- 91-02.3
Monday '••-.','' v'f - :":i;
September 23, .1991
4Q.""CjFR: Parts 261 .
Hazardous Waste
.and- 266^ ^
Listing • of Hazardous
Waste; Used Oil;;;Suppi0mentar;Npti.cQ:'-.pf;
-------
48000
Federal Register / Vol. 56. '.. Nbr'iiBJ f Iviohday, September &a, 199J / &oi?os<|id '^
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTtON r *
AGENCV •• ~" Y, ••..'-, ''.,!.;;;,'!-
40 CFR Parts 261 and 286 '
lFRL-3974-4;EPA/OSW-FR-91-Q23] • .
Hazardous Waste Management .
System; General; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste; Used Oil
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulcmaking.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of additional data on the
composition of used oil and used oil
residuals. EPA will consider the new
data in making its final decision
whether or not to list some or all used
oils as hazardous waste, as proposed in
November, 1985. Also, based on a
portion of the new data, EPA is today
considering amending its regulations
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) by listing as
hazardous four wastes from the
reprocessing and re-refining of used oil.
Finally, today's notice provides
additional information on the proposed
used oil management standards for
recycled oil under section 3014 of RCRA.
Public comment is requested on the
proposed used oils and residuals to be
listed as hazardous, on a number of
specific aspects of the newly available
data, on specific aspects of the Agency's
approach for used oil management
standards, and on several aspects of the
hazardous, waste identification program
as related to used oil.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
November 7,1991.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket (OS-
305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20-160. Place the Docket Number F-
91-UOLP-FFFPF on your comments.
The EPA RCRA Docket is located in
room 2427,401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 260-9327. The docket •
numbers F-85-UO-FFFFF and F-91- '•
ULOP-FFFFF are available for the ••
public review. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any. ••
regulatory document•: i
copies of the supplemental proposal; '
contact EPA RCRA Docket, at 2Q2-26C& *
9327 or"Regulatory Development Branch'"••
at 202-260-8551. If no answer, please ,
leave your name and;address to receive
a copy of th'e supplemental proposal.
For information on specific aspects of
this rule, contact Ms. Rajni D. Joglekar,
U.S. EPA, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Telephone (202)
260-3516. ;-':.,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: , *
I. Background , "... V'..-'„'"''-.
A. Regulation of Hazardous Waste - >
B. Used Oil Recycling Act
C. Hazardous and Solid Waste " • ,
Amendments ••; '
D.,Decisiori Not to List Recycled Used Oil
E. Recent Agency Activities
E-Purpose of Today's Notice •"...'
11. Incentives for Promoting the Collection
arid Recycling of Po-It-Yourselfer:.;
Generated Used OH and Used Oil
Procurement Activity
A. DI Y-Genera ted Used Oil •
1. Acceptance of DIY Used Oil and Oil
Filters by Used Oil Generators and' -
Retailers .-,-,,
2. Acceptance of DIY Oil by Used Oil
Recyclers, Re-refiners, and Refiners
3. Target System for Lube Oil Producers
4. Used Oil Credit System
5. Deposit-Refund System for Used Oil
B. Used Oil Procurement Activity
III. Used Oil Identification and
Characterization
A. Used Oils to be Evaluated At The Point
Of Generation • : . ,
B.Data Collection ...••.. ...;.':'
C. Point of Generation Data •; :
1. Stratified Random Sampling Plan . '..
2. Analytical Approaches Used .
3. New Methods Under Consideration for
Used Oil
4. Commenter Submitted Analytical Data
5. Results
a. Compositional Analysis '
b. Toxicity Characteristic Analysis .•'..•
D. Used Oil Stratification Based on
Hazardousness and Listing Options
•v 1. Listing Options Overview •
2. Analysis of New Options
IV. Oily Wastewaters
V. Used Oil Mixtures To Be Evaluated
A. Mixtures of All Used Oils and :
Hazardous Waste
B. Mixtures of Listed Used Oil and Other,
Materials ; : ';
1. Applicability To Listed and •
Characteristic Used Oils . . :
2. Applicability of the Mixture Rule Jo ,.
Specific Solid Wastes ! , . ;v. -..-..-.
a. Industrial Wipers , , - ••,»
b. Sorptive Minerals , , ^
C. Oil Filters- . ...... -V .,• ;. ••:.;• ;-•. -:'•
D. Mixtures of Small Quantities of Listed ,
V Used Oil and Solid Waste '•'"• • •• ': •••'••'
^E. Mixtures of Non-listed, Haz&rtloiis Usefd' '
Oil arid Sdlid Waste '• ' ' r .-'-'..:';•-.;•.'!..
1. Shock Absorbers •>•'"•. *; ; '
Z*. Request for Cpmmen| pn Other,
VL"Derived-FrbmRule " '*'„ '.-."..' '_'. ,.,. >
A. Applicability to. Used .Oii,Fuei,Re,sjJ4uais
!• Residuals from Burning Off; , . ,
Specification and Specification Used Oil
•• ^'.yue . i:,j. ;| .... t!i'rt«*'U'i«''H.!"nH?",w i-.n -
2. Cb-firing1$p>Bcification-lMs..e4..Oil Fuel,
' ^ With Fpss^ Fuels or Virgiij Fuel Oils ,
B. Applicability to Used Oil Reintroduced
inj'etrpleum Refinery Processes,
VII. Re-processing and Re-refining Residuals
A. Residuals as Related to Used Oil .
B. Re-refining and Reprocessing Waste
.-..-. Streams • - ,-
G. Re-refining and Reprocessing Data
Availability . , ' ,
D. Listing of Residuals '
• 1. Constituents of Concern ":: .:.-.-
2. Fate !and Transport of Toxic Constituents
in the Environment '''>"' ' * , •'
3. Potentialfor Environmental Hazard
VIII. The Agency's General Approach'to '
Used Oil Management Standards ;
A. Potential'Hazards of Used Oil ' ' .;
B. The Basic Approach ,i "''
1. Some level of control may be necessary
for all used;oils,.whether they are, '
identified as hazardouis or not. '; ,
2. Used oil handlers'should be regulated "„
-, under one set of management standards
'to the extent possible, I .,;>'""" '."•
3. Used oil standards should be developed
and applied, in a manner that allows for .
full consideration of recycling impacts.
C. Phased Regulatory Approach ,
D. § 3014(a) Used Oil Management
Standards Based on a Presumption of
Recycling ' ' . , -
1. Use of § 3014[a) Standards to Control
Used Oi\ Management
2. Basis for .Presumption i ; •' , '
3. Rebuttal of Recycling Presumption , • :
E. Controls on the Disposal of Used Oil ...
1. Demonstration Before Disposal •. -'': •.•"
a. Testing for Hazardousness • ,,-'• •-
b. Control of-Nonhazardous Used Oil !
Disposal ••• • r ...•.-••
2. Disposal Guidelines ',"•'.'•
3. Banning All Used Oil Disposal on Land
F. Other General Changes From the 1985 .
Proposed Rule ' , • •;
1. Modification of Current Exemption for
Characteristic Used OH To Be Recycled
2. Application of the 1,000 ppm Halogen
Rebuttable Presumption to All Used Oils
3. Options for Regulation of Used Oil
Generators
4. Dust Suppression/Road Oiling
5. Proposed Exemption for Primary Oil
Refiners
6. 'Underground Storage Tanks
7. Applicability of SPCC Requirements
8. Accuihulahon Limit foj Used Oil Storage
IX. Other Specific Phase I Management
Standards
A. Applicability
1. Rebuttable Prasumptioi
2. MixturiBs' of Used Oil a nd AbsorUeat
Materials '
3. Reclamation of Used Oils ContamW
CFCs
4: Oil/Water Mixtures ' f ,
.S.Used.pilJFilter^ „ ,' ',_'
6. Used OilUsed as a Fuel in IncinercuQi>
'• and Municipal Solid Waste Conibustbrs
-------
Fe_detal Register /;VpU 56. No. 184 J: Monday.. September
B.; Generator Requirements
4.:Regul^tipn of- Used Oil Distillation
' "- •• •'••' *
a. Storage iri Containers'
b. Storage in Aboveground Tanks ; t '
1 c. Storage in Underground TanKs / '.:•;••'•• ,'.
2. Release Detection arid Cleanup Response
a. Detection'and Cleanup of Releases and:
, ..Leaks During Stpjage and Transfer :.,,. ,,
. b. Generator •Spili'Clean-up Reqajrenients
' ; and CERCLA Liability 7 '• :; ;• ;. ".. •':•' '
3^ Generator f dehtificatipn (ID) Numbers
4 Generator Tracking of Used Oil ; '.-; :.
'.'. -'Shipme'nts Off-Site :^-:l': . ''-•'-\\:!::r'"':
••'• 5. Generator Recprdkeeping aridv.R6p6tting' ,
i ••^Requirements '"'-.••'.•:':".'.'.-.; ' ;;••'>,• ••;*.'
;C,Transporter.Requirements. - • i:: •-'•,
;, 1.Transporter Storage Requirements'' "••-."'
a..Sfprage:inCpntataers•.'..;;........,,,..:•";.•.;.-,(. :'-.<
b. Storage in Abovegrbunp'aijd i . ,: '
Underground Tanks ,; v;:; ...
2. Transporter Discharge Cleanup. ., ..'..
3. Transporter Tracking of Used Oil' ' .
, 4l Transporter RecPi&keep'ing and
: iReporting Requirements! ?•';• !•;, '"j. • ' ' ••
bl Us.ed Oil Recycling Facilities .-..• ,! .,
J, Recycler Storage .•,;•;• • •, ,••'.•• ,.",••
.a.. Container .Storage ' . ; . ./ .: .;
b. Ab>6vegrpiind Tank Storage .
c. Underground Tank'Stpra^e •. '"
d-iStprage in Surface. Inippuhdmeh.ts ' ' '
2. Recycler Tracking of Used Oil'' ;;; '!i
i 3..Repycler'Rjelease,Respons.e.and Cleanup :
4. Recycler Closure andtf'in^tt.ciar,: _ ,
..... Jlesponsibility. ':!'. ;.-;',';;-,;':','..•:- '•-.
.-: |. Recycier Recordlceeping'.^d' !|6pprtiijg , '
'•;.*[! RequirJementsy1: -".: "•;,'-, '.'^ -yu'"','^ .•' '-'
'. aV Recpfdkefepirig s"A'.'. • v:'':;'': A' '• '•';v :*'':'':
:?i). IReporting " L":.?:: -^''
6, Analytical Requjre,men'ts.,
i> ^.'Recyclerpermits
, .. ; .; , , , - . .- .
' a. Option I: Distillation BottomsrListed as ; '
* Hazardous Waste - . ! .-•>••. • • ; • • • >
; b. Option II; Distillatibn Bottoms Regulated '
" as Recycled Used Oil ' > •;'.'-. ;,
;: S.iResiduals Derived From Burning Used Oil ;
V D. iSummary of Cost and Ecpnohiic Impacts,
/.; ,J. National Costs . - .... , ,. .'•_••
' 2. facility- anid Sector-Specific Costs J 1
XI. IRegulatpry Flexibility Analysis " :
.. XILPaperworkiReductipn Act ' !.-•-•'--.'•-
' A^iiehdix'A: '.'Status' pjf JPrbposed Pro Vision^ :''
I. Background .< • .-;,: ,. :/„-•.-!' .,/;. '•.''..
;,' A, Regulation of Hazardous Waste .
. On decernber J8.1978, EPA initially
proposed guidelines and regulations1 for ',-
the management of hazardous jwastes as
well as specific :rule$ for the ' .
identification and listing of hazardous
wastes under Section 3001 of the
•: Resource Cpnservation and Recovery
Act [RqRA):(43 PR 58946). At that time,
EPA proposed to list waste lubricating' ..
. oil and waste hydraulic and cutting oil l ,
,-- as hazardous pastes ph'tiie basis of :,"
, their, tpxicity; In addition, the Agency
pfopopeti recycling regulations to
.regulate [1) the incineratip'n or burning
:C-f useih^rlca|ing, hydraulic,' j ",'- -
oirmer, teapsmigsipijj pr cutting pil? :
, ..r .., ..,
'• .¥,. Burners : of Specif isa t Jdn &seA Oil' ' ' * ' ' '
. G. Burners of Off-Spiecifibatioh Used OOr; '* •
1. Burner Stprage i ' • ' ; i > . • • •
2, Burner Analysis Requirements ! •*
• 3.' Space Heaters •\-'>7.: -,> ••::;•',_• .f-., ,;';%,.
; 4. Burner Permitting arid Cprrectiye Ac^ipn. ...
• H. Facilities Using Distiljatipri Bottoms or ,:
•• , • Baghpuse Dust to Produce Asphalt
; i . Products , -.'-.'. "•'•}.! ;: > \ ! ". i, M ;' '(;-;
. LRpadOilers •;', ,.;. '.'' ;-.i; : •
'"•,- {."Disposal Facilities ; :i "V :.. ,' .,'; , , ; •;.- .. '•- '
' X. Economic Impact Screening Analysis .:•',.
! Pursuant, tp Executive Qrder-1,-2291 (
: A; Scope' and Approach -for Impact ' ''
•; ; • Screening- •.; '.- ''; - ."."•_ -. ;-- ^ ', • ••- -
%! B,:Seetion 3014 Management StaMar'ds :fot • •,
'•. 'i- Recycled Used OilV -'-;.••-;:.••.'- --^ ;• •• --.-i.:'..!-..-:--
iv: i.rBackgrpiind:Assun)ptipns^
. Ht.Vi;
" . 2. ExisIIng [Baseline). fegulatipns ^nd "* ""
.-.h frafetifces thatliiiilf Incremehtaf impacts:
of Phase rManagem^rit Standards- •'."'•'••
3. Summary pf Potentially Affeeted "
Activittes and Facilities tinder Phase 1 :
• Management Standards With No Small -j
Business Generator Exemption", " 5 "- ' ..
4, Summary of Potentially Affected .
Facilities Given a SmallBusiness h. .,.''' ;
; Generator Exemption • ' ••'. f - ,'; : . : • "
C. Listing and Related Wd Disposal : ' '
' '' f'~^ :~ "'' s'il- '•'•' "' --
f33d8"4}, EPAtfecid^d to defer . .,, - .
: prbhiulgiation'bf the recycling ; :' , ' *t ~
; regulations for waste oils in order to: -:
'•' consider fully whether waste- and use-
• specific standards may be implemented
• hi lieu of imposing the full set of subtitle'
• C regulations on potentially recoverable
and valuable materials. At the sanie ".
i time, EPA deferred the listing of waste
. oil for disposal so that the entire waste
, oil issue could be addressed at one time.
Under ,the May 19,1980 regulation,
, however, any waste oil exhibiting one of •
;. the.charjacteristics of hazardous waste
, (.ignitabyity, cprrosiyity, reactivity, and
• tpxicityj'that was dispps'ed; or , " , ;
accumulatedi stored, b.rtriBsted prior to "
.disposa.l, becameregulatedjas a':.""'.".''} ',]''"'
hazard.pus.^aste subje,ct tpali i ',- "•' . .
."'applicablii s'ubfifle* C reguiatipns.; . •.;*, ,• :t
- B. Used-Oil Recycling Act; '•-.-• :f. ;>
In an effort to- encourage the recycling'
of used oil and, in recognition of the
..
1. Bah on Road Oiling ' : ,. {.', '-' ' ; :
2., Ban on Land Disposal! \^ ; J ~, '.*'•'; *:'
3- Listing Processing and R'ej-refinfng ; ' ; :•,' '
. . ^Residuals/ ' ' ; '.'••:-; ; ;.j ]).; > V-t.f> ' ;.~
. * The term "waste oil", includes both' used/and;
unused oils that may no longer be used for their.
i original purpose! ; •.-• ' :; " '•• ••"-•' ' '> : : '•'
; ; * ''Usq in a manner constituting disposal-' means" •
the placement of hazardous Waste directly onto the
; land is a manner constituting disposal or the .use of .
; the solid wast? to produce produqfsthjit are applied
, topr placed .on the land br-are. otherwise contained ;
• (n.prodttcts that are applied to:of pla'ced on the land5
; (40 QFR 281.2(c)(l)). ;.i •;;-. V'L .-'. . -•? ' V
. potential hazards posed by its ,• , .4 . ,• * .
. mismanagement, .Cpngress^asaed the : :
Used Oil Recycling Act (UQRA) on T . ' ..
October 15,1980 (PubvL.9&-463).yORA .
• defined used oil as "any oil which has, •';;- '
been refmed froni cru^e oil/used, and as ..•
a result of such use, contaminated by .,-•.'
. physical or chemical impurities." Among."• .
: other prpyisipns.UORA reiq\iired:the t .-,•
Agency to malse a determinatipn as .to . ,
,4he.'hazardqvssness of UsediOil iarid report:. :
. the, findings to'Cpngress with.a detailed . ', i
; statement.pf -the data and other:. ^K;;'. •; i
information uppn Which .the : - '..i-:iv v;. ;•:>
! determinatiprt was based. In addition, , . •
the Agency was to establish;', • • i' - '
performance.standards and other ,
requirements under Section 7 of UOR.A ',.-'•
as "may be necessary to profect the''--,', •..
public health and the environment from - :•
hazards associated with recycled oil" as .
long as'suqh regulations "dp. hot /";.' .
discourage tfie recovery or;recycling of
.used oil." These provisions are now, '..'
included hi section 3Q14 pf RCRA. ; ,
In January 1981, EPA submitted to
• Congress the used oil report mandated
by section 8 of the UdRA.3 fothe repprt, -
EPA indicated its ihtehtipn to list both :,
used and unused waste Pil as hazardous •
under section 3tiDi qf RGRA based on . .
' the presence of sl.number of toxicants jn' ;
;etude orTefined;oil(e.g.;:ben?enef;u; ' s ! V
:maphthalenei and phenpls),;as well as v -.-:
'•: the presence, pf cphtaminants in .use^d pil -f . i
> as a result of use" (e.g./lead; chromiumi' ' ,'
and cadmium).. In addition,the report : ';.''
cited the environmental and'human :",'•.'
heaithithreats posed by these waste oils; .
including the potential threat of, ' , .; . •
rendering ground water unpotable • .. , } /
through edntamination.1 ' . ( • '.-..•• .
'•';..! :' , . i ' . , •
C< Hazardous and Solid-Waste : '
Amendments ,x". ; . ''•-••'•'• , ,
On iSToyember 8,1984, the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
were .signed into law,. In addition to. :
many other requirements, HSWA
mandated?that the protection of^humani / ^ r
health and the environment was to' .be of ,:-'
' primary toncerriln the regulation of;. •.; : ;.
hazardous waste.iSpecific to used oil, t -'
. the Adminlstratpr was"required tP ? ;:v ., ;•>•;.-
• ^prpmulgate:regulatlons:*.' *'•'.'*• as.-mayi'-.,; t '.
be hecessarytp protect human lhealth,-. •
and the environment ^from hazards ; . , .
assbciated with recycled oil. In: •..* . i . ;
developing'such regulations, the • .
Administrator shall conduct!an'ahalysis •
of the economic impact of the • • :
regulations on-the oil recycling industry. ;
The Administrator shall ensure ;that •: • : ,;
such regulations do riot-discpurage^ the
'3 Report to Congress: Listing of Waste Oil asi.a !
Hazardous Waste;Pursuant to section (8)(2), Ptib. li; -
9*463; U.S. EPA. 1981. ,- V, . ,,--.! ? , : .'•<.
-------
48002 Federal Register / Vol.; 56. -No. 184' f Monday, September;23.'J&91 / fotfptoSea 'Rules
recovery or recycling of used oil .'. ; -
consistent with the protection of human
health and the environment.* (Emphasis
added to highlight HSWA language
. amending RCRA section 3014(a) (see
section 242, Pub. L. 98-616).) This altered
EPA's mandate with respect to the
regulation of used oil by requiring that
protection of human health and
environment be a prime consideration,
even if such regulation may tend to
discourage the recovery or recycling of
used oil.
HSWA required EPA to propose
whether to Identify or list used
automobile and truck crankcase oi! by
Novembers, 1985, and to make a final
determination as to whether to identify
or list any orall used oils by November
8,1088. On November 29,1985 (50 FR
49258), EPA proposed to list all used oila
as hazardous waste, including
petroleum-derived and synthetic oils,
based on the presence of toxic
constituents at levels of concern from
adulteration during and after use. Also
on November 29,1985, the Agency '
proposed management standards for
recycled used oil (50 FR 49212) and
issued final regulations, incorporated at
40 CFR part 208, subpart E, prohibiting
the burning of off-specification used oil *
in non-industrial boilers and furnaces
(50 PR 43164). Marketers of used oil fuel
and industrial burners of off-
specification fuel are required to notify
EPA of their activities and to comply
with certain notice and recordkeeping
requirements. Used oils that meet the
fuel oil specification are exempt from ,
most of the 40 CFR part 265, subpart E
regulations.
On March 10,1988 (51 FR 8206), the
Agency published a supplemental notice
requesting comments on additional
aspects of the proposed listing of used
oil 0s hazardous. In particular, ;
commontcrs to the November 29,1985
proposal suggested that EPA consider a
regulatory option of only listing used oil
as a hazardous waste when disposed,
while promulgating special management
standards for used oil that is recycled.
The supplemental notice also contained
Q request for comments on additional
issues related to the "mixture rule" (40
CFR 2B1.3{a)(2)(iii)). on test methods for
determining halogen levels in used oils,
and on new data on the composition of
used oil and used oil processing
residuals.
« U«d Ofl thai exceeds any of the following
ipKiFlcatEon level* ti considered to be "off-
jpcclflcallon'* used oil under 40 CFR 260.-JO(e}: •
AiMfcte—5 ppm. Cadmium—2 pjJm, QirbmhinW-10
ppm. Leac!—J00 ppm. Flash Point—100 'Vminimum.
Tottl Halogen*—4.000 ppm. .
D. Decision -Not to List RecycledUsed
Oil. . • :--X'- -•,.. •. . .-,..>'.••"•;'•• ;; •
'OnNovember 19,1986, EPA issued a
decision not to list as a hazardous waste
used oil that is being5 recycled (51 FR.
41900). At that time, if was the Agency's
belief that the stigmatic effects
associated with a hazardous waste
listing might discourage recycling of
used oil, thereby resulting in increased
disposal of used oil in uncontrolled
manners. EPA stated that several *•''••
residues, waste waters, and sludges
associated with- the recycling of used oil
may be evaluated to determine if a
hazardous waste listing was necessary,
even if used oil was not listed. EPA also
outlined a plan that included making the
determination whether to list used oil
being disposed as hazardous waste and
promulgation of special management
standards for recycled oil. •'••'•
• -EPA's decision not to list used oil as a
hazardous waste based on the potential
stigmatic effects was challenged by the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, •
the Association of Petroleum Re-
refiners, and the Natural Resources "
Defense Council. The petitioners
claimed that (1) the language of RCRA :
indicated that in determining whether to
list used oil as a hazardous waste, EPA
may consider technical characteristics
of hazardous waste, but not the
. "stigma" that listing might involve, and
(2) that Congress intended EPA to-
consider the effects of listing on the
recycled oil industry only after the,
initial listing decision.
, On October 7,1988, the Court of. ,
Appeals for the District of Columbia
found that EPA acted contrary to law in
. its determination not to list used oil
under RCRA section 3001 based on the
stigmatic effects^ (See Hazardous Waste
. Treatment Council v. EPA, 861 F.2d 270
(D.C. Cir. 1988) [HWTC I|.) The court
ruled .that EPA must determine whether
to list any used oils based on the-
technical criteria for waste listings
specified in the statute. . • .
E. Recent Agency Activities ,\,'
After the 1988 court decision, EPA
.began to reevaluate its basis for making
a listing determination for used oil* EPA
reviewed the statute, the proposed rule,
and the many comments received on the
proposed rule. Those comments
indicated numerous concerns-with the
proposed listing.approach. One of the
most frequent concerns voiced by
commenters related to the quality and
"representativeness" of the data used by
EPA to characterize Used oils in 1985. :
Numerous commenters indicated that
"the.ir oils" were;not represented by the •
data and,-.if• they were.represented,
. those oils, were characterized/wheh r •
mixed with other more contaminated
oils or Other hazardous wastes. Many.
commenters submitted data .:•' ; • ;
demonstrating that their oils, . ,.;
.particularly industrial used oils; did'iipt'
contain high levels of toxicants of'
.concern.-.-..-!. ;•- •.', . '..- •'''- • '•'•'• •;',; --,"• ' ;;
• In addition; the'Agency recognized
that much of the informationin .the 1985
used.oil composition data is moreihan
. five years old, as most of the
information was collected prior to 1985.
Since the time of that data gathering
effort, used automotive oil.composition .
may have been affected by the phase-
down of lead in gasoline. The Agency
also recognized the need to collect ,.
analytical data addressing specific . : • .
classes of used oils as collected and .
stored at the point of generation (i.e., at
; the generators facility). ',-. ••'-..'v-v; .->
• Finally, the promulgation: of the '.
toxicity characteristic (TO [55 FR 1}798, t
March 29,19&Q) is known to identify -
certain used oils as hazardous. Due to' ?
thep6s8ibilityofcha^gesinusedoiI ',".
composition described above and,the ',,.:
new'TC, the Agency recognized that ' '•' .
additional data on used oil . ' /," • /',
.characterization may.be needed priortd
makingtalisting determ&iation,The .., .;
Agency believes it'is important to )
consider the effects of the TC before , .
, taking final action on .the listing ; ..'•'• ;,
dejterminatioh.and used oil standards in, '
accordance with fts maudate fii section ;
.3Q14(b) of RCRA to "list or tdentify'V ,
used oil as a hazardous!;wasfe ... . , ].
RPurpose of Today's Notice '-.'••';••
', EPA's overall approach to used o,il . •-
consists of three major components. -.,.'."-.
First, EPA identifies approaches" fqh ;'.-'-•
making.a determmation,whether to list, .
or identify used crankcase oil and other »
used oils as hazardous, i/vastes, as. >'.'-.. '.
requiredlby section 3014(b)» [Seie , •
discussion in' section Uliof this notice.) '<:,
Second, EPA proposes ft nuirnber of ,:,:'".:
alternatives relating to. inanagenient
standards to ensure proper management
of used oils'-that .are recycled. EPA .
discusses ah ;approach Under which the '
management standards would be is.sued
in two phases. (See discussion in
sections VHI.C and IX of this: notice;)' *
Phase I Will consist of basic '."'- ..: r
requirements for used'oil generators,
transporters, "road oilersr, and recyclers
including burners and disposal facilities .
to protect human health and the ; ' '!
environment from the potential hazards ;.
caused by mismanagement of usftd oiL '
Once the/Phase I standfrcls;,are in place,;;
.EPA may decide t^ evaluate this','1;-;:-:..;;:
effectiyenesi* of these standards in - v
reducing the'itnpact oh.human:health;.;. '•'•.;•
-------
federal Register f •
Njo; q84 1/; Monday.* Septeriibef 23,; 1991 / ProposecURdles j •'.-. •-, 48003 '
:•;,;. and; the .environment. Upon such - , ,-::.,|-
'•') '• ; : fevaluatiorioEPA^will-cohsjder^yhether '*' ••'
-'•' "' J ••'"or not more stringent regulations are-/ ;..
; :: ; necessary to protect hu|han health'and •
"'_ the eriv.ironrnent,_and propose,'these -'''•
' '-'..'• '', inegulations/as Phase ^standards.: The
"' '' third part of EPA's;general approach to
: , Used oil is the cpnsiderationiof •' :':
.'' '•'• npnregulatpry incentives and other .
• : . nontraditional approaches, to encourage
, ' . • recycling and mitigate ;any negative .
I ,; impacts the. irianagementstaridards inay
•;,,. ,;, haye''pii the recycling of used "oil, as •[
'"' ,,"'; /' provided by section 30l4(aj. ($ee v
.-•.. ' ,. ! discUssipn insection It pf this notice.)
I':. .information gathered by EPA arid -. -'•',[-.
provided to EPA by indiyidualsi. / .
;.' c'ommenting;pn previous notices pri the. '-
listingpf used, oil and used bjll. 1 ' , •
• ; ; management standards'. As discussed(
; above/riumerpuscpmmenters.on thft ..
1985 proposal tolist used oil as
• hazardous contended that the broad ,
listing pf all used oils unfairly subjects
, them to stringent subtitle C regulations
:, because their oils are iip.t hazardpus, ,,
• Base.d on thdse^omments,i the Agency
; : has collected a variety of additional
information, regarding yaripus types of
. used oil, theirnianagement, an4 their,
.:, '^potential health and envir.pnmenjtal,
, -effects When mismanaged. Today's. ,
'notice presents that new information to
:; , the public arid requests comment on that
.' iriformatiori, particularly jf and how this-
information -suggests hew concerns, that;
•i. EPA iriay consider in deciding "whether
; to finalize all or part Of its 1985 proposal
1 ;to list us.ed oil as a hazardous waste./
]' . ; In addition, today's notice expands '
I-: upon the November 29,1985 (50 FR i
/ 49258} proposal to list used oils as ; , '
' hazardous and the March 10,1986 (51; FR
i 8206) supplemental notice by discussing
' regulajtory alternatives not previously
." • I presented in the Federal Register. Based
; on the public comments received •;
; relative to the two notices, the Agency
has investigated.several important
aspects of ;used oil regulation, including
, application of the mixture rule (40 CFR
26i,3(a)(2)(iii)} to used oilsi For.these,
' aspects, the Agency has identified
alternative approaches-that were not
presented ^explicitly in'the earlier ": »
notice's. Those alternatives are : . .
presented in today's notice. (See ;
. discussion in sections IV and V of this
notice.) '-. , , ,"
. -..-•. Today's notice also discusses the - ....
Agency's intention to amend 40 CFR .
261.32 :by adding four waste streams
from the.reprocessing and re-refining'of;
used oil to the list of hazardous wastes
from specific source?. (See discussion in
section, VII of this notice.) The Agency
noted its intention to include these
: residuals in^fe definitipn of used oil in
1 'J fts NoVe|nber 29,198J5 proposal to list1' ';.;
used oil aS'hazarddus. The Wastes from
' the reprocessing and' re-refining of used
.oil,'whichr are mdre fully described later,
include process residuals from the "
gravitational or mechanical separation
of solids,;water, and oil; spent polishing
; media Used to finish used oil; distillatiori:
• bottoms; and treatment residues from
primary'wastewater treatment. / ' ;: -;•;••
Today's notice also includes a
:, .description of some,pfthe;management
standards (in addition to or iri plaice of V
those prpppsed in;1985) that EPA is
..considering promulgating'with the final •'
used oil listing determination. EPA,/','-" /- ,
. under yaripusRCRA authorities, is "'•-'!'-/'
considering management standards for
used oils, ,w.hethe| Or not the oil is •'•:- •
classified as, hazardous waste (See
discussion in sections .VIJI and IX ofthis
notice.) , ;/ '•-.-..
When promulgated, the standards .
may: (a) Prohibit road oiling, (b) restrict
' used oil storage in surface
impoundments, (c) limit disposal of
nonhazardous used oil, (d) require
inspection, reporting, and cleanup of
visible releases of used oil around used
oiLstdrage -containers and aboveground.-,
-.tanks and during, used oil pickup, ':, , .•
.delivery, and transfer, (ejimpose spill
cleanup requiremehts arid allow fdf
.limited GERGLA liability exemptions, (f)
institute a tracking mechanism to ensure; -.
i that all used oils reach legitimate •
recyclers, and (g) require reporting of •
used oil recycling activities. The Used oil'
, burner standards included iri 40 CFR
part 266 subpart E will continue to
; regulate the burning of used oil for
energy fecovery. All of the requirements
(including those in part 266, subpart E)
may be placed in a new Part [e.g., 40 , : .
