidge from coking operations).
Tar storage tank residues from the production of coke
from coal or from the recovery of coke by-products
produced from coal.
K143 J..J . '
Process residues from tha recovery of light on, Indui"
big, but not limited to, those generated in atHls,
decanters, and wash OH recovery units from the
recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
Wastowater treatment sludges, from light oil refining,
Including, but not limited to, intercepting or contami-
nation sump sludges from the recovery of coke by-
•products produced from coal.
K145 .
Residue* from naphthaten* collection- and recovery
operations from tn« recovery- of coke by-products
produced from coal.
K147
Tar storage tank residues from coal tar refining.
?r«n..minn« .....ii in 1111-11 J4.m.-j
Residues from coal tar distillation,
limited to, still bottoms.
.... 1* * K141 X
1* 4 K142 X
1* 4 K143 X
1* 4
1* 4
K144 X
K»45 X
1* 4 K147 X
1* 4 . K148 X
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
t —Indicates tha ^statutory source as defined by 1, .2,3, -4. or 5 below.
? ?Ub8tanCe ""^ OERQLA is RCRA Section 3001.
(FR Doc. 81-17236 Filed 7-25-91; 8:45 am]
BOtmO CODE 6MO-SO-M
------- |