CFR part 279). Used oils that are
hazardous (either listed or
characteristic) that cannot be recycled
are not included in these provisions, but .
are instead subject to 40 CFR parts 261-r
270. - / .....-.'-. ..;. .• f. •-' ' - ' " ,,-...: / --: ; -
• With today^s,notice, EPA is providing
.informaition and requesting-comment on
management standard options that ;
exparid'upon or differ from those "
proposed in 1985, What is^provided with
today's notice is not an exhaustive list .
or discussion.o'f possible used oil
management standards, but a discussion
of some additional standards that are
,-under consideration by EPA. In some .>
cases, EPA is providing information in
this notice to clarify issues in response
to public comment on the Agency's 1985 ;
prdpdsed rule, so that cpmmenters may
have the opportunity to consider •
additional issues the clarificatipri may? ' •
raise. In other cases^the Agency is : •• , r
prpvidingJnfprnisjtion and;splicitihg %.; ;
; cdm5n6rit.b'ri;a.dd[itipnal inariagielriiBrit; J '
standards or management standards"
that vary frorii thpse prpppsed in1985, ;-
(See appendix A that cites-the r '' '. '
appropriate Federal Register pages from
the 1985 proppsaL Also;see spepifjc ! '•
sections in this'nptice for used oil
managementstari'dards.) , •;.:'' ~-
Given the exterjsiye body^of public •:
.coirimeni: prt;used;oil issues m general, '
.. thei^gency.'will r|gu!Mfpublic^ commeftt
orilyipn;specifjti epnsideratipns for,.')'.'^.'
/which;new.-ailternitiveshaVebeen-•>.'. \
identified, Cpmme'nts are n'dt solicited ;
'regardmg dtheretement^pfjthelj985 ;i;
proppfeal and subsequent ripticesV ".• .- ! ;'
However,, these earlier-announced ;<
. alternatives and comments received ,. •
. about them remain part of this ' !;
ruleioiaking arid of EPA's full ' ';'_..
consideration of Used Pil issues. EPA
will respond to,cpmmentsrprevidusly ! -
received upon finalizatiori of the rule.
II. Incentives for Promoting the '
Collection and Recycling of Do-It- ,
' Yourself Generated Used Oil and Used '
Oil Procurement Activity
. In 1988,1.3 million gallons pf used oil,.
Vyai:generated,;Fifty-seven percent fafVf;.
the 1.3 naillipn gallons generated entered'
the u^ed oil mariigemerit system arid .£'-.'.-.
was recycled. 0f the remaining used oil,
the do-it-ypurselfer (DIY) generator,; ' - -;
population (i.e.,'gerierSted by
.homeowners} disposed of approximately ,-
183 million gallons of mostly automotive
crankcase oil, while noniridustfial arid
industrial generators dumped/disposed
of 219 million gallons. EPA believes that
the majority of the remaining 43 percent
of used oil that was generated could^and
should be recycled in an effort to 'meet
the 'nation's petroleum needs and -
conserve natural resources. .-'..,-
A. Dry-Generated Used Oil
RCRA does not provide authority'to
regulate thfe disppsal pthousehold waste
{e.g., piy-generated mbtor oil and "Pil
filters), nordoes itgive EPA-the j -
authority to mandate cpllectiori ; ;
programs for DIY-generated used oil.
fOver the.past five years, EPA has ' v '
develpped public-education programs ,--
and informational brochures to' '•"-.' -.
encourage, piY generators of automotive
crankcase oil--to recycle their used Pil.
The Agency realizes,.however, that :. -
educational outreach alone may riot be -
adequate, given the absence of a
mechanism to facilitate the collection of
used oil from these generators. Ve'ry :.
little DIY pil is currently being recycled
(<10 percent df DIY-generated used
motor oil). Commeriters have indicated
that local collection-programs can be - :
-------
48001 Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 184, / Mopday^aeptember -2$ '1991 •/ ?Prbfecteed; Rates-\
successful over the long term only if
petroleum prices remain high or if used
oil handlers are .required to accept used
oil fronj Diy generators in exchange for ,
some benefit.
Some states encourage collection and
recycling of DIY used oil by providing
some regulatory relief to used oil
generators accepting DIY used oil. For
instance, in Now Jersey, automotive
service stations are exempt from
manifesting requirements if they accept
DIY used oil. Several other states that
regulate used oil offer similar relief to
used oil handlers that collect or recycle
DIY oil. EPA is interested in learning
more about the effectiveness of these
state requirements in increasing the
recycling of used oil and minimizing DIY
oil dumping. EPA, therefore, requests
information on program feasibility and
effectiveness, particularly from used oil
handlers located in states with similar
programs.
RCRA does riot give EPA the authority
to mandate the recycling of used oil.
However, the Agency does have
authority to require such management of
used oil under Section 6 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Section
6(a) provides that if the manufacture,
processing, distribution, use, or disposal
of a chemical substance or mixture
presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment, the
Administrator shall, by rule, apply
requirements to that substance, to the
extent necessary to protect against such
risk. Commenters have suggested that
section 6 be used to promote used oil
recycling. This could be achieved by
requiring lubricating oil manufacturers
to use a certain percent (to be
determined) of DIY used oil in their
production processes.
The Agency has evaluated and
documented the environmental harm
caused by mismanagement of used oil.
This is discussed in detail In section .
VHI.A of today's notice, and in
"Environmental Damage From Used Oil
Mismanagement," which is included in
the docket for today's notice. EPA
believes it may be beneficial to use the
authority in TSCA section 8 and other
TSCA provisions to mandate the
recycling of used oils that feasibly can
be recycled. Recycling used oil and not
disposing of it Is a more environmentally
preferable management alternative. EPA
requests comment on whether TSCA
section 6 is an appropriate statutory
mechanism to control used oil
mismanagement via its recycling.
There are five approaches currently
under consideration. EPA requests
comment on these approaches and other
alternatives that warrant the Agency's .
consideration. These approaches, if
implemented, might establish a-system :
of both regulatory and incentive-based,
mechanisms to address: (1) The
production of lube oils, (2) their .-.--•,.
collection after initial use and (3) their
recycling or proper disposal in 9 manner
consistent with the goals of RCRA'
section 3014, To obtain, and respond to
public comment before taking any of;
these steps, and to ensure that they may
achieve their intended purposes in the
least burdensome and most efficient
manner, EPA is soliciting comments ort,-
and requesting that those comments be
organized to separately address the five
approaches under consideration. While
EPA solicits comments on these possible
approaches, EPA wishes to emphasize
that it is riot today proposing to adopt
any incentive system when it finalizes
the Phase I management standards
discussed in sections VIII and IX below.
Rather, the following discussion is akin'
to an ANPRM on these issues. A •••-•-
description of each follows.
1. Acceptance of DIY Used Oil by Used
Oil Generators and Retailers
Similar to some state programs,'EPA
may require used oil generators 'and
lube oil retailers to follow certain steps,
including posting signs stating their
acceptance of DIY-generated used oil,
checking DIY-generated used oil for
evidence of mixing, and maintaining
collection containers in compliance with
storage standards. EPA might use TSCA
section 6 authorities to promulgate such
rules. .•••'.
As explained in a later section of this
notice, certain-used oil generators (i.e.,
service station dealers, any government
agency that establishes a facility solely
for the purpose of accepting used oil,
and refuse collection services required
to collect and deliver used oil to an oil
recycling facility), as defined in-section
101(37) of CERCLA, may become eligible
for an exemption from CERCLA liability.
under CERCLA section 114(c). These
generators maybe required ftj, at a
minimum, support their claim of DIY-
generated used oil acceptance by
maintaining records of the quantities of
DIY-generated used oil collected and
comply with the section 3014 used oil
management standards.
2. Acceptance of DIY Oil by Used Oil
Recyclers, Re-refiners, and Refiners
This program could be similar to the
one for used oil generators except that
used oil recyclers and re-refiners,
including lubricating oil manufacturers,
may be collecting DIY-generated used
oil (or contracting collection) either at
, curbside or in specific locations. EPA
may require commercial-used oil ,
recyclers/re-refiners to initiate • •"
conunuriityrmuraicfpjaIityVbr civic • • : -<•;
organizatiqft'based DIY collection -
1 programs. The requirements that the
• -Agency may explore for used oil:;
; recyclers/re-refmers are the same as
: those being considered for'lube oil : "*'.
r retailers, with minor, differences. Like , :
i -lube-oiLretailers, recycleifs might be ; "'
required to accept DIY-generated used
• oil and check incoming oil for evidence
of mixing. Additional provisions may :
include keeping records of annual;
quantities of DrY>generated used :oil
accepted, and reporting, the ;disposjtiqh
of DIY-generated used oil. Lube bit ;'.
manufacturers may be required to use, a
certain percent of lube oil feedstock ,
coming from. DIY-generated used oil.
, The DIY-gerierated used oil collected -,
through such programs must be ; '.;
managed in accordance, with all
applicable used oil management
standards by the collectors and ..,;,;
processors, however.
3. Target System for Lubei Oil Producers
EPA is considering the establishment
of a "target" system for all lube oil •' •'-'
producers under TSCA section 6, under
which, each producer may have to
recycle, or arrange for recycling of, • •••
specific quantities of used oil. EPA may :
require that lube oil producers and , "; •
} importers follow certain fiteps, such as - '
registering with EPA, reporting annually
on whether projected recycling targets ;
were met, and providing documentation ;
to support compliance with EPA-;1' " "
designated targets. Urideif the RCRA ;
authority, EPA would require used oil.
purchase, sales, and recycling 'data
collection and reporting while under the
TSCA authority, EPA "would .ban sales of
lube oil by certain non-registered '
producers aiitd importers as discussed
below-'. ••'' ".'..'.. -\.':-.\ '..'••' •"!'.. •;.'• ' -:
Under such a program, EPA might ban -
or otherwise restrict lube oil sales by ;
non-registered producers and importers. '•
The Agency is also considering setting
recycling targets (e.g., a mandatory
recycling ratio or other numerical target)
for each lube oil producer and importer
based on their share of the lube oil
market. The targets might be established '.
for used oil in general, or they might be -
specifically directed at DIY-generated :,
used oil. EPA solicits comments on this
approach.
4. Used Oil Credit System
EPA also is considering using TSCA
section 6 authorities to set a mandatory
"recycling ratio" (I.e., a target) 'for used :
oil-and to require lube oil producers to ;
bear the responsibility for assuring that
used oil is recycled in accordance with
-------
Federal/Register / Vol. 56.No,184 / Monday. September ^3. 1991 / Proposedi Rules ';'" j 48005
the established ratio.5 The mandatory
recycling ratio may be set as a
percentage of the annual production;
quantity of lube oils. In the initial year
of the program EPA'could set the
recycling ratio at the current recycling
rate for used lube oils [e.g., 3095}. The
Agency could then increase the *
mandatory recycling ratio annually [e.g.t
by 2% per annum) to encourage
increased levels of used oil recycling.
Lube oil manufacturers may be
' responsible for accepting DIY-generated
used oil, implementing the mandatory
recycling ratio arid demonstrating
compliance .with the mandatory
recycling ratio. The credit system differs
from the "target" system, in that this
demonstration could be. made in one of
several waySi Manufacturers could
recycle used oil themselves by collecting
'and putting used oil back through the
refinery process, could purchase re-
refined oil from a,re-refiner or processor,
or could purchase "used oil recycling
''credits" from re-refiners or used oil
processors. Used oil re-refiners and •.
processors may generate credits for
every unit of used oil recycled.
Recycling credits generated by re-
refiners and processors could be sold to
primary lube .oil manufacturers at a
price set by market forces! v, ;u
, EPArequestSiComments'on the
mechanisms described above for
promoting the collection and recycling
of DIY-generated ^and other used pils.
EPA solicits comments in particular on;
several issues. First, should a system of
differential credits for used oil re-
refining be implemented, under which
used oil recycled through re-refining "^
generates, e.g., 1.5 times as many credits
per gallon as reprocessing for fuel? '•.
Second, what role, if any, should EPA
play as a potential seller of last resort if
credits are in short supply? Third,
should EPA allow the banking of such
credits and if so, what limitation(s) may
be placed on the use of banked credits?
Fourth, what "balance period" should be
selected for manufacturer's to
demonstrated compliance with,the -.'.;
recycling ratio, and how may such ,
balance periods relate to the calendar
year? Fifth, how .should the recycling of
U.S. oil in foreign recycling facilities
(e;g., Canada) be .handled for purposes
of generating credits? ''
5. Deposit-Refund System for Used Oil
EPA also believes a deposit-refund
system to encourage collection of
additional -quantities of DIY-generated .
"The credit system described here is essentially
the same system provided for under the proposed
"Oil Recycling Incentives Act" '(H.R. S72, &. 399,
102nd Congress Jst.ses.3ibn). , .
used oil can be developed. Under this
approach retailers of lube oil may be
required .to collect a deposit on certain
quantities of lube 6iL If lube oil retailers
are required to accept used oil, these
facilities could then refund deposit
amounts to customers on returning their
used oil. EPA is concerned over the
large quantity of used oil improperly ,
disposed by DIY oil changers and is ,
seriously considering requiring such
deposits and,refunds to increase
collection from this segment. EPA '••
believes that while a mandatory
recycling percentage—-such as those,
described above will increase ;the ^
overall collection of all types of used
oil-r-such a system does not directly : :
address the DIY segment. EPA'is _
concerned that if sufficient funding
under the "deposit/refund system" is
not available to the retailer, the cost of
making refunds will have an impact op
the retailers' net profit. EPA requests
comment on the likely impacts on the
business of such a system and how the
impact could be minimized. : '•
The amount of lube oil'on which :
deposits may be paid may undoubtedly
be greater than used oil returned by
customers for refund, because some .oil
is inevitably not captured from the filter,
etc. This result may either produce some
excess revenue to retailers, cr'tnay .-
allow a somewhat greater amount to be
:paid ih;refund than the deposit amount.
EPA. solicits comment on sevebal , :
specific issues pertaining to a deposit- "'
refund system for usedoil Implemented
at retail. First, what may be sufficient'"
monetary amounts of such deposits and
refunds to induce various levels' of ;
change in DIY behavior without
inducing possible perverse effects—-such
as diluting the oil to increase its volume?
Second, what level of deposits and .
refunds might'be required,to induce
additional DIY recycling over time? -;
Third, what would the'administrative ,
and othei\:burdens of such a system?,
Fourth, would it be appropriate to '
implement both a mandatoryrecycling
ratio and.a deposit-refund system? Fifth,
since the system.w'ould probably
produce excess revenue to retailers if'-
the deposit amount were equal to the
refund amount should EPA consider •
either differential deposits.and refunds-
or allow retailers to retain excess
revenue to defray program costs? Sixth',
to reduce the impacts of changes in ; .
virgin oil prices on recycling; should the
deposit/refund amounts be "pegged", (in
an administratively set schedule) to a ,
benchmark virgin oil price? - ;
B. Used Oil Prpcurement Activity
Besides efforts to encourage the-
collection of DIY-ge.nerated used oil,'
EPA has instituted'other measures, to; ":
enconf^ge used pilrecych'rig; For
example, M,1988 EPA published a. ftpa!
procurement guideline for Federal -
Procurement of lubricating oils.
confining re-refined oil. The 1988' ' "'
. guideline designates lubricating oils as
. products for which the procurement
requirements of RCRA section 60Q2
apply. The guideline also provides
guidance to Federal government . ;
procuring agencies'for complying with
the requirements of RCRA section 6002
proeurement provisions. All procuring •
agencies and all'prpciu-ement actions
involving lubricating oils where the •
agency buys $10,000 or more of the lube
oil products atone time,; or during the
course of the past fiscal year, are '•
required to comply with the sectjion 6002
guidelines. The purpose of RCRA , ,
section 6002, and pPA's subsequent -.:
procurement guidelines, i's to stimulate
demand for products made from -•':
recycled materials and to assist in
stabilizing'the market for these : :;
products. In addition, EPArcurrently is
worldng with, the General Services -
Administration and the Department: of
Defense to certify vendors .of recycled -
lube products for civilian and military
purchases. EPA also is'investigating
'vehicle warranty issues for'Vehicles ,;
using re-refined lube products; tiii some''
cases car dealerships :are refusing tb
:honpr manufacturers' vehicle warranties
if re-refineid lube oils are' used in the;
vehicles. EPA currently is: ihvestigatihg
the root of 'this issue and may w0rk with
vehicle manufacturers tp? establish .7
„ company positions that "could be passed
on to iftdividual dealerships; : •'.."
•;III;Used.OilIdentiOcatioHaiBd:i,' '•/"-; ,
.Characterization^ ..."---:--' '•"•;•• ••-••''-.-. ':.'-;'-'.:-'
In 1985 and 1988, icommeriters; ; ! "
express.ed substantial concern regarding
the impact .of listing all used 6ils las' -..-•'
hazardous .wastest Many commenters :
pointed out that certain:used oils were ,
not hazardous at.the point of generation
(i.e., at;the point feat the'usedM was.}
removed from a crahkcasevor drained ;
from'rmachinery). Cbmmenters also took
exception to the data used; to ,:',
characterize used oil, saying that the
information did hot properly represent •
the spectrum-of iised oils .generated. In
addition, many .commenters indicated.
uncertainty regarding the impact of the 7 ,
mixture rule oh wastes; contausing ds
minimis quantities of used, oils; :•',..'•
Commenters also expressed concern :
regarding, the appropriateness :bf subtitle
C regulation for derived-from fesiduala',
such as wastewater treatment sludgesl
Today's notice ideritifies'the'issues'/
presentedby cbmmentersi presents -• "••'•••
-------
•48006
Federal'Register/ \ol. 56. No: 184 / Hylri
alternatives devised by either the ','
Agency or the commenters,' drid requests
public commiint on the" efficacy of the "
presented alternatives, :.
A. Used Oils To Be Evaluatedfat the,
Point of Genera I ion . -. .
, In response to the 1985 proposal to list
used oil as a hazardous waste, ,
numerous commenters contended that
not all used oils arc typically and
frequently hazardous at the point of
generation. These commenters argued
that used oil drained directly from a
crankcase or machinery reservoir may
not contain the constituents of concern
at levels exceeding regulatory concern
and, in fact, that used oils were
adulterated after the point of generation
through mixing with other wastes.
The Agency initiated an investigation
of used oils at the point of generation.
Also, the Agency sought to determine
whether significant differences existed
in the composition of and hazards
associated with various used oil
streams. Thus, in contrast to the
November 1985 proposed rule, which
may have identified and listed all used ,
oils as hazardous, the Agency .
investigation sought to determine
whether or not a basis for listing existed
for separate types of used oils. The EPA
study addressed whether each type of
used oil met the criteria for listing at the
point of generation, whether the existing
toxlcity characteristic may capture
those types of used oil that are clearly
hazardous, and whether good
housekeeping (management] practices
could prevent post-use adulteration of
used oils. Thus, the Agency sought to '
determine which types of used oil met,
at the point of generation, the criteria for
listing as contained in 40 CFR 261.11.
B. Data Collection
EPA began a sampling and analysis
study in 1989 that addressed the
composition of used oils at the point of
generation. During the study, EPA was
able to obtain samples of used oils as
drained from the crankcase or oil
reservoir of automobiles, other vehicles,
and machinery and from on-site storage
tanks. This approach allowed a
comparison of the composition of the
used oils at the point of generation to
the composition of used oils in storage
tanka and identification of the extent of
any post-use adulteration that occurred.
While storage tanks are not the only
place where post-use adulteration could
occur, EPA selected this sampling
strategy because they are the first place
adulteration could conceivably occur. -•
The newly generated data from the-1989:
study are discussed in detail later in .
today's notice. At this time, the Agency
requests cohiment;piitiiis;newljr •" ;
collected'data and ori the concept of -""
basing the listing determination solely
on used oils' at their point of generation
rather than after collection and likely^:
adulteration, the latter being the "•-• •';
approach considered in ttie November
1985 proposal. " '' , ''. , '.''" ' ' "
",' The Agency notes that,.as discussed'
more fully below, the;management
standards for used oil may well include
requirements designed to control and
discourage adulteration of used oil; If
effective,'such management standards*
could reduce the adulteration of as
generated used oil, thus allowing the
Agency to determine whether to list or.'
_ identify as hazardous used oil from '"
various segments oh the basis of the
concentrations of the constituents q£
concern as" generated. Although £fVf •
believes that adulteration of as
generated used oil is a reasonable ;
mismanagement scenario,an,d[is
concerned that regulations may riot'fully
stop this practice, the Agency is
considering a number of .proposals (eg.,
rebuttable presumption and 1,000 ppm
halogen cutoff for non-intentional',
mixing of hazardous solvents or wastes)
that may, in effect,, require those who
adulterate as generated used oil to
manage the waste as hazardous. The
Agency is particularly interested in
comments that address whether or not
evaluation and listing of used oils at the
point of generation is protective 6f :
human health and the environment,
whether it is consistent with the criteria
for listing contained in section 3001 of
RCRA and 40 CFR § 261.11, and wlie'ther
EPA may continue to consider post-use
adulteration of used oil as a basis'fqr
listing used oil as hazardous. ' ,
In conducting the sampling and
analysis study, EPA'considered several
factors. When the toxicity characteristic
(TC) was promulgated on March 29,1990
(55 FR11798), it added 11 constituents to
the original list of 14 EP Toxic
constituents that may cause a waste to
be characteristically hazardous. The
Agency believed that it might be
necessary to address the additional
organic constituents and the new TC
Leaching Procedure in its study. Second,
EPA recognized that for a significant
number of used oil samples collected
and analyzed prior to the 1985 proposal,
analytical data were not available
regarding the possible presence of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) in used oils. PAHs, may present
a significant danigertp;human'health if,'; (
present infegh eh6ugh''(jiiantit'i'es..Of '/,'.'''•
particular*Concern Jye'r'ePAHs'siic1]i as'"!
behzo{a)pyrene,:b'em!;o(b]fluoranthe'rie,
and benzofkjflubr'anthehe, all 'of which •
are* currently included asr apperidr' *"
constituents.
. In order.to adclf ess'used oils 3,3', '
generated, the Agency definec! a number
of unique iyjjes or classes of used oil, -
On the basis of the information gathered
prior to 1985 and on the public •',
comments received in response to the ••_
November 29,1985 proposed listing, the
Agency identified a number of .. .."•'•:'.
independent segments within the used
oil universe. In addition; to the most well
known used oil generators [Le.,
automotive and diesel engines], the
Agency -identified several smaller used
' oil segments, including diesel powered-
heavy equipment and railroad engine .'
crankcase oils, marine oil, hydraulic oil
and fluids, metalworking oil, electrical
insulating oil, natural g«fs-fired engine
oil, and aircraft engine oil. Selection of;
these segments is discussed in "Used.' :
Oil Characterization Sampling and i ' •
Analysis Prog'ramj"-which is included in
the docket'for today's rale 6. ',<.;., ,
Each'.of:thbse segments was evaluated
primarily'for the presence'of selected ;'!>,
TC constituents (arsenic; chromium, "
cadmium, lead, barium, benzene, .V.::
trichloroethylene, and tetrachloro- ,
ethylene) and secondarily for the- , i r
presence of PAHs. The segments also:,
were evaluated to determine the ••'•
compositional concentration of the
specified constituents and to determinti
to what extertt samples exhibit the
toxicity Characteristic. This a|pproach';
was undertaken so that a decision1' "'•IJJ
Whether .to'list any or all portions of the
used oil universe might adequately
reflect Unhazardous nature of each
segment. '.''•] / • ' ; ';';
C. Point ofGeneration Data '•' ••: ••:
1. Stratified Random Sajiipling Plan
A sampling and analysis study of •' • •
known generators representing the •
various used oil categories was
undertaken by EPA in 1989 to (1)
provide updated information on the
composition of automotive and '
industrial used oils at the point of "'";
generation and (2) determine'the status ,',
of thes'e used bilS'With ffespect to the ';:'
toxicity"chafacteristic (TC]. The sectors
chosen for study based oh the'abb'ye ' '•
discussion are shown in Table'. III.C.l." •'
8 Briefly, the sample type artBjsizeiwas1 !":<; :""
. ..
analytical study,; da ta:feoeive
-------
Federal Register /; Vol'.
.Se^tembef 2$ • 3L99P'^RrpgoifedftRtilp^ • •&?^'48007 f
^ STABLE IH.C.1;—USED Old!
' ' Autbmoth/is titt and Fluids,: including: :." ;
?.; .. TT^V^rnP^V^* (unleaded • rgasolinb '•' erjgihe)
' (Drankcase C3H. ...i.-.«::.'.;-.:i.-i.A..i.V,i;..j.l.-.ii...-.i.;
,. , .-^Automotive Qils/Fluids In SUsed OihStor-
. •;•.. .,age 1"anks.,.v......v^..i..v'V...---.-r.—?«.-..!--•.—»
Diesel Engine Crankcase Oil, including: ', , :
, , . ;-r~rruck/$us Engine'Crankcsse 0il......;..;......,
i i .—truck/Bus CHIs/Fiuids :iii Osed'G«l !3tof-
.'..:-'. «u<» T<».'!,B ;!>.•;>'./';•'*V;"'-1-'V.';'**1-"-: '.-
;.•' V-U-DiaseJ Powered Heavy,Equipment;<5rank-
:,!'• ..* .-., case Oil;;.,.,....;..;;.^:;^;:;.^:^.^^:;:::^:"
-, :Marihe CHI. ;;' -. '••,..;- i;;••;-»./•"->•::.:!;S''.5 :-;%:«;•;''•'•.,, t;>
-Y 'Hydraulic Cffls/Fluids. '; :^lv;-;..«-,'•->-:---;'/=
^'MetalworkingOil. ;• . ; ,., ,,; 'vii-v^-rti--:"~.
•• i Electrical Insulating Oilj r , '. .- • \ .•:'.; V V
;, .Natural Gas-Fired Engine-Oil., -/,.. ;, ,;,: L,;*. ; ,6
i Aircraft Engine Oil. •; ' , -• ,b»V,-
:,Aircraft Oil/Flui.ds in Stpfage Tahk4. ; J'[' j';
: , Based bit the information gafhejejd .«^.
prior-to 1985 and pn tpe publics '' ', ,
•;...' comments ^received in response to. the '-;
: ; ,1985 proposed listing^the Apency^. .
i ; • i identified & number of Jndeper|dent" '
; segments within the used oil universe. ;
; . , ,Thie! segments included autpnjqUye and ',-
,:. • -:. ] djesel engine oils a,s well as. caj:4gpries ']
,;.,':,; pf industrial used oil,,as .shbwn in Tabie
"»rr'r4 * - '- ''*'>•"-''." '• "• •',*'•! ~'i'." ' f' '* •'• ''': -"^ ' *.'''?[':
•••: Qnce the
•geographic yariability will not strongly
' impact the bVerall findings pf the study. ,
• ![ Gener;alprs include3:jh.eadh ' ,
subpbpulatiph [strata) .were identified
: s through telephone .directories,. Standard
• Industrial Code (SIC) classifications, an
• -automated :data base, and trade
, < organizations. Simple random sampling .
'of each;usedioil generator siibpopulatibn
•- was conducted in brderlpDeduce bias in.
: the Selectipn pf genera ttirsr Crreater - * Li -
Idetail regstfdihg the sampling frames: • -
iuS'ed is 'presented itt"Used Oil '•• •'••• "•!•• ••
• •Gharacterizatibn:Sampling and Analysis
, f-prpgrani,'1:iri the docke'tr ;-\ •"•''.'• ;;-'-;'•;
;*"'This seletet&d sites were Visited and ';
'samples were collected. The number pf
'sahiples collected in each of the targeted
sectors ranged from four to twenty. For
• •'sbme'Sectors twhere the adulteration
'ban pbtentially occur) it -was possible to
-collect used oil samples from both the
point of generation and the on-site
storage tank, thereby allowing an
-evaluation of theextent to which used
; oil in ;on-site storage units may undergo-
•adulteration. '.<._''•• -.';•' ; •:. ; •-'-.:•
- '. The thrust of the latest sampling effort
"was to substantiate and further
-elucidate tiie prevjously,collected used'
^'pif cha^cterization data,.hcj,itto cleVelpp :
,- 4.set of^ riew*4a;ta;on. which- to base.tjie -_••• \
' '
•~ us^d oil generators{/.fif, units} '• '^:},•;::
.- representing each category-were ; :;!' '••' •''
developed. The generators w;ere, ,'_'-,
; identified in localized geographic.. '<
' regions (1 j to reduce .time and trayel^ i
costs .associated witkthe field-sampling
:sor that: resources could be allocated;". ;
toward laboratory analyses and (2} to
belter define the location and ?,>, ;
population of generators to. be-sampled.
The1 sampling strategy was npf intended
to characterize variation in used pil pn
• this basis of geographic origin because :
'no' information suggests that used oil •',- •,.
.: collected from generators in localized
'•'. regions vary,' Generally, engines are • ;
, designed to run within specific : j ;y.
; tempetatureiranges, Withyariations;! := i:
; .dependant upon climatic temperature;' :'
cpnditipns. We;would expect that,: f> '•. ••:
^acrpss the United States, similarly? • ;
• designed engines will run at similar;, . ,
.. temperatureg and will -break down and/
ot. cphtaminate the engine oil in similar
ways. In the early stages of the used.pil
sampling and analysis program; EPA
! collecteel.a limited number, of used/oil .
' samples in Houston,'Texas. These s
' samples .were collected to allow : ,
laboratory personnel to become familiar
With the'physical and chemical
. prbpeftieslpf i)sjsd pil.'Th.e samples •'•". .•'-'
, JDpllected='in.Houstpn, while limited, ttena:
to corroborate the assumpWbrl that':
data from ^pprPxirnatelyliiObo sampler
••: thpfWerejeprjes'e.ntatiyebi:the ;.v•/•-:;',::\,
' gehera'tibri arid storage practices. For • '*'•;
. many usfed oil industrial segments, new,
'. s'anjples -were collected in 1988 as spot
' cheek samples to verify the 1985
'characterization data. For the other used
,' oil segments {e.g., automotive crankcase
oils), used oil samples were collected in
larger numbers to,(a) assess the changes
in used oil characteristics resulting from
the phase-down of lead in gasoline and
; (b) differentiate as generated versus
-, storage tank samples of'used oil. The -;
, data presented inibday-s"notice will be •
; evaluated along with the data provided
•; by;the:«ommenter,s;during the comment ,,
: period for this-notice. EPA alsp will r? i" !
"%yaluat.e the .data used in 198SpropPsatM
.•-•> tp list use.djpilandithe commenter..- ?-'i .;• v
submitted data,receiyed iii.r.esppnse:tb .,
*; the 1985,prpppsaL•- '*,••-,'•'• '.• •:'•;: ... )•"". ; ' '..•• • ••'.•'
i : :EPAbelieves thatwaste, , '••'. .,, .
, characterization data provides one of ,
.;; the decision-making tools when making
>'• a listing determination; under 40 CFR
i § 26l:ll(a){3). EPA also considers (he';
.'•<• follpwing decision-making factors:-
•; waste'quantities, tpxicity, and: hazard
: potential pf the constituents; mobility
and transport potential of the waste in
, thee^vn'onment^kripy^njhealth and
. environmental damage cases', plausible
>. types' of improper irianage'ment of waste.
and actions, taken by the other ;
goverrimental agencies'pr:regu}atory, ,
programs (e.g.;, state regulationsipriother ;
Federal regulations). -.'• -•'• V..•'1r>J;^ :-''••-' .-•'"'•.
2, Analytical Approaches Us^d ,. *.. ( [. .
In coordination with the 51939 EPAf! ['' —
used oil: sampling and arialysis_ 'Sffort, a '
Quality;As's,uran"ce: Project Plan' (QAPjP)
was'prepared and implernerifeil'iri',' .-
..accordance,with"the:EPA.fbrjriait'and;:;; ;, ,;
''•- guidanc^sp^cifiedirt'g^ i'-:
Methp^si for'feval.ui[tmg SoJidjVyaste !'.'."',"
. f -, -: ...
implemente'dio yerify the ^quality pjf th,e :
data obtained. . I . . : .. . .. » ••. , ;: •., , ;
The analytical program was1 designfed: ';
to characterize usfed oils wfth' respect to
the cPmpositiQnal'concehtration of .the
constituents pf concern and with respect ;
to tHe Toxidity Ch'arabteristic (TCj, In
! order- tp do this, the i Tpxicity ; ;
Characteristic Leaching Procedure "' '.':'•':
:{TdLP) wasjapplied to ,usbd oil samples;
and after Mfaf ioii, "the^ liquid phra£e '' ••" ..; '
(filtrate) of the samples were analyzed ;
for seiecte'd constituents. of 'cpiicern .
: asing,anajty%ai methods
. reference mate,riaislor the
many';
'
:.Wer^;-;':;r ;-";';;;J!
sujj'sequ'entljr emp'lQyedi;Fbr'exanipl'e, in' - fr
; conducting brgahpmetallic analysis,''' V):; '
EPA emplpyed Gonostan.sa, petroleum-.
derivedstandard referehqeimaterJaU
Information :bn standard refejeEice , ; ' '
materials useld is further elucidated in
the backgrpuhd dbcumeht on thp \; ' J ,;...
.sampling and analysis effprt.:; J " ,--> '.• -••.-; |
IncbnductingtheTCliP, fherinitial'': '_.;•',
step Is filtratioh'of the sample.: The;; , *"•
TCLP calls fpr;th€i usfed oil sample to' b'e, i
filtered usjng a'0.6-0.:8 jim glass'f|ber*^ • ;
filter, ypbnicpmpletibn bf'filtratibn; two /
fraction? of the, used oil'sample-exist.' '
The first is•Jheifil^rate^ which haSipassed- ,,);
• ihrpughithe:filter. The-secondfis the. u •;• •,-,':,•;, ;i
'isolids,,whifch haye.nbt-passed-through -\,, v,,-
the filte* but,-are, in turn, u;sedi;tp fbrm- '.:.-\.;i
leafchate: fpilbwingiacid.exti'actipni'E&A.;"}'' i
filtrate to determine the :c.ohce,ntratipn of;
constituents that cquld be released from : ••
theusedoiL; ;."•' '•,:,.,.: ,:•••. ,.; '••'.: H^L'S L:".s'i4't ;
Next EPA assumed that minimal ' . r ' \, [
eonc&ntratipns of hazardous'':'-' f ' ; • ;
constituents would leach frpm the solid
phase {/.e,, the.material remamihg on the. •„•;
filter) if;the'full TCLp w"ab "jperfbrmed.^
• .:'•;;••'; :.-' -"'i V'r;' •'": I <•'•""'v ^rvl; t J.
7 The full TOEPinethod calls for'rotary agltatloft
followed^by'presslire: filtration and analysis of the "
leachate of the:solid portion of:a .waste, sample if:it ,, • -
containsigreater 'than 0.5% solids. • •• • •
-------
48008 Federal Register / .Vol..'. 5ft No. 184' / ,M6ndayt September 23.:1S91 /:. foQpQsedyRules '••
Thfs assumption, which was verified by
Further laboratory .analyses, enabled •_' :
EPA to estimate the TCLP final analyte
concentration based on the
concentration of TC compounds found,
in the filtrate. Compositional data from
the initial filtrate phase also provided '
EPA with data to estimate the
composition of the unfiltered used oil
sample. It should be noted that these
estimates are lower bounds for the
TCLP final analyte and compositional
concentrations for each used oil sample.
The Agency confirmed that these lower
bounds are a fair estimate of the full
TCLP concentrations for the used oil ,r
sample. Additional detail regarding
these leaching analyses can be found in
the docket. '
Total compositional concentrations
were estimated by assuming that the
contaminant concentrations in the ..
filtrate were identical to those in the
unfilterable portion. Thus, the total
concentration would be equal to the
filtrate concentration. This assumption
is justified based on laboratory
evidence; used oils tend to clog the filter
after a portion has passed through. Only
in rare cases were solid particles found
to clog the filter, rather, the filter clogged
from the oil itself and little difference ..
between the unfilterable portion and the
filtrate could be discerned. This leads
the Agency to contend that the filtrate is
representative of the used oil as a
whole.
After filtration, analyses were
conducted on the filtrate portion of the
sample. All of the samples were
analyzed for metallic contaminants.
Approximately twenty-five percent of
the samples were analyzed for organic
constituents. The Agency believed that
most used oils that contained TC
constituents would exhibit the
characteristic for D008 [Lead], as well as
other characteristics. Since lead was
believed to be the dominant TC
constituent, more metals analyses were
conducted than organic analyses.
Table III.C.2 provides a summary of l
the analytical methods used to
characterize the samples. Full detail on
these methods and their application to
used oils can be found in "Used Oil
Characterization Sampling and Analysis
Program," in the docket.
TABLE;||l.C.2^7ANAL.VTICAt- METHODS FOR
•',- , ' y TESTING M "
Parameter
•Tiltralion'
Inorganics
• Volatile Organics
Semi-Volatile
Organics
PCBs
Analytical Method:
• SW-846 Method, 1311,
; To'xidty ". Characteristic
Leaching - ' Procedure
(TCLP). : ,. . ..';,..
Sample Preparation:
• SW-846 Method ' 3040,
Dissolution.'' Process for
Oils, Greases, or Waxes
(kerosene .dissolution).
• .SW-846 Method ,3051,.
Microwave i ,'. Digestion
(HNOs only).J
Analysis: "••.•"''••
• SW-846 Method 6010,
"inductively ,;:. .Coupled
Plasma;Atomic Emission'
• Spectroscopy.'br' '
• SW-846 Method 7000
series. Atomic. Absorpr:
(ion/graphite furnace.
« SW-846 Method 8840
"GC/MS for-Volatile Or-
.gantes (purge and trap).
• SW-846 ... . modified
Method 3816,. Head-
space (with - isotope dilu-
" ton).'."-".' -.•'•- • '••"'•"
Sample Preparation:
» SW-846 Method 3680,
Waste Dilute . ' ',;.;
Analysis: -
• SW-846 Method 8310,
Polynuclear Aromatic Hy-
'drocarbonsCHPI-C).
• SW-846 Method 8270,
: GC/MS for Semi-Volatile
Organics: , Capillary.
, Column, ... Technique
(modified for 'selective
• ibn'monitoring). •'•'-'
• SW-846 Melhod 8080,
.Organochlorine;; ^Pesti-
cides arjd PCBs. ... -_
3.New, Methods Under Consideration
For Used Oil • ..;•..!.'-' 'i^J-l\', .
In conducting the analysis of the used
oil sample's that were collected, the
Agency found that several of the--
available analytical protocols •
enumerated in S'W-S&J'required '
adaptation and one required , . .••'•
modification in order to, efficiently
analyze for the target analytes found in
the used oil matrix. The Agency is not •,
requesting comment on the modified
methods at this time, but is presenting
this discussion for information purposes
only. The modified method was used to
detect volatile organic analytes in oily
.waste. As stated below^ the method
modification was undertaken to detect
very low levels of organics in used oil.
This modification allowed detection of
small quantities of volatile organics arid
increased (rather than decreased) the
potential for a used oil sample to exhibit'
'the TC for volatile .organic constituents'. •
A draft copy, of the method is available •
•in the docket fdr today's notice and the"
"Agency intehds'to propose a1 revised •
SW-8W MethodJftlO in the .
No modifiedlnethpds! Were necessary -• •
for me, tal analyte detecUpn,!;,/;, ;!^;,
Analytipal difficuities;, were , ..;--,: .
particularly •troublesome yijith respect ip-
• organic anajytesl. These,;, diificjilties,.-.
, arose because the!analj'ticajt detec.tion • "•
limits'required by this ijlves'tigation, .
were somewhat lower than (those that .
., could.be achieved by ejcisting ,, -.,.-,
methodology in these matrices.-', . .,„•••
For volatile organic,,contaminaints, the,-..;
•Agency JFound that the traditional purge . .
and trap GC/MS method (Method 8240) :
did not provide detection limits that •-.->
• were suffiejently low. As1 an. alternative,
-the Agency.has.modified an existing .-; :
headspace. screening method (Method : •
3810) to include isotope ^dilution; This.
. allows convenient injection;.of,, .. ... :.j-,•'.
headspacesamples.Thj.s.mQdified. /; ..
. method, which is.included in.today's ' •..,
. docket, includes the addition of several-
• standard.isotppes that,correspond to •;:"!,
.' each, of .the •target analytes. Based on the'
1 results of the analyses irt the-evaluationi
Of used'oils, the Agency is considering,; •;-,
addition of this methpd tpSW-ftje. ;A1;; !
: this time,, the Agency .is- conducting ..,-.: j ;
studies of automated headspace'.-..- - •;.-.., :•
methodology, in.orderto expand-its .- i.
; applicability beyond the target 'analyte.s..,
• addressedunrjer the used oil.-•• -'.
. investigation.Improvejij'eproduCibility :•.•-.-
for the method can be obtained by using .
. an autoniajted headspace, analyzer in,; ;.„•,
place of,the manual syriinge. . ;.•;.-:,••.
. For semi-volatile.organics-analyses*
, .the Agency had similar-difficulties. The
existing^ SWr846 methods were
.adequate for.analyzing thost samples, ,•: ,
'.but the used 6ii..matrix.i'equii'ed ri: .: . ',
• dilution's thatiyielded unacceptable •.;• 7
detection limits. To improve tfte. - •','• '
detection levels, the Agency utilized a •;,
.specific.ipninoriitoririg (SIM) option 6m ' '
the GG/MS.'Jnste!ad of ucanning the . ' ,i
sample for a full spedtrum of seniir : • ;•••••.
* volatile;compounds, the;Agency, foun.d ,
. that detection limits an wder'of ' .
magnitude lower could fee achieved, •
using SIM- This adaptation is entirely
within the scope of Method 8270 and "
allowed the Agency to lower the -•• ' •
detection limit for specific semi-volatile
organic constituents^ P/kHs. f^Ja.e Agency
is considering the! applicability of SIM to
other analytical programs at:this timeX
However, since nibst semi-volatiley-- ;i
analyses are targeted for a wide range T '
• of compounds) application of SIM niay'-•
• be limited to those'situations where few
• target analytes are bemjg'invesliga'ted.•••••
.'I • , -' i -•. - -•;,/' -'>' , .'"'E.^IJ^1' .'..»•; .1,,.™;^.,;.*^ .»,. .. ^
4. Commenter SubmittetiJVnaly,tical"
: _Data .:_n ..'. ".; ". ; ;:-".' ' 'fc.&i.', .s.£\ ,-'„>-v"?^
-' •Many'cdmmenters:ort:thie 1985•-•(/*' '•/-:.\•'-"
; proposal1 ito Jist'used oiliS'as na2ar*doua-r. '•'.:'
-------
viol'.- S&, -N6.'
•• waste.s'tateci.that certain used oils ';". ;.
•'• should not:be classified;as hazardous.' '
! After EP& published its. decision not to
,' .Ust useo! oil as hazardous waste '(51FR ,:
" .41900, ftoyeiriber. Ity i98g),_several ^ '''.- :
,:cpmmehters:submit^ed_idata'.regardiing ;
;. the composition of and constituent "• ' -
: cqhcentratipns in- Used oils generated at
their facility'or facilities. The Agency
.' has ievieWed this newly submitted data,
' v^hich is located in the;dock;etfpr --. ;-
•/today's notice; aap: will consider the ;
: data urinaking'a de.cisibn'tq list'' '• »' •
:: Gommen|s are welcome-on the newly ; '
'*•' submitted data,-as discussed'below.:' "..
' ; ? Reynolds Metal Company; submitted1':
', 'analyticaldata regarding the-constituent
• levels in usedbils from three aluminum
' rolling plants as well as oil sludge' r =":;.
' 'residue;resulting from..oil treatment; ! '
Additional data oh aluminum milljpil
was submitted by Alumax. Reynolds --.
analyzed:two types iof oil before and
after use: A light weight synthetic oil •
and a water-based oil emulsion. The:
data submitted suggest that; , ,
metalworking oils generated in thg :
aluminum rolling process dp ijpt ..-'. ;
typically'exhibitthe.TG for metal
• contaminants*'•.' /- -,',' s > '-. •, -,-? -*i- • ••'; -r
•- , Reynolds conducted additional > ••• '-t -j '
; v analyses of the same-three ?types of. ''*• ••
'. virgin and used oil samples foriorganic
cqnstijtuents,. The data for volatile:;. •''">. -. 'f
brga'nics indicate th^t virgin and used - - •
; metalwiirlung oils employed by : ,
. Reynolds in'the production process do , ;
not exhibit the TC :characteristic. For, ' /"
semi-volatile organics, .the: data for ' •
samples of watei:rbased PiLemuislon _
;, indicate; that this type of oil'does not '
'exhibit the, TC for semi-yblatiles. ',.; -;
rlipwever,'d^ita for samples of j •; .
Hghtweig'ht synthetic Pil.and petroleum . ;
solvent Were submitted with suchJhigh- -;
'd'etectibn limits that the Agency is . ;. i: - ">,
• precluded;fromrenderingahppihion.- '•'• ).V
iiot,exhibit the'tQx-icity.qharacteristic ;; fi i,
.'andfare;nqt hazardous at the point of ; ••
generatibh. EPA request's comments' ein•-',; '••'•'..
the used oil id'ata'stibmitted-by Reynoldsi '••
and'Alumax'that bah bes found In the' . :
RCRA ibbeket for today's jibticei '.= ' J
v •;In;a.ddition, Reynolds subinitted data;;, •
regardijig the characterization of an oil
'sljidge. It is nqt clear frpjnlhe _' | .^ , -
^information [Whether ;^he sludge is, a; ; :.
;;distnfetior| |pttoni frpm a vacuufti /. £ '.,'.; I-
; samples of'rplling oil from one !mill< \"I ? *
operation.;The samples were;of cold mill"
Oil and hot mill oil'. Analytical data *•'' •
indicate thjat toxicity characteristic' - •;; ;
'constituents are not preseiit at levels'of
-regulatory concern in the tvyo samples^
-and'detection limits were well below the
"regulatory level. Further, Alumax :" •
provided analytical data'oh, yblatile and
_senii-volatile constituents;in each-of the
twp samples, vyhich indicate that the *
_cpns.tituerits are not present at levels of
regulatory concern. : , ;;..
The Agency believes that data
submitted by Reynolds Metal Company
and Alumax for metalwprking oils used; •
;i in aluminum mills may' support tiie' \ : •
^conclusion that theseoilS generally do' • '<
. r; . , prwlhether -_,- n_r-,-or.,_. ,
fr'qni theiiYasteyvater treatmenjt pr.pGess.-V-
jFurrier, Reynplds^dJid;qQt;submitaiiy, £ .-
.TCIJP^ahalysis data,oh,oily.;sludges, The/
Agencyj encourages-Reynolds: and-other
cpmtoentets; tb:submitprocess;;' 3 • '7:
iriformation,'qharacterizatiprii and ' : ',„:
additi'onal data' concerning isiich sludges'.
5. ReSultSi . - •' ^ . - --'-'', ; . :; :•-":..;. ; ; ,; •; .-
a. Compositional anafySteSAs" '• '-' '• '•'"
previously discussed, EPA determihed
the constituent cbncentratibns,fbund: in
" the liquid phase ,of the sample aft?r ' .',
.filtration. The summary of the saippling'
and analysis study results is presented
'- ^-tv-'" "'"' - '-!'-•''-'. snows the data: ',' '
samp|edsand analyzed, f
'
i -, ;, . >*-•- > --. ; •
, . .Constituent j
Arsehlc.«.. . '
Barium..
, Cadmium,..™; ";..:
Chromium ;
..tead ....:..„...„....:. '.
Benzene ....'.i;«.........
Trichloroethyierie ....
Pfirchloroethylehei:
Trlchl.proethane...,j..
rTetrachloroeth- ;
./ anes .i.l........;...
Benzo(b)fluor-
,, •• ariihene™.™'™™
,Benzo(k)flubr-
anthene.....^.....;....
Berizo(a)pyrene
pCBs.... „....•....„.
Automotive; crahkcase bit-?
Unleaded gasoline engines
! Niim
' rsarr
'Ana-
lyzed '
12
12
12
, : 12
, . 12
v . 7
- " ' 7
' •". •• 7
-. •. - 7
4
. - 2
ber'of ;•'
iples . v
. Con-
taminant
detect- :
. ed ; •
'0
5
.' : .' -7
= : , 10
-,: , ,,12'
6
' 0
-* -q
, • P
i'- ":. "j
• . ,- z
4
0
Concen-
tration
range
(ppm) ."
1.0-r43
0.5-3.4
0.8-23
5.5-150
0.53-13.2
': '•. ;<26
'• * r25
;' " ^s
' r 13-91
-10r22
-25-86
ND
^Automotive bils/fliiids— -°
, Storage:tank samples '
Number of '
samples.' ,
, Ana-
lyzed .
- ' j-
;e
,8
. . ;8
8
6
, - '• .6
' ' ' 6'
"'. : '6
' • 3
i- 3
;3
.Con- •
taminant
detect-
; ed
0
, - '- 3
• .: 5
'. ... ' 3
' ' -'- 0
5
6
• • ' 4
'- ,' ; s
,:: " • 3
; : 3
b
Concen-
;tration
'range1
(ppm)
<2.4
11.6-32.6
.f;0-5.0
2.67-5.0
. 29-:345
0.28-420
• ":
'• •• • .•
'Ana- '
,lyzed'
10
10
10
10
10
', '- ;'2
i '•: -2
; •: -2
•''. ' ' ' 4
-, ' 4
" ,-4
1
- Con-
taminant
detect-
ed' •
1
- ' ; -2
- .- < -2
. • 10
... :'.;°,
- •; Q
. ••; -• ,,o
',. ': \ .. 6-
, - • . 1
..--.- -.0
Concen-
tration
• range
. (ppm) •
"•': •' 2
H. 5-6.4
; 0.7-3
2.9-19.0
ND
' ' ND
L :: « ND
. r ND
' •; , NP
1.1
2.0
• ND
I :, . piesat triJck/bu§ /': • :
. storage tariks " .'_
• Number of j
•samples ;
"Ana--
lyzed
1.0
10
--10
. 10
10
- 2
'' ' 'Z
• "' ' Z
: :. ,,, -2
: -, Z
' '• '. ""4
3
• :' -4
.Con-
taminant
detect-
• ed
'• ' - 1
- -2
' ; .. - .6
2
, 9
'• -' •' '"?
'•.: -P
- :, :';' 2
" •• r
; •-•-. 1
< • 0
Goncen-
.tration ,
'range
-(ppm) ,
• 0.39
9.7-76.4
0.27-1-.9
2.45-7.0
. ;8,0-133
: " '• -K 74
' ; 2.4-46
: 1.2
, 3.0
ND
'Diesel heavy equipmehtr- ' '- .
;. .Crankcase oil- '.-;
' Number of ' "
; -i samptesr. ,
Ana-:
lyzed:
10
,- '10
• - '10
.10
, ., .10
.-•• •"••
' 2
, - z
• 2
taminant
detect-
red;
• . : 0
.-• '.- vi
• -6
•,- s
. - . 8
, '•„ : *• ••
;..!.;......:•...'.
i-.'.. I; .
;:.;: ;-'
-• ;-.' ,0-
. ; o
• . o
Concen- . .
fration' '.
" range .' •" '
(PPm) ;,
- • 1.5 - . !
0.8r4.5-
1-.5-8
. 1-33.0
'•. . NA
•' . •• ;NA._ , • v '
••' '"NA' '•;'..';!-
(1) Analyt^ eoncentfations ih TCLP, filtrate. ND= Constituent not detected. Detection" Ijmits varied with matrixVaffeCfe. NA=No» analyzed. Revised: 2-12-91.
-------
480X0
Federal ^Register / Vpl 56.. No. 184 //Monday, September 23; 1991 /j prop0aedi.;RuIe3
TABLE D1.C.3B;—USED OIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY .
, s- '. . . . -.. ".;' "• - "f jr ,- . •- -fc«,.;,» i- .-.•'."",,i, .„ -.if,.', i.,- ip n j-,j v,,, f^i *'* ^, . ,-, « ^ ', '„-,,. „'•'«: j,,,^;
COfts!Huon»
AfWf*;,,,, „„,„•„ ,, „
"W^HTI, ,-11,,,, ,,,,,,,,, r, M
Ca drmum „_._,-„-_...
C^yTvr^tpnff m.-j L..JU.
tem). „.„,
R^fiy^fVy,, n.imii-Ti-! , . n
Tiiehtorotthytena ™-»
Pwch)oiA
NA
' NA
NA
: NA
NA
•Samofos did not ffitor with TCLP filtration device. Data are total constituent concentrations in unfiltered portion. (i).Ania!yte concentrations in TCLP filtrate.
ND • Coostitoont not, dctoctod. Detection limits varied with matrix affects. NA=Not analyzed. Revised: 2-12-91.
TABLE III.C.3C.—USED OIL SAMPLSNG AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY : . ,
Consiltuont
Arsonto ^-m*™-™,^™,,*
08f kHTl luu^i^m.ut.^—ji.
Cadmium.-.— ~~~~.»
Ctxomium
Lead »_M«™«..™,_«...
Domofio,.,.,,,.^™™.,..
Tikhkxoelhylono — „.
P«cNo(ocitiy!ona_...,
Titchkxoclhano ..™_..
Telnchfofoatrutncn ...
BoracKbltluofanllwrKi
Ooruo{)()lluoranlhorKi
Bofuo(i>!pyrona „
""*»,,-,.-..-,-,--,-,-,„-
Hydrnulk: c4l/t!ukis
Number of
samples
Ano-
ryzed
12
12
12
12
12
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
Con-
taminant
dotoct-
od
1
6
6
.. 3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Concen-
tration
range
(ppm)
3.26
1.4-460
1.4-10.1
1.0-1.6
1.0-r7.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<5
<5
<5
ND
Metatworking oil/fluids
Number of
• samples
Ana-
lyzed
14
14
14
14
,.14
5
- 5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
Con-
taminant
detect-
ed
3
. ,. 7
5
3
10
0
0
0
0
, 0
1
0
. 0
0
Concen-
tration
range
(ppm)
2.0-21.5
0.3-8.1
1.3-4:8
1.0-5.4
1.0-6033
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
6
<5
" , <5
ND
Electrical insulating oils
Number of
samples .
Ana-
lyzed
11
11
11
». J1
. -11
; , 4
4
4
, 4
,4
3
3
3
2
Con-"
taminant
detect-
ed
0
0
0
0
, -. • 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Concen-
tration
•. range
(ppm)
<1
,,. . 5
.:;.' : -5
'"". 0
••'i' , - 0
; 0
•;. Q.
• o
0
0
•;. 0
"." '•. ^
Coricen-
Irat'on : "-.•.•• •• '
range
•PP™) ,. . ,' .
-•- ' ' 3.7 ' -• '" •'
"'<:M':-;' ' .- • ' -
: 2.0-13.0 '-.'. :
2.5^32:0 - . . - - •-
'..., 1800- ,. .;- ,./•,
'10500 ,
• • • ' <25'
•'. <25 ,. '
:'". <25 ., ."
- . <25. ' ••-- . '., .
"- .-<25.'...-, • .-.-..'
- '<5 . ' ' ' '
• <5= • :- •'..
...... -<:5 . ... '_. ,- .
... . NA •'-'-
(1) Anstyt« concenUattons In TCLP filtrate. ND=Constrtuent not detected. Detection limits varied with matrix affects. NA=Not analyzed. Revised: 2-12-r91.;
TABLE III.C.3D.—USED OIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY . '
Constituent- .
Arfftinfc '
Bflriom '
Cfldffltuni .......4 _/, . .,'
Cnfomlum».«M- n . ' ..
Lwd»-,,,M«-,,™ «-„ m „ , -,„ „ - - • • ,
Bwzons ...MH............ , , „,.,„ ....,......,..,....,„.,...,,.-...„.
Trlch(ofotith>tona..™.>. „ _.....»„..„....* „.:.._ ................:..............'......
Pflfchfofoothytono ..-.-.....- * ... . ... "...'. .. ..v .....;:.! '.... ...».•:..:....:.
Trlch(ciu>e^M»M*.».«»«*»'»t....-.^. .»»«.»,..»«.» ».„..,..,«.'.„.......» .&. -.. .»... ;..*.
1 ^lg|U'rl^lfVf>q^>H'rtftf ,- , inn--,. , .• ..H..,uu«..H..,.M.».^M»m...m»..».. „..„...»...... v....«.......
Aircraft oil/fluids—used oil
storge tanks
Number of '..
samples :
Ana-
lyzed
7
- 7
7
7
7
2
2
' '2
• 2
-. ,-2
Con- ,
taminant
detect-
- ed
1
2
6
4
6
1
6
0
.' , 2
0
Concenr
tration
range ]
(ppm)
1.49
3.0-80
1-11.3
1.5-10
: 11-2400
0.2
' <25
<25
290-2500.
.:..... ,<25
Virgin oil :
Number of '
samples
• Ana-
lyzed
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
'- .- t
, • ' -1.
Con-
taminant
detect-
Ted.
*', *" '•• •"• •
O-O:"Q p o -* o ro o o
' Concert
{ration
range
(PpmJ,
J" <9,9
<4.9
0.7
,<4.9
,.1,0
<5
'•"V<5
•'••' -
-------
|^5^rNgj^4/ Monday. September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules .48011
TABLE ill.C.SD.—USED OIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY—Continued
- Constituent, . ..":.- - • • , ~: j -
• •••• - ; '•,-'•. ' • • • - .••. - •-• , ' ';: '•"• " -._.-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - •
Benzo(k)fluoran 'lene . V . -
Benzo(a)pyrene -
PCBs . .-;•:. """ v"
(1) Analyte concentrations in TCLP filtrate. ND= Constituent not detected. Detection limits vs
Aircraft oil/fluids—used oil
storge tanks
Number of
" samples
Ana-
lyzed
1
1
1
ried with
Con-
taminant
detect-
ed ,
o o'o
matrix affE
Concen-
tration •
• range
(ppm)
<1
cts. NA=Nc
-.- Virgin oil
Number of
, samples^
~. Ana-^
lyzed
•''"'' 5
-5
5
)t analyze
Con-
taminant
detect-
,ed
0
0
0
d; Revised
Concenv
tration
range
(ppm)
<5
•. <5
<5
: '2-12-91.
The analytical'results are for the
analysis of the TCLP filtrate.only and
provide the number of samples
analyzed, the number of samples in
which a specific contaminant was
detected, and the range of
concentrations "of the specific.
contaminant that was detected. QA/QC
data generated in conjunction with the
analytical program are available in
today's docket. The concentration range
(in parts per million) provides an
indication of the extent to which a
particular category of samples contains
a given-contaminant and to what extent
the samples in that category may exceed
regulatory levels of concern for .
compositional concentrations. The
Agency evaluates a number of factors in
making a listing determination, all of
which are detailed in 40 CFR 261.11.
Among the criteria for listing a waste as
hazardous, 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) states
that the Administrator may h'st a waste
as "toxic" hazardous waste if it contains
any of the hazardous constituents in
appendix VIII, after consideration of
such additional factors as the toxicity
and concentration of constituents in the
waste, the mobility and persistence of
the constituents in the waste, the -L
degradability of the waste, the
bib-accumulation potential, the plausible
types of improper management of the
waste, the quantity of waste generated,
and the. nature and severity of the
human health and environmental risks
posed by the waste. EPA is continuing to
"rely upon the data presented in the 1985
proposal regarding the mobility,
persistence, and bioaccumulation
potential of used oil since the Agency
has not received information refuting its
findings on these additional factors. The
Agency also has developed additional
data .regarding environmental damage
caused by past improper management.of
used oil (see "Environmental Damage .
From Used Oil" in today's docket and
section VIII.A of-today's notice).
However, the newly available sampling
and analysis data has caused the
Agency to revise its analysis of the
nature and toxicity of the waste and the
human health and environmental risks
posed. ,
When considering appendix VIII
constituents, the nature of the toxicity of
the constituent in the waste can be
determined using the health-based
numbers developed by. EPA for the '
constituents in question. For the
purposes of this evaluation, EPA has
used the Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) mostrecently promulgated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. If an MCL
was not available, the Risk Specific
Dose (RSD), which corresponds to a
specific level of risk (IXID"') to an
individual of contracting cancer over a
70-year lifetime from the intake of
contaminated drinking water, was
employed. The health-based numbers
(HBNs) for tetrachloroethanes and the
three PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene, •
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and "
-;, benzo(k)fluoranthene) are RSDs. The
; remaining HBNs are MCLs.In the case
of lead, EPA is presenting evaluations of
the MCL for lead (0.05 parts per million).
A newly promulgated "action level" for
lead (0.015 parts per million) was
promulgated on June 7,1991 (56 FR
26460) and constitutes the level at which
treatment technologies must be
. undertaken by drinking water supply '.
_ facilities. EPA has not decided whether
to consider an amendment to the '•'-.".
Toxicity Characteristic level of 5 ppm
lead based on the action level, and so, '->
for the listing evaluation below, we
continue to rely on the 0.05 ppm MCL
Table ffl.C.4. presents the HBNs for the
constituents of concern.
B1LUN3 CODE 6ESO-SO-»
-------
48012
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 184 / Monday, September 23,1991 /Ptoposeid Rules
TABLE HI. C. 4 - USED OIL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND IIBNS
r11.".-
AUTOMOTTVECHANKCASg OIL (UNLEADED GASOLINE ENGINES)
ConMitueflt
ArMnte
Lead «..«*.....
Trtchl«oeUiy<*r,»
Perchloroethyiene .......
Tfkhloroethan* ..........:
Tebachioroethanes ......
Benzo(b}IUioranlhen* ...
B«njo(l<}Sixxsfllrtert» ,.,
PCB« ........ — ............
Health
Based
Number
(mg/L)
OS
1
001
0.05
O.OS
0005
O.OOS
O.OOS
0.2
o.oot
3.0E-00
3.0E-00
30E-00
50E-04
Total
Number
Sample*
Analyzed
12
12
12
13
13
12
a
9
0
9
4
2
4
2
Number '
Samples
Constituent
Not Detected
12
10
5 '
3 I
0
5
9
9
8
a
0
0
0
2
Number Samples With Pocitiva
Constituent Detection
iCsioox ioox<*si.ooox *>i.aoox
HBN HBN HBN
0 00
2 0 0 i
3 40
8 2 0
0 11 2
0 2 5
0 0 0
0 0 0
01 0,
0 0 0
0 0 4 ,
0 0 2 . .
0 0 4
0 0 0
AUTOMOTIVEOILS/FLUIOS-STORAGETANKS I ,
Conctituent
AfMnie , ..„„....:,...
Barium .».....«..«.,.»«.»...
Cadmium
Chromium , ....
Lead MM ... . .M. . .
B*nz»rt» ..,„
TdcMotoamyleft* .........
Pttchloroeihylefi*
Ttteh)iXO«nant ,
T*tfa:hlpjTefie ... — ..
PCB» „...,.„......,
Health
Bated
Number
(mg/L)
0!i
1
0:0!
O.OS
o.os
0.005
o.oos
O.OOG
o,a
0001
3.0E-00
3.0E-00
3.0E-00
5.0E-04
Total
Number
Sampiea
Analyzed
a
8
11
11
11
11
e
s
e
a
3
3
3
3
Number
Samplee '
Constituent
Not Detected
8 :
5 5
4 ;
8 ;
0 '
2
e
2
3
a
0 '
0 1
o !
3
Number Samplee With Positive
Constituent Defection :
#i!00x 100x<*s1,000x #>1.000x
HBN HBN HBN
0 0 0
3 .0 0
1 8 0
3 0 , 0 f .
o a s
3 1 5
0 0 0
0 0 4 .
0 1 2
0 0 0
0 0 - 3
.0 iO . '3 j
0 .0 3 '
0 0 0,
DIESCL ENQINeCRANKCASEOIL- TRUCKS AND BUSES
Concthtitnt
AtMnla „..,.„_..
Barium «»«««». «....
Cadmium ..................
Chromium ._........
U»d
Bert2efle .....»««••.»•....•
Trhsh!oro«!hylT«ne
PCBi .
Health
Bated
Number
(mart.)
0.5
1
0.0 1
0.05
0.05
0.005
0.005
O.OOS
0,2
0.00 1
a.oe-oj
3.0E-OJ
3.0E-08
S.OE-O4
Total
Number
Samplee
Analyzed
10
10
10
• 10
10
4
•
1
Number
Samplee .
Constituent
Not Detected
a .
10 |
a <
s •
0
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
Number Samples With Positive
Constituent Detection
#s100x 100x<*s1,000x #>T.OOOx-
HBN HBN HBN -
1 ;0 0 •
0 '0 0 !
1 1 0
4 1 0
5 5 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0. 0
- 0 0 1
.0 0 •!
00 1
00 0
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. j#L,/ Monday. September 23,1991 / Proposed Ruje,s
TABLE IIIiC.4 i- iUSED OIL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND HBNS
' (continued)
DIESEL TRUCKS/BUSES - STORAGE TANKS
i i
Constituent'
Arsenic
Barium ; ^
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead ' ..
Benzene
Trichlorpsthylene
'erchloroethylene
Trichloroethane, ,
Tetrachloroethanes
Bef>zo(b)fluora'nthens
Benzo(k)fluo>anthen8
5enze1,000x
HBN HBN HBN
1 0 0
200
4 2 0
1 1 0
0 7 3
0 1 2
0 1 o
0 0 1
0 1 0.
0 t 0 0
002
0 0 i
0 • . - Q '•''••*'• • ^
0 i 0 « t>
DIESEL ENGINE CRANKCASE OIL- HEAVY EQUIPMENT
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium.
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Benzene
Trlchlofoethyleno . ,
Perchloroethylena „
Trjehloroetharie \
Tetrachlor oethanes ..
^
6enzo(b)iluorantriena
Benzo(l()fluoranthen9
Benzo(a)pyren« ..
PCBs.
Health
Based
Number
(mg/L)
05
1
001
O.OS
0.05
0005
0005
0005
02
0001
aoe-ofl
3.0E-06
3.0E-06
5.0E-04
Total
Number
Samples
Analyzed
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
o
2
2
2
0
Number
Samples
Constituent
Not Detected
10
10
4
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
Number Samples With Positive
Constituent Detection
#s100x 100x<*fs1iOOOx (f>1.000x
HBN HBN -•' HBN
0 • : ' :0 ..'. ' ' 0
0 -•...-' • 0 ; 0
420
4 1 0
S 3 0
000
' 0 0 0
000
000
000
i
000
0 0 0
000
000
i
HEAVY EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITY - STORAGE TANKS
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium.
Cadmium
Chromium ,
Lead
/
Benzene.......! „
Trichloroethylehe i
Perchloroetbytene <
Trlchlofoethano ,
Tetrachloroethane*
Benzo(b)nuoranthene ..
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrana ...
PCBs '
Health
Based
Number
(mo/L)
09
1
0.01
0.05
0.05 '
0005
0005
0.005
0^2
000,1
3.0E-««
30E-OB
3:OE-08
5.0E-04
Total
Number
Samples
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
!5'
— .
Number
Samples
Constituent
Not Detected
0
4
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0 , !
0
0
p
0
0
Number Samples With Positive
Constituent Detection
fcslOOX 100x<#s1.000x ' #>1.000x
HBN: ' .-.--. HBN HBN
400
00 0
3 1 0
3 0,0
0 3 1
O 0 0
000
000
000
900
0 0 " 0
o. o .. '-'•-. o
o -o o1
OOo
I 1 ' I
< S
r t i
-------
48014
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 184 / Monday. September 23^1991
TABLE III.C.4 - USED OIL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS" ANJD HBNS,
(continued)
DtESetENGINECRAUCKCASEOIL-RAItnOAD
Conttttuectt
ArMfllO I(M*»<1UMU>»M«'<
Jarfufn «.«.....,«....»««..«
Tadmlum **.»......«».».•
Chromium .„_............
L*ad ..........................
Beroeno ....................
TiieMoroei)>»»«oe ..
PtfChkxoelhytan* ........
TrlcMoro*lh*n* ......
Tettachloioelhanei ......
B*n:otb)ll)io(*nUi*n« ..
B»rttO(I<)!kiof anthene ..
B*nxoyren« ...........
PC8a ,.„_.. „. —
HMlth
Bated
Number
(rnoA)
0.5
1
0.01
0,05
005
O.OOS
0.005
0.005
0.2
0,001
3.0E-0*
3,OE-0«
3.0E-08
6.0E-04
ToUl
dumber
Samplet
Analyzed
11 "
11
11
11
11
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
Numper
Sample*
Constituent
Not Detected
11
11
. 10
3
4
2
2
2
2
2 .
3
3
3
0
Number SampIeeWith Positive
Constituent Infection :
*s100x 100x<#s1.000x , f>1,000x
HBN .'HBN " HEN
•
0 0 ' -0
0 0 ' ;0
0 1 '1
4 * 0
S 2 • ' -0
00 0
0 00
0 0 ,0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o o • ' o
0 0 • 0 •
MAniNEOIt-MARlNAOIt-STORAGETANKS
ConntltueM
Artenlc ....,.,,„„... ........
3«ilum .........................
Cadmium ,, ..................
Chromium .........
Lead .........,.........,.—...
B^j,,,.^
TrfcWofoemvteM
Perchkxonthvtene ........
Trtehhxoelhan* ...........
T«lr«chl«c«th«n«» ......
B4nzotb)Kuoran!hene ...
BemofMRooraritnene ...
ES*nzo(a)pyren« ...........
PCBi .. —
Bawd
Number
(mo/L)
0.5
1
0.01
0.05
0,05
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0,001
3.6e-o«
3.0E-08
3.0E-08
50E-04
Total
Number
Samplea
Analyzed
7
7
r
7
7
I
1
1
.1
0
0
"o
0
Number
Sample!
Conttltuent
Not Detected
" 7
'> 7
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1 .
0
• o
'. 0
0
Number Samples With Positive
' Constituent Detection • , -
03100X 100x<*:s1,000x' #>1,000x
HBN HBN , HBN
o ' 6 o
0 '' 0 , • '_ 0 -
1 ' ,«-,•'. 0 •"
4 * 3 " '•" ; 0
0 0 " . . . 7
0 o 0
0 0,0
• o . - o ••'<)-.'
0, 0 P
0 - 0 . ' 0
0 0 0 •
0 • 0 '•'...,
o '-••• o ' -' - o
0 0 '0
MARINEOH.-FOBaQNCAH6O SHIPS •
Cortttttuant
l(ittfhf '
lailum .........................
Cadmium ....................
Laad ™ —
B.nj.n,
Trtch!oco(iUiyl«ne _.__
Perehtorc«thy1,000x
HBN HBN HBN
0 0,0
1 0 : 0
0 0 ' " 0 ' .
a o • o
6 80
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 .
o . • o o
0 . 0 , ' 0
0 . 0 .0
o ; a :• • • ; o
0 0 0
o o o
-------
^»!iff>^^
t
fABIE 'lll.d.4 - stIS.ED Olt CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND rfBNS
(continued)
! ' ' ' '
MISCELLANEOUS M AfilNE OILS
Constituent
Araenio.
Barium
Cadmium „
Chromium
Lead
Benzene
Trichlciroethyiene,
Perchloroethylen* ,
TricWoroethane .
Tetrachloroethanea
BenzotbJBuoraritherie
Behzottyfluoranihene
Benzo{a)pyren8
PCBs
Health
'Based
Numbef
05
1
0.01
0.05
005
. 0065
0005
0005
02
0001
3.0E-M
3.0E-OS
30E-08
SOE-04
Total
Number
Sample*
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
Sample*
Constituent
Not Detected
3
3
2
2
0 "
0
0
0
0
Number Samples With Positive '
Constituent Detection
#sioox : tooxossr.ooox #>i.ooox
HBN HSN HBN
0 0 0
o". r . • '. o ;, ' : o
0 1 0
1 0 0
2 0 1
000
000
t * 0,0
000
000
000
000
000
000
HYDRAULIC OiLS/FLUJQS
Constituent
Arsenic „
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Benzene .. ..
Triehlorbethylene
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroetharto ,
Tetrachloroethanes. ..
Benzo(b)fluorantheri9
3cnzo(!<)fluoranthsno
Bsnz6(a)pyrene
.PCBs,
Health
Based
Number
(mg/L)
0>
1
001
0.05
o.bs
0,005
0005
0005
0.2
0001
3.0E-06
30E-08
3.0E-OB
50E-04
Total
Number
Sample*
Analyzed
12
12
12
is
12
e
8
a
8
a'
3
3
3
2
Number;
Samples;
Constituent'
Not Detected
11
,10
a
9
'$.
s
6
a
9
a'
3
3
3
2
Number Samples With Positiye
Constituent Detection
HBN HBN HBN
1 0 0
1 1 0
P 6 . . ' . 1:
•*- .'.''.: P , - ' 0,
520
100
0! 0 0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
METALWORKSMG OltiVH-UIDS
Constituent:
Anenlo ..
Barium
Cadmium ,.
Chromium „ „
Lead
Benzene,
Trtchloroethylone
Perchloroethylene „ b
Trlchloroethan* r ...
Tetrachloroethane* „
Benzo(b)fluoranthen*
Bonzo(k)fluor«nth»n»
Bahzo(a)pyran« _ „ .
PCB*
Health
Bated
Number
(mg/L)
0(5
1
091
006
005
0005
0005
0.005
02
0001
30E-O8
30E-06
30E-00
SOE-B4
Total
Number
Samples
Analyzed
14
14
14
14
M
7
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
S
Number
Sample*
Constituent '
Not Detected
11
14.
9
H
6
5
e
5
5
5
2
3
3
3
Number Samples With Positive '
Constituent Detection
#s100x 100x<*s1.000x - #>1.000x
HBN ; HB.N HBN
300
0 - 0 0
0. 6 0
2 1 0
5 3 1
0 0 01
0 0 0 t
000
000
000
0 0 ' 1
'0 0 ' 0
000
000
* ' , , -
I ! I.
H I
i >
1 , S
* i
f t
-------
48016 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23,1991 / Proposed Rtsle's
TABLE III.0.4 - USED OIL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND HBNS
* (continued)
NATURAL GAS-FIRED ENGINE OIL
Conttttuont
A/nnls ..,„.,...,.,...,......
&atft)fn *.*««»».»•..««•..<.>
CadmhJm „._.,,....,„..,..
Chromium .„_..„....,,....
l»*d ............................
&4nzen4 •»«««««.«."«•.
TikWoto«lnyt*n« .........
P«{chlOK>*lhyt1,000x
HBN HBN HBN
0 0 0
« ; o o
0 ' " ' ' 1 0
0 • ' 0 ,'-.,' 0
« 40
0 0,2
o o -o
0 0 p
0 0 0
0 0 , 0
0 00
o -oo
0 00
o b o
AIRCRAFT ENGINE OIL '
Conitituant
'UMIvlo .«*..«•«.»..»«... -
3«llCPl .„.„,............:,,.,,
^JldfnHl^n ,,mi,, ---r-rt
^hroolurn .»»<».««.».»
L»»d .„.».»«»«_«...„.
Btnxttx .._—,_.„.....„
TtleWocotlhytio*.
P*«M«o«!hytir.» -..„..
Tikh!o(o«ihin» „_..„.
T«UKhlo(o«Ui»n«« ._.
B«1.000x
HBN HBN • HBN
. . t 0 ?
0 0 >0
0 . 41
--. 2 3 . 0
0 , 0 , 5
1 0 ,0
0 .' - 0 .0
o o b
0 0 ' ' 0
o o • 9
0 0 0
0 0. 0
0 " 0 0
00 0
AIRCRAFTOtUFLUtOS-STORAGETANKS
Connltutnt
UMA!O M»«M»«m.*H»<««
M/funi »»«*Mt>«H.t....t.».
Cadmium ...................
^rttomlum ».».»..»«....«
L*ad .. „.„,._ ......
3*n2*n« ,.MM.«..«».....«
Titchkxoethyl«1tn* ........
Tikhl««lhmne
T«(j«ehkxo«Uiin«» „ —
B4ftzc1.000x
HBN HBN ' HBN
1 00
1 .•"•• 0 ---'•' 0
1 . 4 1
1 3 . .... .: o
0 1 ' 6
1 0 r>0
0 0 ' 0
0 . 0 0
.0 0,2
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
' 0 0 r 0
o •'. o ••'•.. o
-------
ELB3TRICAL INSULATING OIL
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium .....•.,
Lead
Benzene
Trichloroethylene .
Perchloroathylsne ;
Trichloroethans
Tetrachloroethanes ..:...
Bgnzo{b)fluorantheno ...
Eanzo(k)fiuoranthsno ...
Bonzo(a}pyrene
PCBs
Health
Based
Number
(mg/L)
OS
-.',: ' 1.
0.01
0.05
0.05
,0.005
0.005
- 0.005
•• --• 0.2
0.001
3.0E-Q8
3.oE-oe
3.0E-06
5.0E-04
Total
Number
Sam plea
Analyzed
11
-11
11
11
11
7
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
2
Number
Samples
Constituent
Not Detected
11
11
If
T1.
10
7
7
7
.' ' 7 ..
7
3
3
3 " .
1- '
Number Samples With Positive
Constituent Detection
#s100x 100x<#s1,000x #>1,000x
HBN HBN HBN
o o . o
o o0
0 0 o
0 o o
1 0 o
0 0 0 '
0 0 0
•0 0 ".' Q.
0 o o
0 OQ
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Q o , 1
VIRGIN Olt SAMPLES -"-' .
Constituent -
Arsenic
Barium ...:
Cadmium ;.....
Chromium
Lead
Benzene
Trichloroethylens .......*.;
Perchloroethylene ........
Trichloroethane •
Tetrachloroethanes
Benzo(b)fluor8nthene ...
Benzo(k)fluoranthone ...
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB« ,.....;
Health
Based
Number
(mg/L)
0.5
1
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.001
3.0E-OI3
3.0E-06
3.0E-08
5.0E-O4
Total
Number
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
e
a
e
, 2 •'
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
0
Number
Samples
Constituent
Not Detected
6
e
4
8
s
2 - '.
2
2
• 2 ,.'
2
5
5
5
0
Number Samples With Positive
Constituent Detection
#s100x 100x<#s1.000x #>1.000x
HBN HBN HBN
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 0 0
0 0 0
1 °' 0 ;
•• 9 •'• ' o , ,.Q- ; ;
P 0 0
0 0 o
••.-'« o o
0 0 o
...- o. '.:..,.; o o
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 ,
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-C
-------
48018 Federal Register /..Vol. 56. No. 184 / Monday,, September 23, 1991 /.proposed .Rules
Information regarding the
concentration of the appendix VlII
constituents in the waste is available
from Ihc extensive sampling and
analysis effort undertaken by the
Agency and is presented in Table III.C.3.
To assess the threat posed by each of
the categories of used oil, the Agency
compared the compositional
concentration of each constituent of
concern to its corresponding health-
based number.
Historically, EPA has evaluated toxic
constituent concentrations in relation to
the corresponding HBN. In making a
determination to list a particular waste,
KPA examines concentrations for the
.constituents of concern, assuming that
some dilution and attenuation (D/AJ
will occur. EPA generally relies on D/A
factors that encompass a broad range of
possibilities, ranging from 100 to 10,000,
which correspond to concentrations for
each constituent of concern in the
environment that are 1 percent and 0.01
percent, respectively, of their
concentrations in the waste. In the past,
EPA has determined that compositional
concentrations exceeding 1,000 times •
HBN and leachate concentrations
exceeding 100 limes HBN are typically
hazardous and pose a risk to human
health or the environment. The reason •
for this differentiation lies in the fact
that leachate concentrations already
simulate some degree of environmental
effect on the waste, while compositional
concentrations do not. ,
EPA has evaluated compositional
concentrations of the constituents of
concern in used oils based upon the .
recently collected analytical data to:
determine (1) the number of samples in
which the constituent was not detected
or for which the value was below
detection limits; (2) the number of
samples in which the reported "
concentration was less than 100 times
greater than the HBN; (3) the number of
samples in which the reported
concentration was between 100 and
1,000 times greater than the HBN; and
(4) the number of samples in which the
reported concentration was greater than
or equal to 1,000 times the HBN. These
results are shown in Table III.C.4. -
The data indicate that automotive
crankcase oils generally contain high
levels of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [PAHs). Of the samples
analyzed, 100 percent exceeded the
health-based number for . ...
benzo(b)fluoranthene and
benzo(a)pyrerie by a factor of greater
than 1,000. No other category of "as
generated" used oil exhibited such
consistently high levels of PAHs. Data
for automotive oil/fluid from storage
; tanks correlate positively to the "as
generated" data for PAHs in that similar
concentrations of PAHs were'detected
in as generated automotive samples and
in automotive storage tank samples.
Like "the data for as 'generated
automotive crankcase samples, all
automotive used oil storage tanks
samples (100,percent) exceeded the ,
health-based number for all PAHs by a
factor of more than 1,000. .
The constituent data also indicate that
aircraft engine oils exceeded the MCL
for lead by a factor of greater than 1,000
in 50 percent of the ten samples. In fact,
those five samples contained
concentrations of lead that were greater
than 10,000 times the MCL. These five ,
samples were'obtained froni piston-
engine aircraft. Samples from turbo-prop
aircraft do npt,exhibit such high •
concentrations of lead. As with '
automotive crankcase oil, samples from
aircraft oil/fluid, storage tanks show
lead levels that'consistently exceed the
MCL by a factor of greater than 1,000.
All marine oil storage .tank samples
exceed the MCL for le£d by a factor of
greater than .1,00,0.
b. Toxicity characteristic analysis'. As
discussed previously, the Agency also
believes that it is .useful to evaluate the
extent to which used oil exhibits the .
toxicity characteristic. To accomplish
- this evaluation, EPA determined the .
TCLP final analyte concentrations from
the constituent concentrations found in
the liquid phase of the sample after
filtration. An assumption was made that :
the Concentrations of contaminants was
much higher in the filtrates than in the •
leachates. This assumption was based
on analytical data that demonstrated
that the two phases, filtrate and ;
leachate, are different .arid, further, that
the concentration of contaminants in
filtrates was'hi'gher than1 in leachates. '
The concentration values were . '",
evaluated to determine the percent of
used oil iii..each category that exhibits
; theTC. . :" ' .. (V; '';.,., . ';'
Based on.the Agency's evaluation of
the used oil analytical data and the ,
assumption that sample data are
representative-of similar used oils
"nationwide, it was determined that
certain types of used oil? exhibit the
toxicity characteristic and contain other
hazardous substances'that-are of
regulatory'concern to EPA. Table; HI.C.5
presents the percent of samples in each
used oil category that exhibited the TC.
TABLE III.C.5.—PERCENT OF USED OILS EXHIBITING TG
Usechoil category ; ,
t4v*&fln&* fttte/Pttifcte • ' "•• • •
Motohvofklftfl OUs/Fkitds i » • •
Electrical Insulating Ol , , . ...'. .» , ...«e • •— »- • «••• r—
Afrcraft'EfiglnftQil: ; '-.'.-.,.
Tiwhnfcit flkiTflff " ' .~... ;.." - .:»,..........'. »..»«':
AkeraftOils/FJqtda— Storage Tank Samples.,...--.". • •••=• — .-...-.«..;...•. ;..;,„.;........,.....•.....:...<..
'. No. of
' samples
evaluated •
, 12
8
, 10
10
10
10
7
11
• ' \2
10
15
• y.-i .5
•ir.i, ..4
'.:.:.=7
Percent of
samples .
exhibiting
TC1;
.' '.'••'. 75
100
10
70
0
"20
86
; , ;45
17
•;•• 0
. ., 20
'••'•' .'" • -d
•••' !:v:'100
: ' . .::86.
Confidence limits 2 ,
Lower
confidence
. lir-tif3 •
-(percent) .
' '; .50
' ,75
. ••-• ,-•(
35
0
;;' . e
, i '"SO
'"'• -20
5
;; • . 0
:'-.•' 4
: '. • -, ' (,
'. :, -rr:1 50'
-• . .50
Upper
confidence "
limit 3
.(percept)
90
• 100
35
88
, -;. ^ 22
• " '': ' 70
'•' .-"•.'46
.-. , v;22-
1 . . ,33
" ' ; ' 38
.•'••-• i loo
•: : • 99
1 Based on estimated finai analyte cbricentrations of one or more TC constituents. Majority of samples exhibited TC for lead; however,
tor afSflnte, cadmJum, chfomkmi, or organic constituents.
*Confidonco limits for a proportion at 1ha 90th percentile.
' From Tabto A-22. Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, 1963. .
4 Samplos exhlbttod TC for lead only. Supplemental point-of-generat!on data indicate crankcase oils from gasoline powered marine engines
toad
sorre exceeded"
are TC hazardous for
-------
Monday; '> September 2S| 1091?
* Ruled ; \ j- 1: :?48ffiM
;' • • i.;' Results -of sample Purveys in which a
.• small number of samples are Collected'
• are subject to some uncertainty;-:
therefore, the upper arid lower ,
; confidence, limits were determined and
reported! The upper "arid lower
• ;-confidence levels are shown in Table
HI.C.5 and reflect, respectively, the ,-'•..<
highest arid lowest percentage of .
samples that could be expected to ;
exhibit the TC; Confidence limits such
as these'provide a numerical basis for
determining how often a given'
population of used oil'will emulate the' -;•
sample pbpulation. At the 90th :,: • •••'.'>'
'-':• percentile. It can be stated that for 9 of :
-'-•;;' 10 sample collection/analysis'events,' ". ?'
the; estimated;pefcent'of samples . •'.".--'•
, exhibiting the TG,f/.e.; go^perdent) will
• fall somewhere within the tipper .arid
• lower limits. ' : ' / •' -••
While EPA has considered the; upper
• and lower boundaries', the Agency '
, .believes, that the percent of samples
; exhibiting the TC shown in the table is
• the bestappfoxiination of the ' :
:' .'-percentage of used oil in each category •'
; that can be expected to exhibit the TC.
'". The Agency is not basing its; ' . ' •
; determinations on the best ;i '- '
approximation alone but EPA conducted
. statisticsd'analysis of the concentration :
data and supported this conclusipri (see
statistical analysis procedure discussed,-;.
in detail in the'backgrouiid dbcument !;
-"' VU^ed OU; CharaGterizatibn, Sampliiig !-'•
| and Ansiysis Program"}. The Agency is
' .presenting;cbrifidence limits tc- show the;
, variability In the degrees pf precision bf f
i the percentage estimates and to provide
: the public with the brbad data available
1 on the statistical analyses. j '• •
Despite the phase-down of lead v
additives in gasoliner automotive "-
crartkcase oils from unleaded gasoline
engiriies exhibited the TG in 75% of the
; i samples, primarily for lead. The Agency
is requesting'comment, on. the source or
• sources b£ lead in automotive crankcase
:, used oil, which may inqlude gasoline
blow-by; bearings and parts! or leaking
i seals. The'Agency is interested not only
-• in data pri the sources pf teadiin. auto
, crankcase used oil, but also in possible' v
ways to eliminate or reduce the lead. AH
••• samples from used oil storage tanks at :• ;.
,; automotive maintenance facilities (100 ;;
-•-. percent) exhibited the TC for lead, as, ,..
Well as bther coristituents such as • . .
f solvents. Although difficulties exist in
, analyzing the samples'for TCibrganics, it .
.is likely that:auipmotive crankcase oils
and oil from,used oil storage tanks will .
exhibit the TC for benzene, since the :
compositional data indicate sthe '•.-••
presence of benzene in elevated >.i.-- . •
'concentrations-.. The data also suggest
that used oils from gasoline-powered '
.' marine craft'exhibit the TG for lead and
piston-engine aircraft exhibit the TC for •
cadtnium and lead, respectively. )'
The EPA data suggest that used oils1
from turbbjet/turbbfan-type aircraft do
not exhibit the TC (0 percent) while Used
oils from piston-engine aircraft do
• exhibit the TG, primarily for lead. ' '.
Approximately 86% of oil from used oil
storage tanks at aircraft maintenance • *•'•
facilities exhibit the TC for lead inlvery •
' high concentrations and 86 percent of:' •':
1 samples from iharine oil stbfage tajiks ' ;::
were TC hazardous. In p&rt,; the liead ">: C,
coritent irimarine, oil storage tanks may ^
be attributable to mixing of otherwise! * '
riori-hazafdbus marine oils With lead-''' -
contaminated used 'oils from gasoline^
powered marine engines. . •.:'.,•
• Of the remaining categories sampled,
no electrical insulating oils exhibited the
TC (0%) and only 17 percent of the i -.",
ihetalworking oils exhibited theTC. '
'.. Diesel engine crankcase oils from
tracks, buses, heavy equipment, and ;
railroad engines were not generally .
found tp be TC hazardous for .metals.
However, adulteration of used oil with
other materials or mpre contaminated' .
j oils was found by comparing samples , ,:
' taken at the pouit of generatioji-to -.; i;
samples .taken from on-site used bjl.; .;
istoragie tei^s. Approximately 7ti%'biF'•'"..''"''
, Used oils fromdiesel storage tanks '•..-.', .-.
, exhibited the TC. This may'be i .",".-. f± •; :
attributable to:mixingpf useddiesel'pil
with lubricant cleaners in. storage tanks. ,
D. Used Oil Stratification Based on'
Hazardousness and Listing Options
.On November 29,1985 (50 PR 9258),
EPA proposed to list all used oils as • '
'hazardous waste, including petroleumr '
derived and synthetic oils, based on ;the •'.
presence of toxic constituents at levels ,
. of concern from adulteratipn during arid
subsequent to use. This prbposal and the
. comments received in response are still .
under consideration by the Agency. The"
Agency .continues to be concerned:,about
the-adulteration of;used.oil bechuse^the •,
resulting used:oil/hazardous; waste ;: ; • si,
mixtures maypresent.a,potential: - , ''.,',
, environmental and human health threat •
It is appropriate to Consider adulteration;'
in deciding, whether and how tb regulate ./
used oil. It may not be necessary to list
used oil as hazardous; waste to.cpntrol.. ;
adulteration-Further, an across the ; • ;
board,listing would penalize generators *
of "clean" used oils who are careful not .
to mix other materials into the oil. The ;
> Agency.'-Has.'therefqre;''developed''';;-..' ' >; ;
• alternatives :tb:an across 'the board? ••'. •-'••
! listing"of'all used oil based Ph the! ..=-."" ..-1..
adulteration cbncern. • •-" .;•'•' ;;•••' "/'•• • "•;'.' •'•
Giveithe compbsitional and TC;datai ' ;•• •
forused oil provided by the'1989 "•; : *
sampling'and analysis effort, the,Agency
ha;s revised the tentative "Conclusions it
reached based on the data Collected fbr
the 1985 proposal. EPA now recognizes ;
; the variability of constitu'ent •-';"; ;-••/';; ,. ••
coricerttrations betweendiffereritused
oilrstfeajns and now believes ihat it may • •
: not be appropriate 'to lisf'all used Oils as); -'
i a'hazardous Was tei; \-^'\-_:. '•. •'(.'• ~::;'^* *•;.'<$-:. *-
.-' | • "AsjdiSCussibd iri.the previous sectiph,-' /
;, 'the're^uitsof TCLP analyses of'used'bil- '*' '•
• incficjate! that some c^tegbri6s bfufed oil;- •'•'
: "(/.'isC'&utomobilS-crankcase pilf piston-. ;'.' ;
engihe^aircraffbil, andgasoiiSef ;"'^;''' " ; '
pp«(rered niaririe craft oil):freiqueritly ' |
exhibit the TC. The remaining categ'orie's'1
of Used oil occasionally exhibit the TC; ."
; however, they'do not consis'tently fail ' ;
thetjest ! •:--i'' .','"' .'• ."-•''' ''•. ''"..';/ '•:.: ;.'C
EPA.reppgnizes that thbse'used pils .
; that fail the TC clearly are hazardous,
but'alsp acknowledges that 'thbse Use'id ;:
• pilsithatdp riot exhibit the TC may be ."i :
apprbpriate for listing^ !;, [''.'•'• f f
The Age'ncy closely evaluafedi the j!
results of the compb'sitipnal 'analyses of .-
theyaripijis used oil categories in ;;> ..
'• addilipntOiJCftijaiysesUtt qnsure' that;-'; , •;•
:; afty listing dicdsipn for,th^:ca^egqrie^ \' '" ;; '*
' met' tliife criteria for listing cqnfairieialh !;:: :'
'_, 40 CFR|$J41. As sHpivn^ailier, ;< '•$.; I '^.
•.',. compqsition^lidata, when qonipared!-tp!> -' • •"
. the^cbj:resppniding!jeal|li-base^' I v',,;^ *
numbers,, qprrelates very closely ib ihe' % i i
TC findings.iThat.is, in samples where '•••[ '
the constituent cbncentratipn exceeds , _.-•'.,:•.
the; health based number by, a factqf.bf / ,
1,000 or more,-the sample generally '..'-!, ' '
• exhibits the TC;for that constituent, fri
addition tp the.TC constituerits,:: „ •
automotive-crankcase oils exceeded the
health-based numbers for PAHs by a ; /
factoriof more than 1,000, and piston-
engine aircraft exceeded the health-: \
based nuhibers for lead by a factor of
greater than'10,000. In usf?d oil ;
categories th'at didaipt exh|bit;the TC, ';.-'.; •
PAH;artalytes gener^llyjvvere not .':•,>' ''?•'•:•• '''!
:. detected. This firidirig leads thie,Agenby; :s ^
.to tentatively coriclujde that us:edojL;mayi;V ;
be divided into segments-for lasting Q - •• :'•'•• •;: v
coiis'ideratioh;VThi8 i|s discussed next.'•• • j- -; •'
i.^is"ting'Options pverview' ''', * ; , "' ''.'' •
•Table, HI',D.l presents three options for
listing or identifying used oil as f , i
-hazardous.. First, -EPA-may,continue ito s : •: ...
rely on the 1985 proposal to list all used -• -
oil basedion adulteration concerns. The ID : :
-------
48020 Federal Register /VoL .56.'No: 184 / Moniflay. ^p'te'mi?erV-23;-|iBi^::y-W6pbSedoRd'e8 "•
November 1985 proposal ta list usei jpil
as hazardous has the advantage of
clearly defining the scope pf fhe listing
(i.e., all used oils generated in the '.
United Slaves). Further, the 1985 "_'- ',
proposal would capture used oils tha,t-
are adulterated subsequent to use and .
would ensure regulation of used oils
collected in storage tanks that becom°
contaminated with solvents and otner;
fluids. However, the 1985 proposal tp list
all used oil as hazardous jnay capture
within the scope of the listing used oils
that are not hazardous at the point of
the generation and that may or may not
be adulterated subsequent to use.
TABLE II1.D.1.—LISTING OPTIONS
Option On*
Adulteration
Approach.
Gcrxjf atcd Approach.
Option Throas No Rst;
Rely on Ma
Standards.
Ust all ussd oi's as pro-
posed on November 29,
1885 based on the po-
tential tor adulteration
and environmental
damage when'misman-
aged.
Ust used oi!s from- gaso-
Hne-powered engines
(Is., automotive crarik-
case. gasoline powered
marliw craft,,and plston-
oogino aircraft) based
on the presence of con-
stHuonte of concern at
> 1,000 times the health
based level and sam-
pling data that show
theso used oils exhibit,
the TO tn >50% of
samples. Other used
oils and mixtures remain
subject to hazard tfater-
mtnaUon for all charac-
tortstics and rebuttabla
presumption and mixture
rule for hazardous
wastes. .
Ust no usod oils and .rely
on section 3014 man-
agement standards to
regulate used oils and
mixtures.
, Alternately, EPA may decide to make
a listing determination only on those
categories of used oil that are typically
and frequently hazardous based on their
toxicity at the point of generation, and
rely on other mechanisms such as the
hazardous waste characteristics, the
mixture rule, the rebuttable
presumption, and the used oil
management standards (all of which are
discussed in detail in today's proposal)
to regulate used oils that are not listed.
Listing used oils at the point of
generation may capture only those'used
oil categories that are typically and
frequently hazardous. It would not list
those that are typically and frequently
non-hazardous, but non-listed used,oils
wojjld continue, to remain subject ,tp,tthe
hazardous waste pharaictejistics,."(^;,
fenflability, toxicity). Further, under the
. mixture,rule, any mixture,of a listed •.
hazardous waste (including listed used
•oil) and a solid waste becomes subject
to regulation as a listed- hazardous ....;.
waste (unless-.specifically exempted .
from the xule). Thus, mixtures p.fnonr,
;;listed used oil and hazardous waste- •
would.be regulated as hazardous waste.
Also, the rebuttable presumption, as
explained in today's proposal,.would
regulate as hazardous any used oil .
containing 1,000 ppm orrmore total:
halogens, based on the presumption that
the oil has been mixed with a listed
halogenated solvent. While generators
pf such mixtures may rebut the ..
presumption by showing that the source
of the halogens is not a listed solvent,
the Agency believes that used oil that is
adulterated with solvents subsequent to
^se will be captured by .the rebuttable
presumption. Finally, the usedoil •
management standards contained in this
and previous proposals will encourage
good management practices for used oil,
.- which the Agency believes will result in
less adulteration of used oil subsequent
louse. .. . ' : •:''---' ' - i-." • •"•'•• ''•••- ';
2. Analysis of Nfew "Options , .
.Option One was fully discussed in .the .
1985 .proposal and is not discussed here.
•Two alternatives are discussed. : .
Commenters should address these new
options at this time. - . ' ,
Under Option Two, categories of used.
oil that were found to be "typically arid
frequently" hazardous would be listed
,as hazardous waste because of the
. presence of lead, PAHs, and other toxic
Constituents including arsenic," cadmium,
chromium, and-benzene (see : '
§ 261.11(a}(3) and (b) of the Agency's
listing criteria). To define "typically and
frequently," the Agency is proposing
that when 50 percent of more of the
samples in a used-oil category exceed
the levels of concern, the used oil '
: categoryis deemed to be "typically and
frequently" hazardous.Under Option
" Two, EPA is considering both TCLP data
and compositional data in determining
those "as generated" .categorie's of used •
oil that are "typically and frequently"
hazardous. Under this option, if greater
than 50 percent of the samples in a given
used oil category were found to exhibit
the TC and, based on compositional
analysis, exceed the health-based ' .
number for TC constituents or PAHs by
a factor of greater than 1,000, the used
Oil category is deemed to be "typically
and frequently" hazardous.. The Agency
requests comment* oil the So' percent."'
cutqff for determining if .a waste is, . ;
'ftypiqally ki\3. frequently"' hazardous.'
" '.ijnd^r this apjjjpaciu '/used oil from,
gasoline powered engines", which .
.includes automotive craiukcase,; gasoline '*
ppwered marine engine oils, and pjston-:
engine-.aircrafi.pils.may be,Ji.5ted as ;
hazardous waste. Cqmpo.sitio.nal data,'
for these categories indicate they are •
. i high in PAHsj^urthermctre, analytical
r data'from 17- samples' of thiRSe-kinds of
engine pils; indicate that more than 75-
/percent of.the samples exhibit.the -.
, toxicity .characteristic, primarily for '.'-
lead. Table III.C,6 identifies the
.proposed hazardous waste code and
waste description. - [,'•;• ,.--'.- ••
TABLE ltl.C:6.—USED OILS PROPOSED
FOR LISTING '•:••••
-.- -Waste description , >
• ' \ -.:,,' ,-\ -r ,--':
• I' '•-••.,•'. [' '. . ' '
Used oils from gasoline-pbweied eri-t-
glnes (e.g., automotive crankcase,
:, marine, arid pistori-enyine alfcrafl)...i
ftoposed
hazardous
waste code
\ i
. F030
Based on.the Agency'is data and data
- submitted by commenters, EPA believes
.the remaining used oils iare not typically
and frequently TC hazardous;as v -•-
generated and do not cointain:high levels
of PAHs, Thus, under this option, they
wbuld;not be listed as hazardous. Those •
used oils that-are notiisted would, of
course.rejmain. subject to the; .;••..• ••
characteristics for the purpose of waste
identification. ;' . - •. : h
'There are several advantages and •
disadvantages to this option. Listing
-------
g.i/ iVpb^67 Jgn^^Monqay. ^ptejrnfagfj2& 49g^
\ ,; ;us;wasei;tpajfpepn.Qr,.;: , .
de|is,tmg:under;40 CF|l 26Q.22v6ut \ye ,,,
•recognize this pp tidn is jiipt very feasible
.: for such a large, diverse universe a»
used oil generators.- - ; ; . ;.:v s ,,
._..'] • : A third pptidn;being proposed is a, .
'."No List" optipn for used oils, based on
the technical cbiterja under 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3); 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) provides
;. that EPA may fake a numberi of factors
; into aecptmt in' making a fisting decision.
Those factors relate to the hazards
posed by'they
circumstances,
., containsAtoxic
raste in question, In; some
even though a waste .
constituents, it may not
, . ,
pose a substantialrhazaro^ jf imp:roperiy ,
-:.•. /managed. ; -:;,,.; •- -* '. ~ v| ,'•; ;'i:^;. .,',•.'.;•,'":
: ;•} « ,'•, Section 3qi4{a) allowsjthe |Vgencytp '-
•/''. develop management standards under, |;.
.; ; >subjitle G independent of whgther used ' ; '
;- (I ';Qf»Ms listed pr;fdentifie:d'a,s a hazardous ',
'. ..; .waste; Sectidn|3014(a) dpes-npt require \'
. EPA to list or ijdehtify used;oiis as ',
hazardous. washes, prior .to. set ting, , '
:^ management standards for,re.cyciepy.;
,useddil, but it [does authorize EPA tp
"develop regulajtdry standards for ' ; !'•
; recyclirig.of ,aH used oils, both ,
hazardous and npnhazardous. The
,;, management s :andards proposed in -1985
i and today con rpl improper disposal
s. such as road oiling, dumping, and land
' disposal, (See discussion in VIILB of this
: ' notice.) Todayfs notice discusses
: changes to the J1985 proposal, including
'_• !|. ,, the possibility .pf adopting, these i -
. j; ;.sta'ndar.ds.iWiti(p!it:ljsting used oil.
I •'' K EPA does jirpmulgate^manag^menit
.-•:_• "standards forUped oil under sectifiii 1
; 3014(a); then th'e 'Agency's: consideratipn
,"i ;of thftlisling f^ptbrs'in.^p pra '* "' ' - ' ;
261,ll(aj(3) wpuld be significantly •
, , differbntthan^riomanagemerit ;; ; • .
standards Were issued. Specifically;
since 4he management standards ,;
, address the ty^es:ofmismanagemerit .
.that historically have occurred with ,
: used oil [iie., adulteration with ;
hazardous waste.iroad oiling with
contaminated used.oil, spillage, etc.) the
need to list used oil to attain
• environmentallcontroi may be greatly
: reduced.v • i ^' • , * : ' ; ; - ;
^ Of course, EPA'must consider 40 CFR
261.11(a){3) ta its entirety. The other \ ,
^listingfactors;(i-tviandyiinx) may /
• .;largely,be unaffected.by imposition of :;-
'management standards, EPA-wpuloV ;
however give significant weight to the
• factors in 40 CFR. 26Wl(3)(yii} and
:- :M(*).; since in. this ease..:.the standards
-• -would nptfpnly address:typical, , :>••';> ..-; ,
f r mismanagement scenarios ibutt equally i \!.
• important wpuld be enfprcepblg .under,\ ',', i
\-.,b$ plausibleJfsubjecttojFederal; r i .,-.
..'enforcement.Furthermore,:the• V ;• •
;regulation issued-under RCRASOWfa);
:, must be "consistent with, pro.tectio.niqf,
:.humanhealth arid the environment,";-'-<
; .which parallels the standards fpr^' , ,^ ''.
, regulation issued under RCRA 3002- V
,3004. -to whichhazardous .used oil wdrild
be subject. Unp!er this approach, EPA,
.considering 40 CFR 26i.li{a)(3) as a
whole/might find that listing used oil as
hazardous waste is not necessary to
: achieve adequate control, igiyen the,
. ;implement.atipn and enforcement of
, management standards fpr recycled oil,
.. jsince. the, lijkelihppdyof misimanagejtnent ;
; sand resultant consequences greatly ,•:'-;
t ivpuld be reduced- (See discussion in ,'
sections VIII and IX of the notice.) i '
.Therefpre.Jisting. or.identification.of V
.iUsed oil as,hazardous, waste may nptTDie-
i , necessary to meet the.statutory ;• " :',.,
requirements of RCRAsection4 3°°:1 and
. . -. -f ...• .-.. .,
hazardpus waste. EP)CbeJifeyes"that the
types ofmismahagemerJthlsitpricaUy ' : ;
'• associated with used oil may no longer -) '
.. ,., : ., ;;
. .Shpul4 EPA decide to .undertake this
approach, MSeqV oil.wpuld not bje lis|ed
as, a hazardous waste, but generators of
used oil would continue tp b,e required
to determine if the used oil exhibite^
,: any.characteristics of hazardous waste
if they chose to dispose of the used oil
Used oil that exhibits any characteristic ;
and is:recycled would be subject to the
RCRA section 3014 management
standards being proposed in lieu of
regular subtitle C requiremerits, sp a .
characteristic detennination wpujd not ''.
be required: However, used oil destined
'for disposal that exhibits any ;! ,:'. : ;;
charapteristic must be dispose^ in '-•;
: aLccordarice_wi& all applicabletsiibtille;} .
C requirements arid this way generators .
-: would have to determine—as isv. •
presently the case—whether the used oil
exhibits a characteristic. EPA requests ' .
comments on whether a'specific test •
(using the TCLP) should be required, •. i
every time used oil would be disposed i.
or whether the generator knowledge ,,
would be adequate to make the disposal:
decision. '• • • ' '• :_• --•'.• -• .. . .
EPA recognizes that this option is npt
completely 'comprehensive bePause EPA;
lacks the authority to impose Federally-; ;
. enforceable regulations on the disposal
.of nonhazardous used.oil,Therefore; a•''
subdptipn that the .Agency is corisidering
would combine aspects of Options-Two ••-
and Three to list used gasoline-ppwered ;
engine crankcase oil when'disp^Psedi,-'•., • '.
thismightbeaqicbmplishedinpne^pf
;tw:p;Ways. First,;theilisting descripdon; iri
T«ible III,C,6 might be modified to refer -,.. >
.only .to erankcase pil'"being Disposed:..; •.
of'/As art alternative,. EPA might V /"'
promulgate, therlisting 'de4criptiori as: /''
shown in {Table iil.C.6, tut would therj • '•''''
exclude recycled oil from the defmitjpri ;
6f hazardous; waste in 40 CFR 261.4(bj.,
; i Agency?»? cprisideripg a pjcesuniptioii'' I
•that usedp;il;is td be reeycle.d, sathe,' '•,
', listiuig,w.puld only come irifp effect if a {.
person topk jspme. actipn, i.e,, placing i •
, iused pilis ardisppsa,! unit, indicating ; '
talent,of disposal, The listing wpuld .' '
.:- effec.tively.cpnirbrcrankcase dil - ''
dispdsa;l,;since it wPuld'bein \
, .compliance with subtitle G ":; ••' i ,;•.;':] -,.•
requirements. Comments are requested i
,; on both the general i"Nd List'1 options
;and the; subroption of listing used' oil
.when disposed, based on the factors- ,„•
"- discussedabdvei, :--i ,v;;v%j.,;;y; i'/>l;
. • ?;EP.A requests;comraentsdn;the three,:
.optipnslpresented: here;- EPA specifically
;> TequestS Comment d;h the advantages;; •
;>-and,disldvantageS1pf makirigja listing -',.•
; determination fop thdse used oils 'that f
• iconsisteritlyfail ihejTG.'vs;-i.il .;v?:1 ^ •*!'•
•j '; EPA particularly Is inte'rested irithe •
•: views pfiStates OH thexrithial issue of
• iwhdther'used oil1 should be;listed;ias ••'•;
'*- 'hafeardPus waste. iAjriumber of States ;';
; 'currently list;iised oil as hazarddtis'' •: '
• waste or special waste, while most do ,
'libti EPA is very-ihterested in having :
State governments comment on whether
a natidnaLlisting (of some or all-used V ,
i 'oils) may help or hinder effective
implementation of existing State used oil
•• regulatory programs and State or local
; DIY collection programs. ! • ' '' '
^ Over the past JO-^12 years,'thpseJ :
; States' WRp Maye'jregUlatWdE ufeed,bil as'".•
hazardous'pr special wastesithpse with •
; ho s'pe'cifie' used oil iregulatidn but .•'.';.,.
1; certain requirements (e.^
used oil recycling, "apd those With no 0 ~~r
Stafe used pilregulitipn have ,: : "".
collectively^e^cperiericedppsitiye *,;'"'''. [
impacts (increased re.cyclirig) and
, negative impacts (greater ;>v ... . ,!.
mismariagement) from used oil: ••" .• •
regulation. EPA believes the; -••• ; •-•'• ,
epnsideratidn of State experieniceis .'•' •• i :
crucial in developing a national used oil •'.
, regulation. In the interim between the". • \ '
'• 1985 proposal to list all used oils as '/. , .
hazardous and the 1986 depisipn not to > ',
list used pil, the-Agency contacted- '•. : • •
yaridus States,to assess their;; V; ; I .-•:
; perspectives::oit)he proposal td.lisVall ;,/j
,,used,pils and.its impact,qn;used oil',..:''.', •'.",';
i handlers witiiui. the re?pectiyje States; >' ^
Based on State.comments at the time, ;.
r EPA inferred; that the;iisting;Cpuld,^); >> -t'-
., produce negatiyie impacts; on .used; .oil,'
.recycling and increase• mismanagement J..
. the; a^ailabiility, of enfprceipent liiri^ tp .''./"!
iiV»r%larv>i»r»f 'nntj nnP^^wnM i OI A'i*;' ^__.^1 ^.-i'i ~-^' •••'•'
ii--.n'.:i ~. ---a >i;V•'-"v"'.~~ g~ rc^rr." -^ •*"—-**o,... •
me. impact of hstijig alternatives; J' ; •;.',';
disrasydjn 'tpday's nptide pcf Idddl used'
pi}hiarlcet8;irigerieral.' 1;••' !ij Hf r.!'f '•'
-------
September 23, '1991'r/ Proposed Rules
IV. Oily Wastewalers
The Agency today is proposing to
amend the mixture rule to exclude those
non-hazardous wastewaters, at facilities
subject to Section 402 or 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act8, that are
contaminated with very small quantities
of listed used oil. In the November 29,
1885 rule, xvhich proposed to list all used
oil as hazardous waste, EPA considered
exempting wastewaters contaminated
with da ntinlmis or very small quantities
of used oil from the mixture rule (40 CFR
261.3) (see BO FR 49263-49264). EPA
continues to believe that the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents that may be present fa such
mixtures will be so small as to pose no ,
significant hazard to human health and
tho environment. The following
regulatory definition of the wastewater
to ba excluded from the mixture rule if
mixed with de mlnimis quantities of!
used oil, as proposed in the November
29,1885. has not changed and is
repeated below for the convenience of
the reader.
(F) Used oil caused by a de mlnimis loss of
lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, metalworking
fluids, or insulating fluid or coolant. For
purposes of this paragraph, "de mlnimis"
losses Include small spills, leaks, or drippings
from pumps, machinery, pipes, and other
similar equipment during normal operations
or when small amounts of oil are lost to the - •
waslewater treatment system during washing
or draining operations. This exception will
not apply if the used oil is discarded as a
result of abnormal manufacturing operations
resulting in substantial leaks, spills, or other
releases or to usud oil recovered from
wastewater.
The Agency recognizes that an
exemption from the mixture rule will •
only remove from RCRA Subtitle C
regulation non-hazardous wastewaters
contaminated with very small, non-
separable amounts of listed used oil. For
example, oily wastewaters can be
passed through an oil/water separator
or other device to remove excess' oil.
Used oil that is recovered from
wastewater will be subject to the
section 3014 management standards for
recycled oil aa proposed in section
IXA.4 in today's notice. The remaining
wastowater will contain minimal • •
amounts of used oil, as described in the
proposed definition. Since these
mixtures present an insignificant •
hazard, EPA also is proposing to exempt
such wastewater mixtures from RCRA
section 3014 management standard^.
The exemption for mixtures of used
oil. and non-hazardous wastewaters
would not apply if the used oil is
discarded as a result of abnormal
manufacturing operations (e.g., plant
shutdowns or operation malfunctions
resulting in substantial spills, leaks; or
other releases). Such a mixture will be
considered a used oil and would be
subject to the RCRA section 3014
management standards. The exemption
also Would not apply to.non-hazardous
wastewaters contaminated with small
amounts of used oil that are- mixed with
other hazardous waste. Such a mixture
is already subject to full regulation .
under 40 CFR parts 262-265, and parts
268, 270, 271, and 124 via the 40 CFR;
261.3 "mixture rule". This is discussed in
more detail next. . ; , '
The practical effect of this proposed
exclusion for facilities discharging ,
wastewaters under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) will vary. If a facility discharges
wastewater (including oily wastewater)
to surface waters under section 402 of
the CWA, such wastewaters when
discharged are not solid wastes under
RCRA, and are not subject to any
subtitle C requirements (see 40 GFR
261.4(a)(2)). Similarly, wastewaters are
generally not solid or hazardous wastes
under RCRA when they are discharged
through sewers to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) under section
307(b) of the CWA (see 40 CFR -
« Section «Bof the Clean Water :Act requires a
NPDES permit for direct discharge* of pollutants to
wnters of IhfrUS. Section 307(b) of the Clean Water
Act wqulrei facilities discharging to Publicly
Owned Tnmtmcnt Work* (POTWs) to comply with
' '••
Wastewaters discharged to surface
waters or POTWs are considered to be
solid wastes under RCRA before
discharge, and are therefore, subject to
the generator requirementsof 40 GFR; :.
part 262 if they are listed or .
characteristic hazardous wastes.
However, the wastewaters afe'not ,
subject to the standards of 40 CFR part
264 (e.g., permitting) if they are treated
in wastewater treatment tanks subject
to section 402 or 307(b) (see 40 CFR part
264.1(g)(6) and 40 CFR 260.10). If
wastewaters containing small amounts
of used oil are exempt from the used oil
mixture rule, the effect will therefore be
that these facilities no longer have to
comply with fee generator requirements
of 40 CFR part 262. In addition, facilities
discharging'to POTWs will no longer
have to comply with the hazardous
: waste notification requirements of 40 •
CFR 403.12(p). ,
Facilities which, discharge to surface
waters or to POTWs and which employ
.surface impoundments rather than ,. %
wastewater treatment, tanks are :, .,;..,
: currently subject to the standards of 40
CFR part 264 if their wastewater is
hazardous, for these facilities, the effect
,qf today's proROsaHyould be to/exempt ..
/them from these standards, tjie ; .
generator requirements of 40 CFR part
,262, and (forjfacjlities discharging to,
POTWs). the rio'tification requirements
of40CFR403.12(p). :'-/,: .;";. . : .
The Agency believes that these/ • ,. .'.
I exclusions are"justified because the '•. ;,
wastewaters exempted under, today's ; -. • '
proposal ip'ose ho significant threat to ,
hutnan health and .the environment and
bedause they are ahready aubject to. ,
Glean Water Act controls. EPAnotes
that CWA pretreatment regulations
prohibit facilities from discharging ,
petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting
oil, or products of mineral oil origin to
POTWs in amount that will cause pass
through to surface water or interfere
with POTW operation (see 40 CFR ,
403.5(b)(6)). Similarly, oily wastewaters
discharged directly to surface waters
may be subject to technology-based
controls under Section 402 of the, GWA
and must always comply with water
quality standards established under the
State programs. /:;/'""':'. -^
V. Used Oil Mixtures To Be Evaluated
A. 'Mixtures of All Used Oils and .
Hazardous Waste-., . , -| - "• -.''•
Mixtures of used oil and hazardous
waste are classified as hazardous waste
under the mixture rule of 40 CFR 261.3 V
and are subject to the full subtitle C ,
regulation for hazardous waste. Under
40 CFR 266.40(c), used Oil to be btirned
for energy recovery that contains more
than 1,000 ppm of tbtal halogens is -
presumed to be a hazardous waste
because it Has be£nmixed with '
halogenated hazardous waste listed in
40CFR part 261,.subpartD.. Currently, j-
• the presumption may be rebutted by
showing that the used oil does not
contain significant concentrations of
halogenated hazardous constituents ,.
listed in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VIII
or that the constituents are only from ,
hazardous waste generated by
conditionally .exempt small quantity
generators subject to 40 CFR 261,5.
As proposed on November 29,1985 as
part of the used oil management
standards (50 FR 49219), EPA is
. considering applying the "rebuttable
.presumption" for used oil fuels that may
have been mixed withchlorinated . ->•;..
hazardous waste? (found ajt40 CFR. .
266,40(c)) to all used oil that is recycled,:.
reus^or reclaimed. Tjie oinly way to
rebut this presumption would be to,
demonstrate .ana document that, the' . .
Kalbgehated compounds detected'in the
mixture are^ not listed solvents. Mixtures
of used oil and hazardous waste,-, .-..
including •mixtures,of used oil and .
hazardous waste from^^ Conditionally . "
•_':^--Vsmalt quantity jgenerators, ;.-.'.,. s
-------
Federal Register / Vol Sfr No. i84f / JMbnda^.:,Sepfember: 23,1591 / Prcfppsect Rjjleg! c jfS023;
wouU be subject to recycling standards.
for, hazardous waste rather than the-
proposed management standards for
recycled used oil. : ! " '
EPA is considering applying the
rebuttable presumption applied when
burning for energy recovery to used'oils
designated for recycling,disposal,"or
incineration. If a used oil contains more
than 1,000 ppra halogens, then the used
oil may be classified as a hazardous
waste andbe subject to all subtitle C
regulations, including the land disposal
restrictions, unless the presumption of
mixing can be rebutted. The rationale
for expanding the rebuttable
presumption to all used oil that is
recycled or disposed is based on EPA's
finding that high halogen content
indicates that hazardous waste mixing
. has probably occurred. (EPA discussed
this rationale in the November 29,1985,
proposal [see 50 FR 49220) as well as the
final burning and blending regulation; at
50 ER 49176.) Therefore, there is no
reason to limit the application of the
rebuttable presumption only to used oils
that are humect for energy recovery
since the'likelihood that mixing has
occurred appears to be unrelated to the
ultimate disposition of used oil The
Agency solicits comments on'the
expansion of the rebuttable
presumption. '
B. Mixtures of Listed Used Oil and ;
Other Materials - • ',". ."'-..
1. Applicability to Listed and
Characteristic Used Oils
EPA wishes to clarify for the regulated
^community the applicability of the
mixture rule of 40 CFR 261.3 to used oil:
EPA is not opening the mixture, rule for
comments, but is providing the following
discussion for information purposes
only; The mixture rule applies only to
mixtures of listed hazardous waste and
solid waste; that is, by virtue of mixing a
listed hazardous waste with a solid"
waste, the; solid waste automatically
becomes a listed hazardous waste*
Wastes that are characteristically
.hazardous (or listed solely because they
exhibit one of the characteristics) are
considered hazardous until they no
longer exhibit any hazardous
characteristics. This distinction, becomes
important when addressing used oil
mixtures, some of which may contain a
used oil proposed for listing in today's
notice and some of which, may contain
non-listed used oils, that exhibit one of
the characteristics.: Because of the
regulatory scheme proposed today {i.e. •
some oils may be, listed), some used oil
mixtures destined for disposal may be
subject to regulation under hazardous
waste regulations' because-they contain
used oil that is liste^ as a hazardous
waste or because the mixture, though -
not cohfaining a listed Used oil, may •
itself exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic. By contrast,1 some
mixtures destined for disposal may be
subject to Subtitle D regulation because
they contain nonhazardons used oil.
2. Applicability of the Mixture Rule1 to
Specific Solid Wastes _ ; ••• •'••-
In the November 29; 1985 proposal to
list used oils as Hazardous waste, the -
Agency requested comments on
mixtures of used oil and industrial
wipers 9 that are contaminated with
small amounts of used oil. Additionally,
on March 10,1986 (51 FR 8206), the ,
Agency, published a request for
comments- on a proposal to amend the
mixture rule to exclude sorptive
minerals I0 that are placed on the floors;
of industrial establishments primarily to"
clean up spills of used oil resulting from
incidentaloEroutihe drips, sprays, or ;
seepages; Commenters submitted
analytical data indicating that mixtures
did, not exhibit a hazardous : -
characteristic. The Agency is hot
requesting'additional comments on
previously proposed exclusions,, which
are still .under consideration, but
welcomes comment on the eommenter-
submitted data as well as the issues
regarding industrial wipers and sorptive
minerals discussed below.
a. Industrial wipers: In the November.
1985 proposal to list used oil as
hazardous waste, EPA proposed an
exemptionfrom the mixture>rule for
industrial wipers, partly in response to a
petition submitted by the Kimberly-
Clark Corporation. Based on the
comments received in response to, that
notice, EPA is considering promulgating
this exemption, or a similar exemption
in 40 CFR261.4(bJ, with the stipulation
•that all free-flowing used oil has been
removed from, the industrial wiper (i.e.,
by draining,squeezing,;or other removal
technique) to ensure that the amount of
used oil disposed with the wiper is
minimized. EPA believes that free-
flowing used oil is removable and
.recyclable and would be covered under
RCRA section 3014 used oil generator
standards discussed in today's notice.
(See discussion on recycling of used oil
from used oil-contaminated absorbent
materials in section IX.A.2.) EPA
requests comment on using either a cfe
minimi's cutoff, as proposed in 1985, or
the "one drop" approach, as discussed
inseeuon V.D, of today's notice;; for ;
9 The term "industrial wipers" includes shop ,
towels, ragst andtiisposable wigere. , .
l?,The,tenk*'sorpUye minerals" includes;
absorbent clay 6r':absorDent diatoina~ceous earth.'I':' •
determining whethei used .oil •:• '
contaminated-solid[waste or used oil"
containers containing freer-flowing used.
• oil. From an enforcement point of view,
- the "one-drop"'approach i&preferred,
sinceit does not require extensive. ... „
quantitative testing, EPA believes that ;
wipers, in filters, or sorptive materials
containing insignificant quantities,of oil
is not likely,to exhibit the characteristic
of toxicity and coul'd be regarded as " ;
non-hazardous solid waste. J3PA reqests :
comment on whether/a deminimis -
quantity cutoff that could be used to
determine the presence or absence of ,
; free-flowing oil in mixtures of used oil
'. and solid waste or used oil containers
(e.g., used oil filters). EPA will consider ,
new comments submitted with respect
to the 1985 proposed de minimi's, levels
signifying a concentration cutoff. .
EPA is proposing to conditionally
grant an exemption to industrial wipers
contaminated with used oil and
discussed, in the petition submitted by
, Kimberly-Clark and two other^similar
petitions submitted by the Sqott Paper
Company aria the Alliance of Textile
Care Associations. - •
A wiper not containing free-flowing
used oil would not be considered a
hazardous waste under, this proposal,, ",
since it would contain insignificant
quantities of used oil. EPA proposes to
classify the act of removing used oil
from the wiper for recycling, as a. , ,
recycluig method rather "than.; a regulated
RCRA waste treatment process. EPA, .
believes that processes (e.g., draining, ';
• squeezing, crushing, chopping, etc.) used '
to remove free-Sowing used oil from
' used oil contamihated solid wastes are
within the scope of what may be
, regulated under section 3014, but we are
not certain if specific standard's are
necessary to protect human health and
the environment from these aptivities. '
Therefore, EPA solicits comments oil
; whether the act of removing free-flowing
used oil from an industrial wiper should
be regulated under section 3014
management standards. Only by using
one of these methods one can remove
free-flowing used oil from, mixtures.
Comments are requested on risks that
these activities may pose] and controls
that might be .applied. ', -."-.'.
A wiper containing free-flowing used
. oil, and the used oil separated, however,
, would ie subjiect to RCRA. section 3014 .
management standards for generatorain
' .the majority of casesi, and those for
: recyclers in certain other .cases (e.g.t
laundry;ser'vipes; brokers and.recyclers
' involved ihicollecting intact used oil •
filters,:industrial wipers, and sor.bent,,;
,' miaterialsVand product manufacturers.) ,
•'•.! As mentioned; above".1 EPA 'does,not-: -;-- -''
-------
48024
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 184 / Monday. September 23, 199,1 /Proposed Rules
propose to regulate the used oil removal
process itself, but does propose to
require clean-up of any spills that occur
during draining or collecting of used oil.
The primary reason is that a possibility
exists for used oil drips, releases, and/or
spills while the free-flowing oil is
removed (generated) and collected. By
this Agency's action, such mishaps
would be minimized and associated
cleanups would be undertaken. Used oil
removed from a solid waste must be
collected into a unit (e.g., container or
tank) regulated under section 3014. If the
used oil is separated from wastewater,
the used oil must be directed to a unit
regulated under section 3014. This
approach would exclude only the
physical act of used oil removal.
Generators who failed to remove non-
free flowing used oil from an industrial
wiper may be required to dispose of the
wiper as hazardous waste, if the used oil
in the wiper were listed or if the wiper
exhibited a hazardous characteristic. If
recycled, the undrained wiper and oil
may be subject to the section 3014
standards prior to removal of the oil and
any used oil removed from an industrial
wiper would be subject to any listings,
characteristic determinations, or RCRA
section 3014 management standards that
may otherwise apply to used oil. While
the drained wiper is no longer subject to
the section 3014 standards, the removed
oil would continue to be subject to
section 3014 for recycling.
b. Sorptive Minerals: In comments
submitted relative to the November 1985
proposal, the Sorptive Minerals Institute
(SMI) provided information to support
their contention that sorptive minerals
(i.e., absorbent materials such as clays
and diatomaceous earths) do not release
hazardous constituents underpressure
and that significant quantities of oil or
hazardous constituents do not leach out
of sorptive minerals. This is important in
the determination as to whether
mixtures of used oil and sorptive
materials may be regulated under the
"mixture rule" (40 CFR 261.3). if any
used oils are listed. Results of SMI's
study (a copy of which is in the docket
for today's notice), using EPA's Liquid
Release Test, showed that the typical
sorptivc material could hold more than
60 percent of its weight in oil, even at'
high pressures. To test the assumption
that sorptive materials do not leach
constituents of concern, SMI allowed
several sorptive minerals to absorb a
pooled used motor oil sample. The
sample contained high levels of TC
constituents. Testing using the TCLP
showed that the constituents of concern
did not leach when exposed to
prolonged TCLP extraction, even at high
loading levels; thus, these.mixtures are
unlikely to pose a hazard when
disposed. Based on the SMI data, EPA is
proposing an exemption for sorptive
minerals from the definition of" ,
hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.4(b).
In order to provide a means for
generators to qualify for the exemption,
the Agency proposes that generators r
test sorptive minerals used'to clean up
oil spills by using EPA's Liquid Release
Test (SW-846 proposed Method 9096)
(55 FR 22543, June 1,1990) to determine
the minerals' ability to desorb used oils.
The Liquid Release Test is designed to
determine whether or not liquids will be
released from sorbents when they are
subjected to overburden pressures in a
landfill.
Finally, the exemption is based on the
premise that the sorptive minerals may
be used, in appropriate amounts, only
when spills or leaks occur, and that
excess used oil may be removed from
the sorptive mineral through pressing or
squeezing. If the used oil so removed is
recycled, these activities would not be
subject to RCRA regulations for
hazardous waste treatment but would
be considered as used oil recycling
activities. As with industrial wipers,
EPA proposes not to regulate the
removal of free-flowing used oil from the
sorptive materials. However, any used
oil so removed may be subject to the
RCRA section 3014 management
standards, listings, or characteristic
determinations as appropriate. Any use
of sorptive materials (or other materials)
simply to dilute used oil prior to
disposal may be considered treatment,
potentially subject to hazardous waste
regulation and permitting.
C. Oil Filters
Under current RCRA subtitle C
regulations, if a generator is sending a
used oil filter for disposal, the generator
is required to determine whether the
used oil filter is a hazardous waste. This
can be accomplished either by use of the
generator's knowledge of the waste or
process that generated the waste or by
testing. In the case of the TC, testing
requires running the TCLP. EPA
guidance on this issue has stated that'
the TCLP can be performed on oil filters
by crushing, grinding, or cutting the filter
and its contents until the pieces are
smaller than one centimeter and will
pass through a 9.5 mm standard sieve. If
the oil filter exhibits the TC it is a
hazardous waste subject to RCRA
subtitle C regulations. ,
However, certain recycling activities
generally are exempt from subtitle C
regulation, and EPA encourages .
generators to recycle used oil filters. To
accomplish this, generators or recycling
facilities may crush, dismantle,.cut open,
spin, centrifuge, pi- drain the .oil filter to
remove the used oil from the filter! The
following exemptions nan then be ' •,
applied: ' ,,
• If the used oil is recycled-, then the
draining/crushing is considered an
unregulated used oil recycling activity,
not regulated treatment. (See 'discussion •
in section V.B.2.a for EPA's rationale for
not subjecting draining activities to the
section 3014 management standards.)
.• Used oil that is recycled is exempt
from subtitle C regulation under th'e, • .
used oil recycling exemptions in 40 CFR
261.6 (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3)(iu), but may be
subject to RCRA section 3014 •
management standards when
promulgated.
• Crushed or,drained oil filters that
are recycled are exempt from Subtitle C
regulation under the hazardous scrap
metal exemption in 40 CFR , .
261.6(a)(3)(iv).
As a best operating practice, based on
the information available -to EPA, the
Agency recommends that the generator
or recycling facility both drain and crush
used oil filters to remove as much of the
oil as possible.
The Iowa Waste Reduction Center at
the University of Northern Iowa
conducted a study of over 1,200 used
automotive oil filters to determine
methods to reduce the potential
environmental damage from the filters. ,
The Iowa study, which is included in the
docket for today's notice, found that the
environmental impact cotild be ,
significantly reduced through .draining
used oil filters to remove the free- ,
flowing used oil, which removed .
approximately one-half of the used oil.
The amount of used oil recovered
through draining was dependent upon
the drainage time, ranging from 44,
percent in 4 hours to 55 percent in 12
hours. The study further found that
draining followed by compression in a :
hydraulic press removed 88 percent of
the residual oil, with 12 percent (one
ounce) of used oil remaining in the filter
material. j "'
Based on the results of the Iowa
study, it appears that insignificant
amounts of free-flowing used oil remain
in filters after crushing; therefore, EPA is
proposing ah exclusion for used oil
filters that have been drained and
crushed from regulation as hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b), which ; '
defines those solid wastes that are not :.
hazardous wastes. Such an exclusion :
would allow crushed and drained .oil
filters to be managed as solid waste
-------
Feder^JRegister;/ Vol. 56. No. 184 /Monday,. September23, 1991 •/ Proposed Rules
48025
under RCRA subtitle D lL;by exempting
them from any listings or characteristics
pf hazardous >yaste, including the TC.
Oil drained from the filter would still be
subject to any listings, characteristic
determinations, or RCRA section 3014
management standards as otherwise
applicable. (Refer to section IX.A.5 for
similar discussion as Part of Phase I
used oil management standards.) EPA
specifically requests comment on the
Iowa study and on what parameters, if
any, may be set in determining what
constitutes "crushing." EPA also
requests comment and supporting
analytical data on other methods that
may be used to remove free-flowing
used oil from spent oil filters,
D. Mixtures of Small Quantities of
Listed Used Oil and Solid Waste
If any used oils are listed, the, strict
application of the mixture rule to
mixtures of such oil with pther materials
can result in the classification of many
materials, as listed hazardous Waste, As
discussed above, EPA is considering
specific, exemptions for industrial
wipers, sorptive minerals, and oil filters
that have been drained of free-flowing
used oil. There are a number of other
suck materials. The Agency believes
that many of these materials 'way not
pose a threat to human health and the
environment because of the very small
quantities of used oil involved. Because
a quantitative limit is difficult to
determine, the Agency sought a
qualitative limit. Such a limitation could
be qualitatively assessed by determining
whether or not free flowing usedoil is
present in the mixture. If one drop of
listed used oil Is capable of Sowing from
the mixture, then the waste may be
considered hazardous.
If promulgated, the "one-drop"
philosophy may allow the disposal in
subtitle D facilities of solid
nonhazardous waste that does not
contain, free Bowing used oil. Under this
exemption, generators could drain scrap
metal,, contaminated soil, or other
nonhazardous:wastes of all free flowing
used oil and" then dispose"of the drained
material in accordance with subtitle D.
If the used oil drained from, the scrap
metal is to be recycled, these activities
would not be subject to RCRA
regulations for hazardous waste
treatment (see'40CFR 261.6. (a)(2}0ii}
and £a}C3)(iii)} or to the RCRA section
3014 management standards. (See
'.'EPA-tecognizes that some States are ;
considering banning used oil filters, even when
crushed and drained filters, from municipal'
.landfiilaLlndivrtfual States Woald, of course,' retain'
authority for Sttch controls: «ven with thoproposed
exfilusiott. •
discussion in section V.B.2.a for. EPA's
rationale for not subjecting draining
activities to the section: 3014'
management standards,} However; any
' used oil so removed may be subject to
the RCRA section 3014 management
standards, listings, or characteristic
determinations as appropriate. EPA has
already recommended this approach
above, in the specific cases of industrial
wipers, sorptive materials, and oil
filters.
As previously discussed, the Agency
proposes that generators of test sorptive
, minerals used to clean up oil spills test
those minerals using EPA's Liquid
. ReleaseTest (SW-846 proposed Method
9096) (55 FR 22543, June 1,1990} to
determine- the minerals' ability to desorb
used oils. The Liquid Release Test is
designed to determine whether or not
•'• liquids will be released from sorfaents ;
when they are subjected to overburden
pressures in a landfill. EPA also is
proposing to require generators, of other
used oil/solid waste mixtures to test
those mixtures using EPA's Paint Filter
Test fSW-846 Method 9095) to
determine that there is no additional
free-flowing used oil in the mixture.
These tests will verify that the used oil/
solid waste mixture, meets the "one-
drop" philosophy criteria. ...'•'.
EPA also requests comment on other
test methods, that are being or could be
used to; determine whether all free-
. flowing oil has been removed from used
oil laden solid waste.1 In addition, the
Agency would like tp receive data .that
would indicate the applicability of the
Paint Filter Test or new test methods to
used oil contaminated soils.' ,
•The Agency acknowledges the
advantages of an easily identifiable
mixture rule limit. Public comment is.
requested on the efficacy of the "one-
drop" test in determining which .
mixtures of used oil and solid waste
may be.subject to subtitle C regulation
under the mixture rule. In the
alternative, EPA solicits comment on
whether a quantifiable level could be
established and what an appropriate
level might be.
E. Mix fares of Non-listed, Hazardous
Used Oil and Solid Waste
EPA is. concerned; that confusion may '.
exist for the regulated community on the
applicability of RCRA regulations to
mixtures of non-listed used oil; that
exhibitone ormprepf the \
characteristics "of hazardous .wastfe and.
solid waste. The. following discussion ia
provided asar guideline for the regulated
community and responds to) comments.*•• -
provided to response to the .November ,
1985 aiMLMareh 1986 notices. Thia ''•
discussion would only apply if EPA
chooses to list some used oils.
1. Shock Absorbers •
Monroe Auto Equipment submitted
detailed analytical data on used oils in
shock absorbers, since, in their view,
shock absorbers may be considered
hazardous waste if the oil contained in
them were listed as hazardous. Data
were submitted from an independent
laboratory that analyzed several
samples of used shock absorber oil for
the presence of CERCLA Listed
Hazardous Substances (Table 302.4 of 40
CFR 302.4) and EP Toxic metals using
SW-846 methods 8240 and 8270. The
analyses demonstrated that the
constituents were not present at
concentrations of regulatory concern.
Under today's proposal, EPA is
considering listing only certain
categories of used oil. Oil in shock
absorbers7 is not among those proposed
for listing, but all solid waste . :
nonetheless remains subject to a hazard
determination for the characteristics of
hazardous waste. Spent shock absorbers
that are .disposed of remain subject to a
characteristic determination, and any
applicable subtitle C requirements when
discarded. Generally, however, .the oil in
spent shock absorbers is not removed.
Instead, the entire'unit is recycled by '
manufacturers; Shock absorbers sent for
recycling, and oil recovered from them
that is recycled, would be exempt from
hazardous waste regulation, but would
still,be subject to section 3014 '
management standards fas discussed
below}. . - . .,_«-• .''_..-."-
2. Request for Comment on Other
Mixtures
Commenters on. the November, 1985
and March, 1986 Federal Register
notices suggested that additional ,
mixture/rule exemptions be considered
by the Agency prior to promulgation. .Ire
particular, eommenters sought
clarification on the application; of the
mixture rule to several other, mixtures,
including soil contaminated with used
oil and coal "treated'^ with used oil.
EPA requests, comments on extending
the proposed one-drop philosophy to all
such mixtures. We note that facilities
applying or using used oil for purposes
such as coal treating are subject to part
266KsubpartE,and would be subject to
the section3014 management standards
discussed in today's notice since they
are producing used oil fuel. EPA •,
requests comment on whether coal •
treated with small amounts of used" oil
should/be exeaipt from regulation,"and.;..
what conditions might be;placed oil ,:•": •;•
treatedspal as? part of an exemption. '
-------
48026 federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday. September 23, 1991 / Proposed'.Rulea,-.
VI. Derived-From Rule
The existing "derived from" rule
contained in 40 CFR 261.3(e)(2) provides
that "any solid waste generated from
the treatment, storage, or disposal of a
hazardous waste, including any sludge,
spill residue, ash, emission control dust,
or Icachate (but not including a
precipitation run-off] is a hazardous
waste." If any used oils are listed,
residues from their handling and
treatment may also be deemed listed
hazardous waste. EPA is, as discussed
below, separately proposing to list as
hazardous certain waste residuals from
used oil recycling and re-refining,
making the derived-from rule moot for
those particular residues.
A, Applicability to Used Of! Fuel
Residuals
While EPA is concerned about the
potential impacts of regulating burning
residuals [e.g., ash) as hazardous waste,
the Agency notes that the derived-from
rule is an important part of the current
hazardous waste definition. The rule, as
explained May 19,1980 (45 FR 33098}
was instituted to ensure that toxic
constituents that are likely to end up in
treatment residuals are properly
managed.
1. Residuals From the Burning of Off-
Specification and Specification Used Oil
Fuel
The Agency is contemplating the
applicability of the derived-from rule of
40 CFR 281.3(cH2) to ash or pollution
control device-collected residuals from
burning off-specification used oil as a
fuel. Under the approach for listing only
certain used oil and the planned
management standards for all used oils -
discussed today, off-specification used
oil fuel may or may not contain used oils
that are listed as hazardous waste.
However, under the derived-from rule as
currently written, any ash (or pollution
control residual, such as baghouse dust),
from burning listed used oil may itself
be hazardous waste. Thus, a
determination as to whether the
derived-from rule applies to a particular
residua] may be difficult to make and
may tend to cause generators to treat all
used oil fuel residuals as derived-from
wastes. The regulation of burning
residuals as hazardous waste may raise
the expense involved in handling used
oil fuel and may likely discourage this
use.
EPA requests comment on the
composition of used oil fuel residuals
from burning of off-specification fuel. If
EPA receives sufficient data on
residuals generated by the burning of
used oil to show that it is not hazardous,
the Agency will consider amending the .
derived-from rule to exclude residuals
produced from the burning of used oil
fuels. Under this approach, EPA may
only exclude residuals from the derived-
from rule. Residuals generated by the ,
burning of off-specification used oil fuel
may remain subject to the hazardous
waste characteristics, and any residual-
exhibiting the characteristic of
hazardous waste may be subject to the
hazardous waste regulations. (Of course,
this amendment would not affect the
application of the derived-from rule to
residuals from burning fuels constituting
mixtures of used oil and hazardous
waste regulated under 40 CFR part 266,
subpart D.)
Further, EPA notes that under 40 CFR
266.43(b)(6)(i), provided all requirements
are met, "specification used oil fuel is
not subject to further regulation unless it
is subsequently mixed with hazardous
waste or unless it is mixed with used oil
so that it no longer meets the
specification." Thus, used oil fuel that
meets the specification is not subject to
the derived from rule if the appropriate
notices and fuel analyses have been
completed. In developing the
specification for used oil fuel, EPA's
rationale was to establish specification
levels that limited the toxic constituents
in the fuel. The specifications were set
at levels that may present a lower risk
in human exposure scenarios. When •
burned, the limited levels of toxiq
contaminants in specification used oil
fuel either will be destroyed or remain
in the burning residual. Ash and other
residuals from the burning of
specification used oil fuel are less likely
to be contaminated. EPA is not
proposing today to alter the used oil fuel
specification established under 40 CFR
part 268, subpart E.
2. Co-firing Specification Used Oil With
Fossil Fuels or Virgin Fuel Oils
In the November 29,1985 final rule
addressing burning of waste fuel and
used oil fuel in boilers and industrial
furnaces, combustion residuals excluded
from regulation under RCRA section
3001 were not subject to the burning rule
(50 FR 49190). As stated in that rule,
EPA has interpreted the RCRA section
3001 exclusions to include' "fly ash, ;-
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas •
emission control waste resulting from (1)
the combustion solely of coal, oil, or
natural gas, (2) the combustion of any
mixture of these fossil fuels, or (3) the
combustion of any mixture of coal and
other fuels, including hazardous wastes
or used oil fuels, up to a 50 percent ' "
mixture of such other fuels." Further,
residuals from the burning of these fossil
fuels and mixtures, including ash and
emission control dust, are no.t,subject to
the hazardous waste.characteristics. .
Today's proposal continues those ''"' "'
exclusions for the combustion of ar,y
mixture of coal and up to 50 percent' •
used oil that is subject to RCRA section
3014 management standards, as
proposed. ',.:-.
EPA has received a request for . ,
guidance on the co-firing of specification
used oils with virgin oils at facilities
eligible for the exclusion noted above.
because they burn virgin fuel oil only. •
EPA believes that such a practice is.. ,
consistent with the intent of RGR A to
encourage the recycling and reuse of
used oils in an environmentally sound
manner. EPA, however, notes that under
the current regulatory provisions and
.interpretations (as discussed above),
this particular mix of materials to be
burned for energy recovery may cause
the burning facility to lose their '
exclusion under EPA's interpretation of
RCRA section 3001. Because of EPA's
desire not to discourage legitimate and1
beneficial recycling practices, EPA is
proposing to consider specification used
oil fuel to be equivalent to a fossil fuel
for the purpose of the interpretation
discussed above. The effect of this
interpretation is to allow the burning o"f
a mix of virgin and specification used oil
fuels in utility boilers.. | "
B. Applicability to Used (ji) . .
Reintroduced in PetFoJeurp Refinery
Processes ,..'•.,.
The Agency is considering exempting
petroleum-based products that include
listed used oil as a. raw material from
the requirements of 40 CFR parts 262
through 266 and parts 268, 270, and 124,
as well as the notification requirements
of RCRA section 3010. The Agency has
already excluded fuels produced from
the refining of oily hazardous wastes • .
and oils reclaimed from hazardous
waste, both resulting from normal
petroleum refining practices, under 40 ,
CFR 261.6(a)(3) (v) and (vi). The Agency
is today proposing to extend those
exclusions to fuels produced and oil
reclaimed from used oil. .
It may be possible that, when
incorporated into a product that will
undergo extensive processing prior to
being offered for sale, the! constituents .
of concern in a used oil will be removed.
The Agency is considering exempting
used oil that is mixed with crude oil or
other oily materials and later used as a
raw material in a refining process.from
subtitle C requirements by adding listed
used oil to the recyclable materials •
contained in 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3j. EPA:
solicits data that may support such an
exemption. As discussed when EPA first
-------
Federal Register /,Vol. 56, No. 184 /Monday, September 23,, 1991 •/ ProposedRules ,48027
promulgated the exclusions under 40
CFR 261.6(a)(3) (v) and {vij, (see 50 PR
49169, November.^, 1985), the ; '.
hazardous wastes that fall under these
exclusions must.be introduced into the
process prior to distillation or catalytic
cracking. It was the Agency's
determination at the time of
promulgation of the exclusions,that
these steps were essential to the
removal of contaminants in the refinery
process [see 50 FR 49169, November 29,
.1985]. EPA today proposes that the same
requirements apply to used oil; that is,
used oilmust.be introduced into the;
process or pipeline .prior to distillation
or catalytic cracking. ;
Because processes that involve only ,
cursory removal of constituents should
not be excluded from the derlved-from
rule, the Agency requests comment on
requiring introduction of used oil prior to
distillation or catalytic.cracking, on
other refining processes that may be
included in the exemption, and on
defming those activities that involve,: .
only cursory removal of .contaminants.
Further, the Agency requests
information on the efficacy of
introducing used oils into the process
prior'to catalytic cracking.
VII. Reprocessing and Re-refining
Residuals
A, Residuals as Related to Used Oil
In the 1985 proposal to list used oil as
hazardous, EPA stated that used oil
residues or sludges resulting from the re-
refining or reprocessing of used oils may
be included in the definition of used oil,
even though these residuals are not
specifically mentioned in the statutory
definition of used oil. Over the past
several years, EPA has gathered
information on residuals from the re-
refining and reprocessing of used oil.
Between 1986 and 1988, EPA conducted
three separate sampling and analysis
studies to determine the composition
and characterization of re-refining and
reprocessing residuals. The results of
these studies are summarized below.
A.S a result of the studies conducted,
EPA has now concluded that residuals
from the reprocessing and re-refining of
used oil constitute a waste stream
separate from used oil.12 The residuals
from reprocessing and re-refining are
distinctly different from used oil in
physical state, constituent ... '"
concentration, and potential hazard to
human health and the environment. The
residuals generally contain higher levels
of toxic constituents than their.source
"Distillation bottoms from the re-refining and
reprocessing of used oil used to produce asphalt
products would be regulated under the proposed
RCRA section 3014 management standards.
oils, primarily due to concentration of.
contaminants in .the reprocessing and-re-;
refining process. Such concentration of
contaminants, even when constituents
are present at low concentration in used
oil, can generate a waste more
hazardous than its source. Thus,
independent of whether the source oil is
hazardous or nonhazardous, it is the.
Agency's belief that residuals from the
reprocessing and re-refining of-used oil '
are inherently hazardous.
For the reasons enumerated above,
the Agency is considering promulgating
separate listings for used oil residuals
based on our 1985 proposal to list all
used oil (and.residuals) and the data
presented later in this 'section. Further,
EPA is interpreting the congressional
definition of used oil as laid out in.
UORA and HSWA. to include residuals
fromihe reprocessing and re-refining of
used oil, meaning that any residual ~
listing would be under HSWA and, thus,
would.become effective in authorized
and non-authorized; states at the same
time. EPA Believes that HSWA provides
the.authority to EPA to consider
whether to list or identify all used oils, ;
as hazardous. If EPA were to ,list 'all.
used oils, the residuals from the
reprocessing and re-refining of used oil
automatically would be HSWA-listed,
hazardous waste pursuant to the
derived-from rule. Even if the Agency
may elect to list or identify portions of
the used oil universe, or not to list any
used oils, EPA believes that HSWA
authority extends to the residuals.
Among the used oil processing andre-
refiriing residuals proposed to be listed
as hazardous waste in this -notice, ..'
distillation bottoms designated as RCRA
Waste Code No. K154, may be regulated
under the section 3014 management
standards when recycled as feedstock'to
manufacture asphalt products (e.g., road
paving and roofing material) rather than
as a listed hazardous waste. EPA
believes that distillation bottoms are not
substantially different from the virgin
raw material generally used to produce
asphalt products (e.g., road-paving
material or asphalt shingles). EPA
requests comment and supporting, data
that may demonstrate that distillation
bottoms are or are not significantly
different than the virgin feedstock used
in asphalt products. In 1985, EPA, • •
proposed to exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations the use of used oil
processing residues in asphalt products. ,
EPA may grant such an exemption if the
commenter-submitted data or EPA-
collected data supports the exemption.
(See discussion in IX.H. and X.C.4. for,
distillation bottoms .management
standards and cost analysis, ; ' :
respectively.)., - .-,\ : •
B. Re-refining and Reprocessing Waste
Streams •'. " . .: ,.
• The specific waste products resulting
from re-refining and reprocessing
procedures are dependent upon the
specific steps used by the re-refiner or
reprbeessor; however there are several
general waste types that are generated
within these industries. Unless
specifically noted, these wastes can be
generated at several points in the
process.
Gravity and Mechanical Separation
Waste Streams- include filter residues, •
tank bottoms, and pretreatment sludges
that may be generated by processes in •
which solids, oil, and water are : • • •
separated at ambient temperature. Tank
Bottoms are thick, tar-like layers that
accumulate over time at the bottom of
storage tanks! Centrifuge sludges are
generated during centrifuge separation
of used -'oil-fractions.--.'' ;
ltube Polishing Media usually
contains heavy metals, phenols, oil, and
other compounds. Polishing media
usually consists of clay compounds or
activated carbon used as adsorbents to
improve the color, oclor, and stability of
re-refined lube oils.
Distillation Bottoms constitute the
heavy fraction produced by vacuum
distillation of filtered and dehydrated
used oil. Composition of still bottoms
varies with column operation and
feedstock. .
Wastewater and Treatment Residues
may be generated from the separation of
water contamination in storage tanks,
from run-off that contains oil from spills
and process leakage, from process
cooling water, and as a byproduct
resulting from distillation procedures.
Wastewater sludges may be generated .
as residues from the wastewater
treatment procedures. :
Each of these wastes has been further
characterized below and additional .
background information is available in
the docket.
C. Re-r&fining and Reprocessing Data
Availability
Due to the distinct nature of these
residuals, the Agency has undertaken
specific steps to gather and develop up-
to-date data that adequately
characterize the wastes generated by
these processes. Agency efforts
continued following publication of the
1985 proposal, with independent efforts
by the Office of Water (OW) and the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Data and
siterspecific information were obtained
from sampling activities and site visits
-------
48028
.Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules
conducted by OSW in 1986-1987.
sampling activities conducted by OW in
1900-1087, and RCRA 3007
questionnaires for the reprocessing/re-
roflnfng industry completed in 1987.
From November 1986 to January 1987,
11 facilities, including three re-refiners,
six reprocossors, and two collectors,
were visited by OSW to determine
current waste generation practices in
the industry. At four of these facilities,
including one re-refiner and three
rcproccssors, a composite sample
representing all solid wastes generated
by the plant was collected and
analyzed. The feedstock for the facilitie
comprised mixed used oil (crankcase
and industrial) at two facilities,
industrial oils only at one facility, and
fuel oils at the remaining facility. Each
of these four samples were analyzed for
total constituent content and Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) leachable levels of
volatile organic compounds, PCBs,
semivolatile organic compounds, and
metals. This data can be found in the
docket and is presented at this time for
public comment.
Four re-refiners were visited by OW
between September 1986 and January
1987. These facilities used a feedstock of
mixed crankcase and industrial oils. The
results of the sampling efforts, in which
a total of 48 samples were collected,
were published in a preliminary data
summary (EPA 440/1-89/014). The. data
include analysis results of the following
samples obtained from two reprocessing
and two re-refining facilities:,
Sample description
Gravitation and Mechanical Separation:
Filter cake , 4
Lube Polishing Media:
Spent clay .-.
Spent activated carbon „
Distillation Bottoms: ,
Still bottoms
Wastewater Treatment Residues: ' •,
Process wastewater :
Final effluent ..., '.,
DAF sludge '
No. of
samples
4
5
'• 3
7
-' 13
11
5
Samples were analyzed for total
constituent levels of the TC metals,
dioxins, and PCBs, as well as priority,
conventional, and noriconventional
pollutants (as defined by the Glean
Water Act). RCRA 3007 questionnaires
were sent to 80 facilities in the used oil
reprocessing and re-refining industry in
Fall 1987. Twelve facilities responding to
the questionnaires provided data on,six
distinct waste streams. Data from 14
streams are available. In.1987,
additional sampling and analysis
activities were conducted at seven
facilities. A total of 17 samples were •
collected, including seven samples of
untreated process wastewater, five
samples of filter solids, and.one sample
each of filter clay, spent catalyst, caked
residue, storage tank bottoms, and
wastewater treatment sludge. The used
oil feedstock at.these facilities was
either unspecified or a mix of crankcase
lube oil, and industrial oil.
Data from all of the sampling and
analysis activities as well as the RCRA
3007 questionnaire data, collection ,
activity are summarized in Table .• ,
VII.C.1. While several TC organic
constituents were detected, only those
TC organic constituents exceeding the
TC threshold are shown! In addition, the
data reflected high concentrations of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) in many ;of the samples, ,
particularly benzo(a)pyrene, " •
benzo(b)fluoranthene, • ; .
benzo(k)fluoranthene, and . ' :
phehanthrene. As discussed in the •;•._
background document for these, wastes,..
PAHs may present a significant danger '
to human health if present in high . :
enough quantities. In many cases, one or
more of the PAHs were present at or
above the quantities that.may present'a
hazard to human health and the
environment.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
TABLE VII * C.I Used oil Reprocessing/Re-refining Data
Ccfwtftuenl
Bajlum .... ..i.,... .,........,,
Cadmium ,,„.
Chromium ..,.....,.
.«»d *..-...
Ntekta... .....,..i.i.,..
3$nz6n$ ...».»...i
Trtehloroathylene .........
tetrsehldroithylene
Jravlty/Mechanlcal Separatione-
Rlter Residues . . . '
Number of Sample*
Con-
Ana- tamlnSM
tyztd denot-
ed
11 11
11 . • . 11
12 10
.;'••'""' .'*
ii 11
8 8
1/5 1
i/s , ; t
•• \9~: .: S
Concentration
Range
(P|5rn)
0,086-2216
0.037-110
0.094-235
0.28-71536
7.6-280
."•'•' 3*
'690
6.15-1700
Jravlty/Mechahleai Sepa/4tione-
Tank Bottoms
Number of Samples
.Ana-
lyzed
' 3
£3
10
19
20
•2
1
11/12
IS
Con-
taminant
detect*
ed
''•' • 3
20
8
1?
20
a
:1
• "/.»
'.: 12
Concentration
Range
.(pprn)
0.21 - 1300
0.02-50
, 1.2-735
0.02-2370
25-130
6.5
2.2 "13090
70 « 1900
aravlty/M«cHanleal Separations-
Centrlfug* StudgV
Number of Sampler
Ana-
lyzed
10
10
10
.11
-' 8
0
3
, 3
Coil-
tarrilh£,-i!
detect-
ed
•• 8
- 4
8
. ' '• 8
5
0
2
••a
ConcontratKm
Raiift*
(ppm)
i^150:
21 "3810
11-218
19-938
1*11000
8 -"387
MA
100>1l60,
.. 100-7000
, Lube Polishing - ,
Spam Clay ,
Numbor ol Samptss
;" ," ' Con-
A.1*^ tsmlnint
lyzed d«teci-
. ' Mi
12 8
;i2 e
12 12
12 12
12 8
4 4
1/4 1
, i/* ;i
1/4 1
Concentration
Rang*
(ppnij
68-794
0.5-16S
3-746
0.4 - iaw
8-138
fi.812
8.871
2.114
, Lube Pollshlna .
ipsnt Cata!y<" and Sp« i Carbon :
Number of S«mplv«
' ' Co"1.-
Ant- tamlriant
tyj«d d«tsct-
ed
3 3
3 ,3
3 3
3 3
"2 2
2' ' , 2'
1 "b/2 0
0/2 0
•. : .'•' •
Ctnoentratkifi
(fengs -,
•• (ppm)
inn
14-15S
1.1-11
iS -170
8.89-643
' 0.42-317
" NA
, . NA
;s.
s
I
f •
Cfi
cr
ro
'
. '•- • , ';
Cortetltuent
Aracnto *...;.;..
Barium. ;......!..«.,.
Lead......;...,...,..;.......:
Ntofcle 4 .v.
Benzene
Trlchloroethylene
Tetrachlofoathylens
Dtttlllatlon Residues I- :•••
Still Bottoms ' '
Number of Sample!
Con-
Ana- ' tomlnahl
fyzed detect-
ed
'-'•• '11 ••". .'»
- 12 ; 11
13 11
13 IS
13 13
5 4
1/4 \
0/4 6
0/4 . ! 0
• . <; '• •
Concentration
-. Rang.
(pprti)
•••-... 1-6''
6" 1400
07-29
368-15000
1-87
". ' '238.
NA
NA
Diotlllatlon ResWuee *.'"
CoVsd iKaMua •',
Number of Samples
Co«- '
Ana- tamlrtant
!yz»d datact-
. ed '
'" 1 '.. ' V
' '•'..- 1 • ' "• 1
1 1 1
1 • '' • -1 '' " 1-
1 1
1 1
Wi . 6
1 , i
Cenwntialton
- Rahge
(ppm)
" .'• ••'' '*.
390
•'••• • 62
'' S10
81SO
220
. 0.054
NA
0.041
Wiatswator/Trtatment Sludge
Ffocses Wastswatef .
Numb»f ol Samples
•Ana- .
lyzed
25tt7
29/30
'26/30
... 29
,29/30
14/15
SO/24
17-26
13-26
Con-
taminant
detiot-
ed
• --'M
• 18
io
••" 'as
12
18
• 11
10
Concantratloh
. Bang*
(ppm)
0.0084-0.2
0.041 - 14
0001-032
0.004-2
; 0.1-30
0.43-8,8
0.47-73
OilZ-3.4
'• :.3.s«
Wasiewater/trea'tment Sludge
Treatment Sludgs ;
Number of Sampler
Con-
Ana- tamlnant
fyzed detect-
ed
5' 3
S 6
S 6
S 6
e e
43
3 3
2/3 . ;2
-..as; v 2
ConcantratkM
. (totfle
(ppm):
' 2.2-S.3
2S4-103C
1 81 - 71
83.9^2090
0.15-2040
38.5-870
2.8 -628
2.6-61.6
SO.S-1463
•9-
o
S
p.
I
sr
.-on
, llumbor of eamplet analyzod uncertain for aorm conttltuenta. Number shown (e.g., x/y) ehowe the total known camples anaryzed, either X Of y.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C ' '
•s.
CO
-------
48030
Federal Register /. Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23,-1991 ,' Proposed Rules.
Data submitted by Reynolds Metals
Company (see discussion in section
III.C.4 of today's notice) may indicate
that vacuum distillation of rolling oils
used in aluminum manufacturing may
not produce a hazardous sludge similar
to that proposed for listing today. As
discussed earlier in today's notice, the
data submitted by Reynolds for the
sludge was incomplete and sufficient
information was not provided to enable
EPA to identify the point in the process
where the waste was generated. As
stated previously, EPA encourages
Reynolds and other commenters with
similar processes to submit data on the
sludges generated.
D, Listing of Residuals
While analysis of these residuals by
TCLP may capture a large portion of the
wastes as hazardous, the Agency views
the high concentrations of lead and
chromium in these waste streams,
(which are 100-3,000 times the health
based number) as an indication that the
wastes are typically and frequently
hazardous. In addition, the TG does not
take into consideration the presence of
PAJIs, which were found at levels
exceeding regulatory concern. Thus, the
Agency is considering adding four
wastes from the reprocessing and re-
refining of used oil to the list of
hazardous wastes from specific sources
(40 CFR 261.31). The four wastes are:
K152-—Process residuals from the
gravitational or mechanical separation of
solids, water, and oil for the reprocessing
or re-refining of used oil, including filter
residues, tank bottoms, pretreatment
sludges, and centrifuge sludges.
K1S3—Spent polishing media from the
finishing of used oil in the reprocessing
or re-refining process, including spent
clay compounds and spent catalysts.
K154—Distillation bottoms from the
reprocessing or re-refining of used oil.
KISS—Treatment residues from oil/water/
solids separation in the primary
treatment of wastewaters from the
reprocessing and re-refining of used oil.
1. Constituents of Concern - •
The primary basis for listing these
residuals from used oil reprocessing and
re-refining as a hazardous waste
concerns the presence of certain toxic
constituents. As previously discussed,
reprocessing and re-refining residuals
typically contain a number of toxicants
listed in appendix VIII, including
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, nickel, benzene,
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo[k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
fluoranthene.
Of the toxicants detected in
reprocessing and re-refining residuals,
three metals (lead, chromium, and
cadmium) consistently were found at
sufficiently high concentrations in all
four waste streams to warrant inclusion
in appendix VII as the basis of listing for
these wastes. In addition, K152 contains
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b) and (k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and fluoranthene
at sufficiently high levels to warrant
their inclusion in appendix VII also as
the basis for listing this waste.
In relation to the residuals from re-
refining and reprocessing of used oil, the
Agency has evaluated the criteria for
listing a waste as hazardous that are
contained in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) and
that were presented earlier in this notice
in regard to used oil. EPA has found that
these wastes typically and frequently
contain toxic constituents, including
some that are carcinogenic, that, when
mismanaged, pose a substantial threat
to human health and the environment
and may, therefore, be listed. Further
discussion on the constituents of
concern and the potential hazards posed
by these wastes can be found in the ,
background document for today's.notice.
2. Fate and Transport of Toxic
^Constituents in the Environment
The Agency is evaluating the mobility
and persistence in the environment of
the constituents of concern present in
residuals from the reprocessing and re-
refining of used oil. Because some of the
constituents of concern are water
soluble to some extent, they can (1) •
leach out of the wastes in a water-
soluble form, (2) be transported through
the subsurface environment from the
waste, (3) eventually reach ground-
water bodies, and (4) contaminate
drinking-water wells.
In order to conduct a qualitative
evaluation of fate and transport of re-
refining and reprocessing;residuals, the
Agency is evaluating potential risks to
human health posed by exposure to a
drinking water/waste mixture. EPA
examined hypothetical ground-water
concentrations by assuming that,
through subsurface transport, dilution
and attenuation (DA) processes will
reduce the concentrations of the
hazardous constituents of concern by a
given factor. The Agency evaluated
three DA factors: 100,1,000, and 10,000,
These three values correspond to
drinking well water contaminant
concentrations a 1, 0.1, and 0.01 percent
of the contaminant's original
concentration in the waste.
The three DA factors used in this
analysis are intended to encompass a '_
broad range of possibilities. While the
DA factors were not selected to
represent any particular environmental
condition or range of environmental
conditions, they represent, assumptions
varying from a moderate amount of
dilution'and attenuation to a high degree
of dilution and attenuation. As shown in
Tables VII.C.2 through VII.C.5, the
wastes examined pose a potential threat
to human health and the environment
across this wide range of assumptions.
TABLE VII.C.2.—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN K152
Hazardous constituent
Ctdmitxn
Ctxomium,,,,...... ..,.,.... „.
Lesd,.,.,.,..^™,,..........,
BAH*
Bof»(«}anthraccn» „......,
Bonjo(e!p>tono,.
Bonzo(b and WHucranihona.
Chryteno '„ — , ,
D*cni(«,h)anthrncona
Ruoranlhano .....
Average
. \yasto cone.
delected *
(ppm)
; 25
150
1570
115
150
270
150
33
490
Health-based
water
concentration
limit (ppm)
0.01
0.05
0.05
1x10'3
3x1 0'8
2x10'»
2x1 0"1
7x10"'
Basis'
MCL '
MCL
MCL ' " ' '
RSD (Class BJ)
RSD (Class Bj) ...' .....!..
RSD (Class Ba) :....
RSD (Class C)
RSD (Class 83)
Rfd . :
Estimated drinking well
concentrations '
DA 100
• 0,25
1.5
15.70
1.15
i.5
2.7
1.5
6.33
4.9
DA
1;000
0.025
0.15
1.57
0.115
0.15
0.27
0.15
0.033
0.49
DA 10,000
, 2.5x1 0'»
0.015.
6.157
, 0.0115
0015
- - 0.027
0.015
3.3xiO'a
0 049
Calculated concentration to
health-based limit ratios"
DA 100
25
30
314
100000
500000
100000
. 8000
500000
5
i DA
1,000
•'. 2.5
;.-. . .3-9
31.4
;[;; 10000-
: soooo
•10000
!. . 800
50000
0.5
DA\
10,000
0.25
0.30
. 3.i'4,
-. 1000-
5000
• 1000
••'. 80
• 5000
' O-'OS
•Catetrfatod fora>reo dilution/attenuation (DA) levels.
-------
federal Register fr Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday; September 23,! 1991, /Proposed Rules v48031
-* Average concentrations calculated from process residuals or process sludge Jata. • .-.-•- -•. :. - ' •> ' -. . ••-. :... -••',-•• •• - ,,-
.. 'Ratio obtained by dividing assurnerf dnnking wellrconcentfatioh opium
- j . (Bfd), Bisk Specific Doss {BSD), and Maximum -Contaminant fcever{MCL) ard explained in the report, as are the classestof RSDs, Class A. B
and C carcinogens are based on exposure limits at alp'6 risktevel. , ,.,: , .,,.:.!/.. ,.V_ '.;.._, .."-' ;:; ..,. .'V.. ...'..»•', ' -• ..-.",..-. ..-..-
: -.': •'• TABLE Vil,C.3.— SASISTOR LISTING: HEALTTH:EFPECTSpFTHEepNSTtTUENTSOFCoNCERwjNKl53 \ : :
Hazardous, constituent •
Cadmium _ '
Chromium ..-LI" '. „ .1... •
Lead „ •„.--_ -
Average
waste cone.
detected z '
-•-•••(ppm) ,.-'.
' 45
160
200
. Health-based
water
concentration
-limit (ppm)
•-'.: ' OJOl
: o.o5
0.05
..BaSs-V'
:MCU/-..'-
MCL
MCL -
Estimated drinking well
concentrations Mppm)
DA
100
045
1.60
2.0
'OA
.1,000
. 0.045
0.16
0.2
DA 10,000
4.5X10-3
0,016
0.02 '
Calculated /
concentration to tiealth-
,; based limit ratios =
DA , :
" 100
, - 45
32
40.
DA
1,000
.. : ,4.5-
3.2
4.0
.DA
10,000
fl.45
0.32
0.40
Calculated for three dilution/attenuation (DA) levels. , . . .,
Average concentrations calculated from process residuals-or process sludge data. .
Ratio obtained by dividing assumed drinking well concentratiorr column by health-based water concentration limit column, for all three dflution/attenuatipnr (DA)
md Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) are explained in the report, as ar& the classes of RSDs! Class A, B
srisklevel. ', , ' ' - . • .
TABLE VII.C.4-—BASIS FOR LISTING: HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN Ki 54
Hazardous twistituent
Cadmium: ,,,.....„ , ,,, ,
Chromium „ „
Lead . ,. . '
Average
waste cono.
detected*
-------
48032 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday. September 23, '190.1 /Proposed Rules';
concern in oily wastes can be carried
over to receptor points as aqueous
Icachntc at concentrations ranging from
10 to 0.001 percent and 1 to 0.01 percent
of the original concentration of
semivolatilc compounds and metals,
respectively, in the oily wastes.
As shown in Tables VII.C.2 through
V1I.C.5, the ratio of the drinking water
well concentrations to health based
levels is greater than 1 in most of the
cases. The Agency, therefore, believes
that the potential for human exposure is
significant and provides a basis for
listing these wastes as hazardous.
3. Potential for Environmental Hazard
The potential hazards of used oil are
presented later in today's notice. (See
discussion in section V1II.A of this
notice.) In addition, environmental
damage incidents from used oil
mismanagement are discussed in
"Environmental Damage From Used
Oil." which is included in the docket for
today's notice. EPA has identified five
SupeiTund sites and other environmental
damage incidents directly attributable to
the mismanagement of residuals from
used oil reprocessing and re-refining.
These damages include contamination
of ground water, surface water, and
soils as well as damage to fish and
\vater fowl in the surrounding area. The
clean up costs associated with the five
Supcrfund sites total well over $61
million.
VIH. The Agency's General Approach to
Used Oil Management Standards
In addition to the new data and issues
discussed above, EPA has been
evaluating used oil management
standards. On November 29,1985 [50 FR
49212), EPA proposed a comprehensive
set of management standards for
generators, transporters and recycling
facilities that handle and recycle used
oil. EPA received substantial public
comment on the proposed requirements.
The Agency has been re-evaluating the
proposed management standards in light
of public comments. EPA is no\v looking
at several potential approaches to the
management standards. EPA is
considering finalizing certain 1985
proposed management standards, but
the Agency is also considering
modifying some of the proposed
standards and dropping other standards
In light of public comment, additional
data, and/or additional regulatory
actions the Agency has taken since the
1905 proposal.
The intent of the management
standards alternatives identified and
discussed in this notice is not to replace
or withdraw the 1985 proposed •
standards but to set forth options to (a)
clarify or modify certain 1985 proposed
standards, (b) defer selected standards
(e.g., financial responsibility), and (c)
add new requirements (e.g.,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for certain generators and
transporters). The Agency is requesting
comments on specific approaches that
are under consideration and that are
discussed in this notice. EPA is not
seeking any additional comments on the
1985 proposal itself.
This notice outlines the basic ;
approach EPA is proposing for used oil
management standards. The following
sections describe in detail the need to
ensure the safe management of all used
oils, whether or not they are determined
to be hazardous and whether or not they
are recycled. The Agency is considering
an approach, described below, under
which one set of management standards
(with certain exemptions for used oil
mixtures that contain de miriimis
quantities of used oil) may control
recycling and disposal of used oils and
therefore mitigate potential hazards
from all used oils (hazardous and
nonhazardous, and recyclable and
nonrecyclable). EPA has also considered
an approach under which only used oils
that are deemed hazardous waste may
be regulated under the management
standards. EPA is concerned that this
sort of approach, while focusing on the
most hazardous used oils, may be very
difficult to implement. For example,
adulteration of used oil with hazardous
waste has been a very serious problem,
and any used oil may be adulterated. A
system that regulated only certain used
oils may not effectively control
adulteration. EPA also believes that
irrespective of a listing determination,
all used oils pose some threat to human
health and the environment and •
therefore all used oils need to be
handled in a safe manner. EPA requests
comment on this issue. Commenters may
also want to qualify comments on
specific management standards under
discussion by indicating whether the
standard should apply to all used oils, or
only to hazardous used oils, as
appropriate.
The Agency believes that the
mismanagement of used oil may pose
hazards to human health and the
environment. EPA believes that the
primary sources of used oil .
mismanagement and potential hazards
include:
• Ground-water contamination from
disposal or storage in unlined
impoundments or landfills;
• Air emissions from improper •
' burning or the burning of used oil mixed
with other hazardous wastes;
~-. * Soil, surface water and ground-
water contamination from improper
disposal of DIY-generated used-oil (e.g.,
landfill, yard or sewer disposal);
Contamination from improper
storage practices at used oil generator
sites, transfer facilities and recycling
facilities; and •• • • [ • ' -
• Environmental contamination from .
road oiling. •: -\-'
The Agency is considering
Implementing these management
standards in a two-phased approach.
The approach is designed to reduce the
risks posed by used oil mismanagement
while imposing regulatory burdens upon
used oil recycling in a gradual,
considered manner. |
The Phase I requirements proposed
today are designed to address the
potential hazards associated with
improper storage and disposal of used
oil by establishing basic requirements
applicable to used oil generators,
transporters, recyclers, and disposal
facilities. These requirements consist of.
"basic" management standards,
including detection and cleanup of used
oil releases associated with storage and
transportation, recordkeeping ;
requirements (used oil tracking), and
reporting of used oil recycling and
disposal activities. The Phase I
requirements also address hazards
associated with road oiling and
improper disposal of some or all used
oils. The Agency is considering a ban on
road oiling of used oils given the
potential hazards to human health and
the, environment from direct application
of used oil to land and given the fact
that used oils used for road oiling are
often mixed with hazardous wastes. The
Agency is also proposing a recycling
presumption, testing requirements for
non-recyclable used oils, and is
considering developing disposal
guidelines for non-hazardous used oils
to protect against potential hazards from
land disposal of used oils/These
provisions are discussed in more detail
below.13 i ; ...
The standards proposed in November,
1985 as revised and/or supplemented -
today address each of the risks and
potential types of mismanagement listed
above, with the exception of air
emissions from improper or uncontrolled
burning of used oil fuels. Currently, the
40 CFR part 266 subpart E regulations
restrict residential burners from burning
used oils that do not meet the used oil
13 Used oils,that are nqn-recyclable and
hazardous (i.e., listed or characteristic hazardous)
will have to be disposed in compliance with the
current subtitle C requirements for disposal of
hazardous wastes. i.
-------
Federal
Monday. September 2& 1991 / Proposed Rules
48033
fuel specification. However, air
, emissions fi;pm used pil industrial
burners are not-yet controlled under
RCRA. EPA is still studying the need for
emissions standards for used oil burners
and the proper level of controls
necessary for used oil burning units.
EPA plans to address emissions
standards for used oil burners at a later
date, possibly in "Phase IF'of the
management standards.
As part of a comprehensive approach
to addressing used oil, EPA also wants
to promote the recycling of DIY-.,-
generated used oil [including household-
generated used oils that may fall under
the household hazardous waste
exclusion). Currently, DIY-generated
used oils (approximately 193 million
gallons annually) are not widely
recycled and in fact, are often
• improperly disposed. Today's notice
discusses several options for regulatory
incentives, that may be included in
Phase II or developed under a separate
schedule. These options would be
developed to promote the recycling of
DIY-generated used oils. As discussed
earlier in this notice; several non-
regulatory approaches are also under
consideration for increasing the
quantities of DIY-generated used oils
that are collected and recycled.
EPA has also undertaken several
efforts to provide outreach information
and develop non-regulatoryincentives'
for used oil recycling. Several of these
efforts focus on the collection and
recycling of DIY-generated used oil. EPA
has developed and distributed :.
publications educating households and
individuals on the hazards associated
with improper dumping of used oil and
encouraging DIY oil changers to recycle.
used oil. EPA has published specific
step-by-step instructions on how to
change automobile crankcase oil and
how to dispose of the oil properly so
that it enters the used oil recycling
system. The Agency has also published
information on how to establish local
used oil recycling programs and how
service stations and other facilities can
establish used oil recycling programs.
• At a later date, EPA may develop
additional regulatory and/or non-
regulatory incentives for encouraging
the collection and recycling of DIY-
generated used oils should the Agency
determine that additional incentives are
necessary. The need to establish :
additional incentives will, beijased ia:
part on how effective today's -
approaches (or those promulgated;after
.- review and comment on this proposal)
' are' in promoting used oil recycling and "
'ensuring that such reeyclin&is. i; -.••
conducted in!a manner protective of
• human health and the environment. If
. significant quantities of DIY oil are still
not entering the used oil recycling' •
system and DIY oil management
practices bara not altered, then
additional incentives may be . • 1
appropriate.
Under today's notice, EPA is
considering, as one option for used oil
generator standards, a revision to the
1985 proposed management standards
which would eliminate the small
quantity used oil generator category,
while also reducing the requirements
applicable to all used oil generators.
Under the approach discussed today, all
used oil generators may be subject to a
single, minimum set of requirements. By
eliminating the distinction between
categories of used oil generators, used
oil generators may be less reluctant to
collect DIY used oil since the collection
of these used oils will not subject the
generator to more stringent management
standards. Similarly, imposing minimum,
"good housekeeping", standards creates
the most conducive regulatory
environment possible for recycling given
EPA's mandate, by ensuring protection
of human health and the environment,
but taking into account the impacts on
recycling when devising the regulatory
schemes. If EPA determines that the .
section 3014 management standards that
are promulgated in Phase I are '
adequately implemented and enforced
across the board, then additional
standards may not be necessary.
The following section describes EPA's
proposed phased approach for the used-
oil management standards. As
mentioned above, Phase I would contain
"basic" management standards,,.
including, detection and cleanup of used
oil releases or leaks associated with
storage and transportation, '
recordkeeping [used oil tracking},
requirements/and reporting of used oil
recycling and disposal activities. EPA
has also considered an alternative
approach in which no management
standards would be'issued until the
Agency has developed a comprehensive,
risk-based management scheme for used
oil, which would address DIY-generated
oil, used oil burning by industrial • ::-.
burners, etc. This approach may have
the advantage of avoiding piecemeal
regulation of the industry. However,
factors in favor of a phased approach
include providing, in the short term, at
least a minimum level of protection to
human health and the environment from
potential hazards from used oil and thei
possibility of changing regulatory. ;
provisions in Phase U based OK :• •;
feedback from tha implementation of --•
Phasei-Jn addition, much uncertainty .-. •
exists concerning certain key
components te.g., to what extent current
participants in used oil recycling will
remain in the system under a regulatory
regime), and that actual implementation
of limited controls may be the best
manner of data collection. EPA believes
' the phased approach described below is
flexible and may allow for adjustments
as problems of over- orunder-regulation
are identified. EPA requests comment on
a phased versus a delayed/ . -
comprehensive approach.
. As explained in more detail below,
EPA believes that all used oils may
require some level of control to protect
human health and the environment.
Various authorities are available to the
Agency to effect this control. RCRA
section 3014 provides EPA with the
authority to regulate generators,
transporters and recycling facilities that
handle recycled used "oil or used oils,
that are to /be recycled, regardless of
whether or not the used oils are
identified as hazardous waste. Section
3014 does not, however, provide the
Agency with regulatory authority over-
used oils that are not recycled. Other
RCRA authorities, however, are
available and can be applied to used
oils that may be treated and/or disposed
in municipal solid waste landfills or
other facilities. "
The next section briefly discusses the
potential hazards associated with used
oil. This is followed by a discussion of
the basic approach EPA is considering
for used oil management standards to
ensure the safe management of all used
oils, whether or not they are recycled.
The notice then describes the phased
regulatory approach that the Agency is
considering for used oil management
standards at this time. If the Agency is •
convinced that only used oils
determined to be hazardous should be
regulated, EPA may draw on the 1985 ,
proposal, as well as ideas described
here, to finalize management standards
for those hazardous used oils.
A. Potential Hazards of tfsedOils
Past practices for used oil storage,
transportation, and disposal have
resulted in documented damages to
human health and the environment,
Human health and environmental
hazards associated with used oil stem ,
from both the potential uncontrolled
management of used oils,that are mixed
with hazardous substances or wastes , '
such as PCBs and chlorinated solvents.
and the release of used oil itself to the
environment. Past mismanagement of
used oils'has resulted in significant'
environmental damage. wluWthe
Agency has documented extensively; Of;
-------
48034
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules
the 445 National Priorities List (NPL)
facilities having documented Records of
Decision, 185 (42%) have had used oils
co-disposed with other hazardous or
industrial solid waste. These oils
include used motor oil, cooling/cutting
oil, and transformer oil. Of the 185
facilities, 30 are used oil recyclers (6.7%
of the total number of facilities). At
several of these recycler sites,
contaminants other than those expected
to be in used oil were found, indicating
that mixing occurred either prior to
receipt of the used oil or at the facility.
In addition, the 1981 Report to
Congress on used oil includes damage
incidents and examples of severe
threats to human health and the
environment. As explained in that
Report, used oil mixed with hazardous
wastes has been shown to have toxic or
carcinogenic effects on humans. Also,
used oil that is mixed with solvents or
other hazardous wastes when burned
creates products of incomplete
combustion (PICs). These PICs are of
particular concern due to their
carcinogenic nature.
EPA has prepared a compilation of
information on the environmental
damages caused by improper
management activities (see Used Oil
Background Document, "Environmental
Damage from Used Oil
Mismanagement" draft report). This
effort was undertaken to provide more
recent data than was available in
November, 1985. The hazardous
constituents found in used oil damage
cases are those that are discussed in the
listing proposal above and in the
November 1985 proposal.
EPA believes that the used oil
management standards may need to
include provisions to ensure mixture? of
used oil and hazardous waste are
identified and properly managed. Even
used oils that have not been mixed or
co-disposed with hazardous waste may
contain toxic constituents that may be
released during improper management.
If used oil that is not classified as
hazardous is managed improperly, it can
reach and contaminate environmental
receptors such as surface water and
drinking water wells. Typically, an oily
sheen is formed on top of the water
surface making the water nonpotable for
human consumption and resulting in a
reduction of oxygen necessary to sustain
aquatic life.
Several potential pathways exist for
used oil to cause damage to the
environment. Used oil can be spilled or
leaked onto soil or entrained in airborne
dust particles. Further, ground and
surface waters can be contaminated by
run-off, leakage, or seepage of used oil.
Some activities that may release
constituents and pose potential threats
to human health and the environment
include land disposal in non-secured '
units, improper or mismanaged storage
or over accumulation, and road oiling
for dust suppression. Potential hazards
are increased when other hazardous
substances are added to the Oil, and.
existing data show this has historically
been a common practice. " •
Improper management and landfill
disposal of both used oils and materials
contaminated with used oils creates
multiple hazards to human health and
the environment. Used oil that enters a
landfill has a potential to migrate away
from the source and has the potential to
form an oil plume thatcan directly reach
the ground water, float on the surface of
the water, and/or be carried,in a plume
over the ground-water table, making the
ground water nonpotable. In addition,
used oil that enters a landfill jn a solid
form or adsorbed to a solid may leach
and eventually contaminate ground
water.
Storage of used oil can also lead to
environmental damage, particularly due
to accidental releases. Used oils
generally are stored in underground ,
storage tanks (USTs), aboveground
storage tanks, and drums (containers).
The major risks associated with storage
and accumulation of used oil are fires
and loss of stored used Oil through
surface run-off and seepage into the soil.
Both aboveground and underground
storage tanks can develop leaks in the
bottom of the tank that can go
unnoticed. Underground storage tank
leaks generally will go unnoticed until
visually apparent or until detected by
monitoring equipment (if the UST is so ,
equipped). A severe UST failure or the
rupture of an aboveground storage tank
can result in rapid ground-water.
contamination, generally occurring in
less than an hour in sandy soil and just
over a week in silty soil.15,16The
storage of used oils in drums and
containers can lead to environmental
damage through catastrophic spills or
repeated small spills to the surrounding
area. "
Used oils used for road piling present
four pathways for contamination.:
Evaporation, seepage, run-off, and dust
transport occur concurrently; The rate of
vaporization depends upon the
"Background Documentr"Regulatory Support for
Used Oil Characterization."
"Franklin Associates snd PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., "Waste Oil Storage: Final Draft Report,"
January, 1984, p. 3-16. , , •
"Since the promulgation and implementation of
the UST regulations (40 CFR part 280J, these
hazards are controlled through effective monitoring
and leak detection procedures.
-...-. "Ibid, p. 3-17.
individual vapor pressure for the
components of the used oils, the
ambient temperature, and iatmospheric
wind conditions. Seepage depends upon
the composition of the soil and may
occur very quickly in sandy or silty
soils.. A portion of the used oil will
remain in.the upper level of the soil and
will-be subject to removal by dust
transport. Assuming an average daily
traffic flow of 100 vehicles, it has been
estimated that 100 tons of dust per mile
per year will be deposited along a 1,000-
foot wide area surrounding the road. 18
Finally, oils may be washed from the
road surface and carried with the •
rainfall runoff as a surface film or
colloid or be removed by erosion.
An investigation of 25 Superfund sites
that involved the mismanagement of
used oil found used oil coittamination of
surface and ground waters, soils, and
surrounding lands and. crops. In several
cases wildlife damage or wildlife death
has been documented. Further,, over 60
damage incident summaries indicate
contamination of surface vvater, while
over 30 incidents involve soil
contamination, and a few contain
evidence of air contamination.19
Used oil released to surface waters
produces a harmful effect on aquatic
organisms not only by physically
coating them but^also by causing
adverse chemical changes within the
organism. Such damage includes the
inability of ducks to swim or dive for
food in the presence of oil films, loss of '
insulating ability of feathers
contaminated with oil, reduced viability
of duck eggs due to the inability of oil-
soaked feathers to insulate the eggs, and
pneumonia and gastrointestinal
irritations in waterfowl following
preening of oil-coated feathers.2? Other
harmful effects upon aquatic habitats
include the inhibition of marsh grass
growth, increased susceptibility of sea
grasses to parasites, abnormal
development of herring larvae, arid the
killing of various organisms, including
cppepods, shrimp and white mullet.
In addition, contaminants in used oil
that is disposed on land often migrate to
surface water, ground water or soil
where they are taken up byplant roots
ana have been shown to damage .
vegetation.21 These contaminants pose
" Franklin Associates and PEDCo ,
Environmental, Inc., "Evaluation of Health and .
Environmental Problems Associated With the Use
of Waste Oil as a Dust Suppressant," February 1984,
page 3-8. : . . ••,;,..,. .• • .
19 Environmental Damage From Used Oil
Mismanagement, EPA used oil background.
document. . ;.,,!. ;
?° Listing Waste Oil as a Hazardous Waste:'
;Report to Congress, U.S. EPA, 1981; Pp. 16-20.
21 Ibid., pp. 63-71. ;
-------
/ Voj- 56,. No; 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules
48035
a hazard to animals ingesting the plants
andio humans consuming crops that
have accumulated sufficient quantities .
of these contaminants. Used oil
contaminants that volatilize or are
suspended in dust also can contaminate
and harm vegetation and enter the food
chain. EPA notes that many of the '
potential risks to human health arid the
environment from the mismanagement
of used oil, as documented above, are
present regardless -of the type of used oil
that is released to the environment,
particularly the contamination of ground
water and effects on plant and animal
life. ',"-."' ; .;.. • ;, . .:•-;"
B. The Basic Approach
This section describes the basic
approach EPA is now considering to
ensure safe -used oil management.
Comments are requested.on the overall
approach as well as -on specific issues
described below. '.-'•"
. 1. Some level of Control May Be
Necessary for All .Used Oils, Whether
- They Are Identified as Hazardous
•Waste.or Not , •-.,"•'.'
Under the 1985 proposed listing
determination, EPA would have been
able to control the management (both
recycling and disposal) of all used-oils.
Disposal would have been regulated
under 40 ,CFR parts 264, 265, and 270,
since all used oils were proposed to be
listed as hazardous waste. Recycling
would have been regulated under
special standards (40 CFR part 266,
suhpartE) developed under 1 3014
authority. -
As noted in earlier sections covering
the listing approach, data collected by
EPA show, that certain used oils are
characteristically hazardous and/or
contain appreciable quantities'of 40 CFR
part261,. appendix VIII toxic
constituents. Further, as stated in,; ;.-.',.
section VIII. A, the presence of small '-
quantities of oil in surface watermay
• cause fish kills; can cause lexicological
effects in aquatic organisms, and can
make drinking water npnpotable for .....
human consumption. Finally, effective
implementation.and enforcement of a
used oil program may -require control
over all used oils, for example to control
adulteration of used oil with hazardous
waste; EPA, therefore, believes-that
basic management standards may be
necessary for all used oils whether or
not EPA decides to listthem; as
hazardous wastes. .>
v RCRA section 3014(a) does not require
EPA to list or identify used oils as
hazardous wastes prior to setting :
management standards fbrTecycled
used oil.22-23 RCRA section 3014:was
created under the authority defined by
the Used Oil. Recycling Act of 1980 and
amended by, the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendriients of 1984 (HSWA).
The HSWA amendments require that
the section 3014 standards be consistent,.
with RCRA's mandate of protection of
human health and the environment
Legislative history indicates that
Congres_s anticipated EPA's potential
use of section 3014(a) to control both
hazardous and nonhazardous used oil
(House Conference Report No.,98-1133,
p. 113, October 3,1984], The: House'
ConferenceReport:states that "EPA v;
retains authority under section 3014 to
regulate all used oil that is not identified
or listed as a hazardous waste." EPA
therefore believes that it Is consistent :
with both the goals of the statute and
with the Congressional intent for section
3014 that all used oils be regulated ;
under a single set of management :
standards. The following RCRA .. \-
authorities can be used to control ::
recycling and disposal of used oil: '
• Under RCR&.sections 3001 through
3005i EPA has the authority to regulate
the disposal of used oils that are .....
hazardous (listed, characteristic, and
used oils mixed with hazardous waste);
• Section;3014(a) of RCRA authorizes
EPA to develop regulatory standards for
recycling of-all used oils, both, • •.
hazardous and. nonhazardous. >; •: ^ -:., •r_
• The information and enforcement.
authorities provided under RCRA
section 3007 and section 3013 can'be
used to a limited extent by the'Agency
to control usedoil disposal through' - '
inspection and .monitoring. >..- / ,
•• » Under RCRA section 1008 and
section 4005, EPA has statutory v, -
authority to develop.subtitle D disposal
guidelines to prevent releases of used oil
from the site of disposal. Any disposal
of solid waste in a solid waste disposal-
facility that is "not in compliance with
part 257 criteria for solid waste facilities
constitutes "open dumping" of solid
wastes. ;•••".'' ' • v
EPA requests comment on the '
potential hazards of used oil, the need to
control all used oils, whether they are,>
determined to be hazardous waste or _;
not, and the use of section 3014(a;):tbT -•
control the recycling of "nonhazardous"
used oils. Comments are also requested
on alternative approaches,:such.as ,:
regulating us.edoil that is identified as" r
hazardous waste under orie set of T" •'>'"•'
a.* Although section 3014[b) does direct EPA to
propose whether to Jist or identify used oils as
hazardous wastes, this mandate is independent of
the mandate to develop management standards for ,
recycled used oils in section 3014(aJ. . " . ' '
^3 Under RQRA section 30D1, as implemented in ,
40 CFR part 261, EPA can (a) identify any solid- "; "
requirements,,and "nonhazardous"'used
oils under different standards* EPA
requests comment on what specific
differences in such standards maybe
appropriate. For example, for all used,
oils, EPA could promulgate minimum ,
requirements (e.g., tracking, -
recordkeeping, the rebuttable
presumption, analytical plans, etc.).
'which may control adulteration of used
oils; For hazardous used oils, however,
EPA could also regulate storage arid
spill cleanup. Under this kind of
approach, road oiling might be allowed
for nqnhazardous usedoils'.,
2. Used Oil Handlers Should Be
Regulated,Under One Set of
Management Standards to the Extent
Possible ; ,•; .•••..-. , , --••'. ."•'•; :•,'..
Data available "to the Agency on used
oil generation practices suggest that
many used oil handlers {generators, ;
collectors,:transporters, and some
recyclers including blenders, marketers,;
and re-refiners) are small businesses. In
particular, EPA estimates ihat over
650,000 establishments, such as
privately owned :and operated service
stations, automotive repair.snops, and
metalworking shops, generate used
oil.2* Used oil collectors and processors
.typically service a wide range of
generators. The generators themselves
are often unfamiliar with RCRA and, In
fact, jare not extensively regulated under
-Federal environmental programs.
> One way to implement regulations
over such a vast and diverse universe of
used oil handlers jhay be to devise one ;
set of cumprehensive management ;
standards designed to address all
aspects -of used oil management. This
approach would cover all Used oil
handlers under oiie set of requirements
and may incorporate provisions from
various RCRA authorities including
sectionsiOOS, 3001 through 3005, 3007,
3013, 3014,'and 4005, It may also
minimize regulation of the same parties
under numerous zdifferent regulatory :
programs (e,g., some used oils under
subtitle C,- some not, etc). In addition,
this may facilitate compliance, minimize
confusion.within the used oil recycling
industry, and minimize cross-referencing
within different regulatory requirements
covered under 40 CFR parts 257,264,
265, 270, and 280. An integrated
approach would also minimize the
possibility of-adulteration and other
waste as/hazardous if the. waste exhibits a
characteristic of cotrosivity. jgnitability, reactivity.
or toxicify and (bj list any solid waste as hazardous
if the Agency can demonstrate that the solid waste
of concern may'pose sigriiRcant health and '
environmental hazards. •
: -"Temple; Barker, and Sloane, "Used Oil RIA
Briefing: Status Report," May 18,1989.
-------
48036 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 184 / Monday. September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules
mismanagement, particularly of non-
hazardous used oil.
EPA Is, In fact, considering
establishing in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) a separate
part, part 279, for all of the used oil
standards. Various subparls or sections
In pnrt 279 may be promulgated under
the different RCRA authorities. EPA
usually pldccs regulatory provisions
from different statutory authorities in
different CFR parts, (e.g. subtitle C rules
are In parts 260-270, subtitle I rules are
in part 200, etc.) To aid implementation
of the used oil rules, however, part 279
would contain most or all applicable
RCRA provisions related to used oil
management,
3. Used Oil Standards Should Be
Developed and Applied in a Manner
That Allows for Full Consideration of
Recycling Impacts
In enacting section 3014 of RCRA,
Congress recognized that certain used
oil recycling practices may pose
significant riska to human health and the
environment. Congress also recognized
that used oil, when properly recycled,
can be a valuable resource. As a result,
section 3014 requires EPA to develop
used oil regulations that protect public
health and the environment from the
hazards associated with used oil, yet do
not discourage the recovery or recycling
of used oil. Specifically, RCRA states
that "the Administrator shall promulgate
performance standards and other
requirements as may be necessary to
protect the public health and the
environment from hazards associated
with recycled oil * * * conduct an
analysis of the economic impact of the
regulations on the oil recycling industry
* * * ensure the regulation? do not
discourage the recovery or recycling of
used oil. consistent with the protection
of human health and the environment."
The legislative history of HSWA
Indicates that Congress' paramount
Interest in regulating used oil was to
ensure protection of human health and
the environment. Where such protection
is assured, however, "the Administrator
should make every effort not to
discourage the recycling of used oil." **
Today's proposed rule attempts to
balance the interests of protective
regulation and the need to promote
recycling. EPA recognizes that properly
conducted used oil recycling reduces the
risks posed by mismanagement and
disposal of used oil, while conserving a
valuable non-renewable resource. The
Agency is attempting to impose
standards upon the used oil recycling
1 Homo Report 80-198, Part I,. p,59.
industry that Will ensure adequate
protection, while at the same time create
an overall framework that establishes
incentives for used oil recycling. This
approach is premised on EPA's
recognition of both objectives of section
3014, environmental protection and
resource conservation/recycling and its
belief that promotion of recycling will be
the most effective way of eliminating
improper disposal and thus protecting
human health and the environment.
EPA could attempt to assess impacts
and balance the competing interest of
requirements now being considered
through detailed studies'of various
regulatory approaches without :
implementing any of the controls. We
note, however, that much uncertainty
exists concerning certain key
components (e.g., to what extent current
participants in the used oil recycling
market will remain in the market after
the management standards are ' •
promulgated), and that actual
implementation of limited controls may
,be the best manner of daita collection.
The approach described below is
iterative (in that EPA may propose the
management standards in two phases)
and may allow for adjustments as .
problems of over- or under-regulatipn
are identified by EPA. EPA requests '
comment on the basic approabh-for the '
used oil management standards
described above and presented in detail
below. ..'."' •
C. Phased Regulatory Approach
EPA thinks that a sound way to ,
achieve the Congressional objectives of
section 3014 may be to develop;used oil
management standards under a phased
regulatory approach. To do so, the
Agency initially may promulgate a basic
set of management standards ("Phase
I"), and then, at a later date, consider
- additional management standards (e;g.,
emission standards for burning of
certain used oils, financial
responsibility, etc.) that may have
greater impacts on the used oil recycling
industry.
EPA believes that a two-phased
regulatory approach may allow the
Agency to assess the level of protection
provided by the Phase I standards and
the impacts of the Phase I program on
the used oil recycling market before
•imposing more stringent controls. Also,
EPA would have additional time" to
consider non-regulatory-approaches or
market incentives for encouraging the
recycling of non-regulated used oil (e.g.,
do-it-yourself generated used crankcase
oils), that might reduce the need for
. additional regulatory controls. '•-. •
The Phase I standards, as envisaged
here, would cover'all used oils, whether
they are a hazardous waste or not. The
premise is that fairly simple "good
housekeeping" requirements can be
implemented by used oil recyclers that
will alleviate potential used oil releases
without major capital expenditures. The
Phase I standards, by themselves, may
not prevent all hazards associated with
used oil. As discussed below, EPA may
select Phase I requirements (choosing
from the 1985 proposal and today's
notice) ,by taking into account the
potential impacts of the requirements on
used oil recycling as well as their
potential to prdtect human health arid .
the environment. This would mean that,
certain requirements (e.g.; financial;
, responsibility) that may well provide,a
secondary measure of protection are
deferred to a later date, when additional
studies are completed to jfielp the
Agency determine the appropriate .
balance between protectiveness and .
mitigating impacts on recycling. Certain
standards (e.g., standards for used oil ,
burners) that provide protection against
the releases of air toxics are deferred to
a later date, since data currently _'. • •
available to. the Agency are not
adequate to develop such standards at •_.
this time, , ; ".'-,"•••[
Should the Agency adopt,this phased
approach, EPA Would issue the Phase L ,
controls, iand then at a later date,
evaluate the protective nature of the
initial set of requirements and the
effects these standards will have had
upon the recycling market, EPA might
review data received from biennial
reports on used oil recycling and
disposal activities. In addition,-if
enforcement activities suggest that
. substantial mismanagement is still
occurring and that releases have
contaminated ground and/or surface~
water, EPA may impose additional
. 'requirements. Furthermore, if releases
• from storage tanks remain unattended
and uncontrolled, additional
requirements may be necessary to
ensure protection of human health and
the environment. These Additional
, standards (Phase II) may not apply to all
used oils, but rather may only apply to
'used oils:with high levels of toxic
constituents or used oils that otherwise
are found to pose high potential risk.
EPA may need to do additional studies
to determine which oils should be
subject to additional controls. (We may
subject oils that are listed or exhibit the
tpxicity characteristic to additional
controls, or use other indicators of
higher toxicity or hazard.) EPA will also -
, carefully Weigh the increase in potential
•environmental benefits against
economic impacts that may result from •
imposing these additional requirements •
-------
•Federal Register / Vol._56, No. 184,/.Monday, Sept^ber 23; 199l/-;Prc)^seaJRtiles
48037
prior to proposing any. additional
standards, as required by RCRA section
3014(a). In addition, .as discussed above,
EPA may consider .non-regulatory
options or economic incentives to
maximize, recycling of all used oils,
particularly DIY-generated.used oils.
These nonregulatbry controls might
mitigate the need for further regulatory
. controls. '. .',••-< 1 '-,•-'••
SectionD. 3014(aJ Used Oil
• Management Standards Based on a
-- 'Presumption of Recycling.
1. Use of Section 3014(a)Standards To
, Control Used Oil Management
In"1980, Congress took steps to
facilitate the recycling and reuse of used
oil by enacting the Used Oil Recycling
Act The intent of this:Act was not only
to conserve energy and reduce virgin oil
,- demands through recycling of used'oil,
.but also to limit "improper" disposal of
the recyclable resource (Pub.L. 96-463,
^October 15,19BO). Further* used oil
recycling will assist the country In
compensating for a; fluctuating virgin oil
supply andinmimmizing the nation's
dependence on-virgin oil imports. ^
Given this national policy, EPA is
considering disposal controls for both ,
hazardous and nonhazardous used oils
partly as a means to further promote
increased recycling of used oils.
Section 3014 of RCRA gives EPA
authority to develop management .
standards for "recycled oil". *7The
Agency interprets section 3Q14(c)
authority to cover all used oil
management practices preceding the
recycling of the used oil (50 FR 49216,
November 29,1985). At a recycling
facility .or on the way to a transfer or
recycling facility, used oil could be
disposed .improperly, either
unintentionally or intentionally. Health
and environmental hazards associated
with used oil hi storage, in transit prior
to recycling, or being managed prior to
its ultimate management (treatment or
disposal) are similar to the hazards
associated with the used oil when it is
handled at the recycling facility arid
therefore also should be minimized.
Hence, management of used oil from the
point of generation through recycling
""One estimatesuggests that in the U.S., if all "as
generated" used oil (1.3 billion gallons per year) is
recycled then approximately 0.5 percent :
(representing 30,000,000 barrels •oi the petroleum
supply) of the nation's petroleum need could he met
tSource: Nolan J.J.,'C. Harris, and P.O. Cavanaugh.
• 1990. Used Oil: Disposal Options. Mariagement
Practices and Potential liability, Third Edition,
Published by •Government Institutes, Inc. Rockvilte
MD.pg.3J)
" RCRA section 3014 does not provide EPA with
explicit authority to regulate the disposal of used
oils that are-nof listed as hazardous wastes.
and distribution to end users may need
to be regulated to protect human health
and: the environment from potentials ,•
hazards. • , -- ' '._\
Beeause RCRA does not provide EPA
with explicit authority to regulate tha
disposal otused oil outside of a
hazardous waste listing, and due to the
fact that EPA wants to-discourage
. disposal and meet RCRA's mandate to..
protect human.health and the ; .......
environment, EPA is considering an
approach whereby all used oils would.
be presumed to be destined for
recycling, and therefore subject to
section 3014 management standards,
unless the generator or handler can
show otherwise. This means that all
used oils would be presumptively
subject to the standards issued under
section 3014 for recycled used oils* from
the time the used oil is generated until it
is recycled or reused. If a person-can
show that the used oil cannot be ;
recycled (discussed below), then the ^
section 3014 standards would not apply.
The Agency assumes that if used oil '•-"
cannot be recycled then it would be
disposed arid disposal will be controlled
using other authorities, i.e., either
subtitle C or subtitle D, depending on
whether the used oil is hazardous waste
ornot '•-•-•
2. Basis for Presumption
EPA's current data on used oil support
the .recycling presumption. 28 In 1988,
approximately 57% of the total amount
of used oil generated was collected for
recycling. An additional 12% was
.recycled on-site. 29 As shown in Table
D.fi.1, at least nine types -of used oils are
generated by various industrial and
nonindustrial sectors around the
country. The vastmajority of these oils '
are recycled as fuel oil but some of these
oils can also be recycled to manufacture
high quality lubricants. EPA recognizes
that at the generator level, especially in
the do-it-yourselfer (DIY) segment, some
used oil is not recycled, but rather
disposed. However, this iised oil is
mainly automotive oil that can be
recycled.30 EPA believes that the
w In 1988, EPA collected information to revise the
used oil flow estimates used to support thel985
proposed standards and to determine the
information needs for an RIA. The revised
information suggests that, at the generator level, ISO
million gallons of used oil were recycled in 1988 as
fuel. In addition, of the 770 million gallons collected,
approximately 650 million gallons were recycled or
re-refined in 1988. (Source: Memo to K Smith, EPA?
OSWfromK. Dietly,P. Voorhees, and J. Hayde.
Temple, Barker, aSloarie, July 18i 1989.)
" Oftheusedoilgeneratedbynon-DIY '- "• '
generators, in 1988,66% was recycled off-site and an
additional 13% waarecycled on-site at non-DIY
generator sites. ,
30 EPA believes that through public education
and awareness programs developed by EPA (e.g.,:
recycling presumption is well foundpd, in
that a majority of. used oils can be
recycledf.and most currently are
recycled. , , - - •
EPA requests Comments on the '
concept arid basis of the recycling
• presumption. ' •: -
3. Rebuttal of Recycling Presumption . .
EPA is aware of certain categories of
used pils (e.g., watery metalworking oils,
oily bilge water) that may not be
reeyclable..EPA, therefore, may provide
an opportunity for used oil handlers to
rebut the used oil recycling presumption
by showing that their used oil can not be
recycled. Under the approach being ,
considered,'handlers of used oils could
rebut the recyclmg presumption by:
showing:that their used oil is not > -
recyclable in any manner. These used .
'oilsmay not be subject to the section ;
3014(a) .standards upon a demonstration
of "nonrecyelability". Under this.
approach, EPA.is considering requiring -
documentation of "rionrecyclabih'ty" ...".
and records, supporting the reasons for
disposal. The documentation may
•- include a demonstration that.- • " " "
• • The BTU content of the used oil is '
less than 5,000 BTU/lb. (5,000 BTU is the
. mhiimum value for legitimate energy
recovery, as discussed in the final "
burning and blending rule, 50 FR 49166),
• The used'Oil has such a high
moisture:content (>90%water) tfeatit ,:
would not be accepted by a processor or
re-refiner,. •'••".:.;••'":; .
.• The used oilis an emulsion and the
oil and water are inseparable,
• Technologies to treat such oils'are
either riot commercially or regionally
available," or
» The used oil does not fall withhvthe
acceptable range for viscosity ;(1 to 250
centipoises at 50 C).
According to industry sources,31 the
standard for "recyclability" of used oil
is universal, arid most used oils can be
processed and treated to manufacture
either burner fuel, lube oil base stock, or
feedstock for refining. The extent of
used oil processing required and the
cost of processing are dependent upon.
EPA publication: Used Oil Bulletin), local .
governmefits, voluntary organizations (e.g., Project
R.O.S.E.), and others (Kg., Amoco and Mobil have
instituted DIY oil collection programs at selected
.gas stations In certain parts of the country); DIY
recycling could be'significantly increased. ;
31 EPA contacted used on recyclers and
rerefiners.They indicated that any used oilis;
recyclable and the presence of water is nota "
limiting factor; .Recy,clers and rerefiners are capable .
of handling used oil containing any.amount of water
and the cost to used oil generators is a function of
water content. If used oil has'low water content (2-
5%), under Ihe "ideal" market conditions, recyclers/
rerefiners tend to pay 'used oil generators for a
batch of oil.'.-.... :
-------
48038
Federal-Register./ Vol; 56, No. 184 / Monday, September,23, 1991 / Proposed"Rules';.
the customer's needs. However.
available processing technologies are
capable of removing water, distilling
volatile solvents, modifying the viscosity
of vised oil, and fractionating
components of used oil.
EPA may require the above-
mentioned documentation information
to bo submitted to the Agency, or
instead may simply require handlers of
used oil claiming a rebuttal to maintain
records on-site for a period of time (e.g.,
3 years) with a subsequent survey of a
sample of facilities.
EPA requests comments on the
suggested procedures for rebutting the
recycling presumption and the
associated recordkeeping requirements.
EPA's proposed controls for the disposal
of (nonrocyclnble) used oil are discussed
bolow.
E. Controls on the Disposal of Used Oil
When used oils must be disposed,
EPA wants to ensure that they are
disposed in an environmentally safe
manner {i.e., in a facility whereby
potential release and migration of the
used oil will be minimal and non-
threatening to the environment). The
disposal of hazardous used oils, either
listed or characteristic, is regulated
under the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. Currently, used oil handlers
disposing of used oil must determine ,
whether the oil is hazardous (i.e., •
exhibits a characteristic) prior to
disposal. EPA is now considering, as
discussed earlier in this notice, listing
certain used oils as hazardous waste.
Further, EPA is considering imposing an
explicit testing requirement on used oil
handlers disposing of non-listed used oil
to determine whether or not the used oil
exhibits any of the characteristics. Non-
recyclable, hazardous used oils must be
disposed of in accordance with subtitle
C disposal standards. For the disposal of
nonhazardous used oils, EPA is
considering using RCRA sections 1008
and 4005 authorities to promulgate used
oil disposal guidelines. The specific
requirements that EPA is currently
considering are described in more detail
below. Even if EPA does not develop
additional sections 1008 and 4005 •
guidelines, the disposal of bulk or non-
containerized liquid hazardous waste
(those that fail the paint filter liquids
test) in any landfill is currently
prohibited under RCRA section 3004(c).
EPA is considering controlling the
disposal of used oil for three; reasons.
First, as .discussed above, small
quantities of even nonhazardous used
oil, when disposed in proximity to a
water body, can make that water ••
nonpotnble for human consumption, can
reduce ths oxygen content of water, and
can reduce light penetration in water by
forming an oily sheen on top of the
water. Second, there is evidence that
States that stringently regulate the
disposal of used oil have higher used oil
recycling rates than the national
average. Thus, such regulation is '
consistent with the express objective of
section 3014 to promote used oil
recycling. Third, as shown in Table
III.C.5, significant fractions of used oil
are likely to exhibit the Toxic; ty
Characteristic (TC) and therefore, must
be handled as hazardous waste, if
disposed. Some used oils may also
exhibit the characteristic of ignitability
and therefore, must be managed as
hazardous waste, if disposed. As
discussed in previous FR notices (50 FR
49260 to 49267 and 50 FR 49176,
November 29,1985), used oil often
contains toxic constituents that may
indicate that the oil was mixed with
halogenated solvents. Therefore, EPA is
considering using, in addition to sections
1008 and 4005, its information gathering
authorities (RCRA section 3007) and
monitoring authorities (RCRA section
3013) to promulgate one or all of the
following regulatory options for used oil
disposal.32
EPA believes that certain used oils
may require disposal because they can
not be recycled. In cases where the used
oil is not recyclable and the disposal of
the used oil is not controlled under the
current subtitle C regulations, EPA"
wants to ensure that disposal occurs in
an environmentally safe manner.33
Therefore, EPA is considering the
following three alternative regulatory
approaches to control the disposal of
nonrecyclable, nonhazardous used oil:
• Allow disposal of non-hazardous
used oil (in a Subtitle D permitted
disposal facility) only after a
demonstration that the used oil being
disposed is not hazardous and is not
recyclable; or ,
• Allow disposal of nonhazardous
used oil only if the disposal facility is in
compliance with disposal guidelines that
will be developed at a later date under
section 1008 authority; or
32 EPA notes that sections 3007 and 30i3
authorities have been traditionally used on. a-case-
by-case basis for individual facilities. Today,
however, EPA is considering using these authorities
for the broad class of persons who dispose of used
oil, and therefore, we are considering promulgating
national regulations to ensure information is
collected concerning used oil disposal. i . ..
33 EPA notes that should the Agency go forward
with the 1985 proposal to list all used oils as , ,
hazardous waste, this discussion"would be moot.
However, as discussed earlier in this notice, listing
all used oils is not the only option the Agency is ,
currently considering. ;. ",'.,.
• Ban disposal of nonhazardous used
oil using the open dumping prohibition
of RCRA section 4005. . >
1. Demonstration Before Disposal
a. Testing for hazardousfless.'To, . . ,,
ensure that used oils that are disposed
of in Subtitle D facilities, either
industrial solid waste management
facilities covered under 40 CFR part 257
or municipal solid waste landfills, are
not hazardous waste, EPA is considering
requiring used oil generators,
transporters, or recycling facilities that
are directing used oil toward subtitle D
disposal to comply with the section 3014
management standards prior to disposal,
and demonstrate, that the used oil is not
a hazardous waste by testing the used
oil for halogen content, and the
hazardous waste characteristics. EPA
does not normally require parties to
demonstrate that solid wastes are hot
hazardous, but used oil has a long
history of being a conduit for disposal of
hazardous waste via mixing, and
available data show that used oils in
storage tanks contain significant
amounts of hazardous constituents,
presumably due to mixing.34 Therefore,
EPA is considering requiring ,a
demonstration (testing and
recordkeeping) that used oil beibg
disposed either on- or off-site is not
hazardous because it: ; .
• Is not a listed used oil. (if any used
oils are listed), . , •,
• Does not exhibit a cheiracteristic of
hazardous waste, and ,
• Is not a mixture of used oil and
hazardous waste (i.e., it meets the
rebuttable presumption requirements).
b. Control of nonhazardous used oil
disposal. Under the approach described
above, used oil would be subject to all
section 3014 standards unless a person .
rebuts the,presumption of recycling.
Once a party rebuts the presumption of:
recycling, the party must comply with all
applicable section 3014 standards until
the used oil is shipped bffrsite for ;
disposal. To prevent environmental . . :
harm that may resujt from used oil being
disposed (e.g., ground-water
contamination by oil itself), and given
the need to conserve petroleum
. resources, EPA is considering imposing
recordkeeping and reporting ,
requirements to monitor the disposal of
nonrecyclable, nonhazardous used oil.'
As described below, EPA is also .
considering-banning the disposal of used
, oil for these same.reasons.
EPA may use RCRA section 3007 .
authority to require used oil generators
B4 See Used Oil Characterizatibn Sampling and'
Analysis Program. EPA, February; 1991. •
-------
•Federal- Register / Vol. 56, No. 184'/ Monday, September 23. 1991 / Proposed Rules 48039
who are disposing ofused oil on-site or
shipping the used oil off-site for'disposal
to keep records, and possibly report, the
quantities of nonhazardous used oil
""disposed, the mode of disposal, the
location of disposal, and the date of
disposal. The generator may also be
required to keep records of the analyses
performed to demonstrate that the used
oil being disposed is not-hazardous. In
addition, any used oil handler who
successfully rebuts the recycling ?
presumption outlined in section D above
may be required to maintain the
necessary documentation. .
EPA believes that such information
gathering and recordkeeping would
supplement the recycling presumption
discussed above. Current data shows
that most used oils are in fact
recyclable. The Agency may require
information from any person disposing
of used oil documenting that it is not
recyclable, and therefore not subject to
the section 3014 management standards.
In addition, EPA believes these
requirements may promote increased
recycling of used oils by increasing the
cost of disposal. EPA is considering
requiring parties wishing ,to dispose of
non-hazardous used oil to demonstrate
that the used oil is not hazardous and
not recyclable each time the party
disposes of used oil, or requiring a one-
time demonstration only, EPA requests
comment on the approach described
above for .controlling the disposal of
used oils. EPA also requests comment
on the appropriate frequency for making
the demonstration (testing and .
recordkeeping} .that usedipil is not
hazardous and not recyclable prior to
sending used-oil for disposal.
2. Disposal Guidelines
As another alternative, EPA may "
allow disposal of nohhazardous used oil
provided that owner/operators of
disposal facilities follow specific
disposal guidelines that may be
developed at a later date under RCRA
section 1008 authority. RCRA authorizes
EPA to provide technical descriptions of
the level of .performance that provides
protection of human health and the/
environment and to" provide minimum
criteria defining those practices which
constitute open dumping. Under. RCRA,
states can prohibit disposal of solid
waste that is'not in compliance with the
Federal technical guidelines if the
disposal method is determined to be a
form-of open dumping. The disposal
guidelines developed by EPA could .
establish design and operation steps for:
• • ^Controlling down-gradient -
migration of used oil or generation of oil -
, plumes, that couM reach: drinking water •
.sources; -.. ' ;• ••<'• ••• •. • '•••-•••' •' . ., ''
•• .Locating certain sites or
designating/dedicating other sites as
acceptable used oil disposal sites based
on: . ;
—Simple site-specific factors such as
soil type, annual rainfall, proximity to
surface water and/or ground water
sources, proximity to the nearest
human population, and proximity to
ecologically sensitive habitats
(aquatic and terrestrial); or
—Other site-specific prevention and '
detection measures.
Until such time that EPA develops and
publishes § 1008 disposal criteria,
parties disposing of non-hazardous used
oils will have to comply with the current
part 257 and part 258 disposal criteria.
EPA requests comment on the
appropriateness of developing disposal
guidelines specifically for used oil. :
3. Banning-All Used Oil Disposal on
Land
EPA has received comments
suggesting a total ban on the disposal of
used oil. EPA believes, however, that
this may not be feasible since some
kinds of nonrecyclable used oil must be
disposed. In addition, a total ban may
not be necessary because EPA is.
currently developing part 258 criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills. These
criteria may set forth minimum
requirements governing facility location,.•
design, operation, ground water
monitoring, corrective action
requirements, financial assurance, and
closure and post-closure care. In
addition, a ban may be unnecessary
because the disposal of bulk or non-
containerized liquid hazardous wastes
(those that fail the paint filter liquids
test) in any landfill is prohibited by
RCRA section 3Q04(c).
Many states, in an effort to promote
recycling and to preserve landfill ;
capacity, have already banned disposal
of used oil in municipal landfills. The
current Federal guidelines for disposal
facilities do not specifically address
used oil. However, as with any solid
waste, disposal of used oil in facilities
that do hot meet the 40,CFR part 257 .
criteria constitutes "open dumping" and
is prohibited (See RCRA section
4005(a)). Therefore, nonhazardous used
oil may have to be disposed only in
permitted municipal landfills that meet
the revised criteria, or in other solid-
waste disposal facilities that meet the
part 257 criteria. EPA may place
regulatory language in the;used oil
standards to reiterate this prohibition.
EPA requests comment on the .
feasibility and desirability of a total ban
on disposal of all used oil.
F. Other General Changes from the 1985
Proposed Rule - "
. The following sections describe some
of the other aspects of the proposed rule
that EPA is considering revising. The.
.final section of this notice describes the
specific requirements applicable to used
'oil generators, transporters, recyclers,
burners, marketers, and disposal
facilities.
1. Modification of Current Exemption for
Characteristic Used Oil to be Recycled
/ Section 261.6(a)(2)(iiij of 40 CFR
exempts from full subtitle C regulation :
used oils that exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous was.te and
that are recycled by burning for energy
recovery in boilers and industrial
furnaces. Instead, used oils that are
burned for energy recovery in boilers
and industrial f-urnaces are regulated
under 40 CFR part 266, subpart E
(regulations for used oil burned for
energy recovery). Additionally, 40 CFR
261.6(a)(3Hiii) exempts used oils
exhibiting one or more of the
characteristics and recycled in a manner
other than burning from regulation
under RCRA subtitle C.
If EPA determines that any used oils
are to be listed as hazardous waste,
EPA may revise the current part 261
exemptions to include in the exemptions
any used oils that are listed as
hazardous wastes and recycled. The
effect of revising the current exemptions
to include listed used oils will be to
subject all hazardous (either listed or
characteristic} used oils that are -
recycled-to the same set of recycling
requirements as nonhazardous used oils
under a separate part (i.e., part 279).
These requirements will be protective*,
but different from those required for
most other hazardous wastes, as '.'
provided by section 3014 (see the
discussion in .the November 29,1985
proppsal, 50 FR 49218, footnote 17).
EPA requests comments on expanding
the 40 CFR 261.6(a) exemptions to
include listed used oils, if any use'd oils "
are listed as hazardous wastes. -. •
2. Application of the 1,000 ppm Halogen
Rebuttable Presumption to All Used Oils
As proposed in 1985, EPA is .
considering applying the 1,000pp'rti '--* '"
halogen rebuttable presumption,
currently required for used oils that are
recycled to recover energy (50 FR 49176, .
November 29,1985), to all used oils that
are recycled in any manner. EPA
believes that used oils failing the 1,000
ppm halogen limit are probably •'•-
hazardous wastes due to the fact that
they may be mixed with chlorinated.'•
solvents. These usied oils must be'
-------
\
4S010 Federal Register / VoL 56. iNo. 164 / Monday, September 23M991 / Proposed Rules
managed as hazardous wastes (and not
as hazardous used oils) unless the
mixing presumption can be successfully
rebutted (50 FR 49205, November 29,
1985). EPA stated In the proposal and
reiterates here that a mixture of used oil
and hazardous waste must be managed
as a hazardous waste under subtitle C,
regardless of whether it exceeds the
1000 ppm halogen limit. EPA is
considering requiring recyclers to test, ,
using the EPA approved SW-84B test
method 8010, every Incoming shipment
of used oil to determine whether it
exceeds the 3000 ppm halogen limit, and
further, whether it contains listed
solvents. EPA may require
documentation that used oil has not
been mixed with listed.sol vents F001-
FOOS. Likewise, to successfully rebut the
presumption, if the used 6il exceeds the
1,000 ppm halogens level, the generator
may be required to provide
documentation lhat the source of the
halogens is not a listed hazardous
waste.
EPA believes that the testing of used
oils for halogen content can be
performed cither by a collector when
picking up a used oil shipment or by a
recy dor when accepting used oil for
recycling. In some cases, testing may not
be necessary if, based upon the
generator's knowledge, the generator
certifies that the used oil 'shipment does
not contain any solvents. Bo th the
transporter and recyder would'remain
responsible for ensuring that this
certification la correct
EPA requests comment on whether it
Is appropriate to require recyclers to test
used oil. Comments are also solicited on
the frequency of testing suggested
above.
3. Options for Regulation of Used Oil
Generators
Available data show that more than
600.000 generators of used oil generate
between 0 and 1,000 leg/month of used
oil; these generators collectively
generate more than 430 million gallons
of used oil annually.35 They account for
approximately-30 percent of the total
used oil generated annually and account
for more than SO percent :of all used oil
generators (653,000;gcnerators). Dn-site
used oil management .practices of
generators generating less than 1000 kg
per month would have been essentially
uncontrolled under the 1885 proposal,
while generators of more than 1000 Jor underground
storage capacity less ihan 110 gallons
may.be considered a small quantity
used oil generator and exempt/from the
used oil management standards if they
recycle the used oil that they generate.
EPA.es timates that approximately 95
percent of the estimated 650,000 used oil
generators would be exempted if the
Agency decides to exempt small
generators using the facility storage,
capacity as a discriminator. Industry
icontacts suggest that all naon-industrial
generators nf :used oil are likely to have
aaaboveground storage capacity of less
than 1,320 gallons and ;all industrial
generators are likely to have an
aboveground storage capacity of greater
than 1,320 gallons per facility.,EPA
requests comment .on thfe numDer.Df
generators 'that may tie exempted under
the used oil regulations ({i.e., those
generators storing used oil in
aboveground tanks or containers with a
total storage ^capacity l«ss 'than -ot equal
to 1,320 gallons'and/or storing iin
underground tanks of a capacity less
than 110 gallons) itf the Agency . .- V
establishes such a'deHriition'ofsmn'U
quantity used oil generators. As
-------
'Federal Register / V61. 56,
Monday,; September 23. 1991 =/ Proposed-Rutes 48041
discussed below, generators storing
used oil in underground storage tanks
may remain subject to the UST
standards in.part 280, except for those
generators who may have underground
storage tanks of a capacity less than 110
gallons. The UST regulations do not
apply to UST systems whose capacity is
110 gallons or less (40 CFR 28Q.10(b)(4)),
and EPA-is considering not regulating
generators with underground used oil
tanks of such a small capacity. Again,
' EPA is only providing this small • '
.quantity generator exemption to those
' generators who meet the storage :
capacity limits and who recycle the used
oil that they generate. If, in the future,
: EPA assesses that SQG-generated used
oil is not recycled to the maximum
capacity, EPA may revisit this
exemption decision.
The advantages of basing the small
quantity used oil generator exemption
on the facility's total storage capacity
are the following: ~
•. In many cases,: a storage capacity-
Abased approach will allow small
. businesses to accumulate a quantity of
• used oil equivalent to their full storage
capacity {if less than.1,320 gallons) and
. therefore may meet any similar required
-minimum limit for/used oil-pickup set by
used oil collectors, without subjecting
: the generator to. section; 3014 standards.
•-Will not discourage used oil
generators from collecting DIY- , ':_
i . generated used oil. For'example, with a
1,000 kg per month or 300 gallon per
month cutoff, EPA believes that a small
business may be reluctant to accept
DIY-generated oil.
• May address the concerns raised in
public comments related to the small
quantity used oil generator limit
proposed in 1985. Some commehters
. were concerned that many small
businesses would be pushed into the
large quantity generator category due to
the relatively low generation rate
proposed for the smallquantity used cil
generator exclusion and felt that some -
small businesses, to avoid regulation,
may mismanage their used oil (e.g.,
throw it in the trash, dump it on the
• ground or in the sewer).
The Agency requests comment on the
.two options under consideration for
regulating used oil generators/However
the Agency is not soliciting further
comments on the 1985 proposed -.':
exemption for generators of less than
1,000 kg/month at this time; •
'If the Agency decides to exempt small
businesses as discussed above, small
businesses meeting the exemption,
many of whom can be.classified as the
"service station dealers", (SSDs) as
defined under CERCLA section 114(c),
would not be eligible for (he CERCLA
A
section I14(c) liability exemptions for
SSDs. To be eligible for the exemption;
. servicerstations arejcequired to (a)
comply with the section 3014 used oil . :
management standards and (b) accept
do-it-yourself generated used oil. the
small used oil generator exemption '
under the section 3014 management '
standards would be available to those
who recycle used oil, either on site or
send to the authorized used oil recyclers
for recycling. EPA is not considering any
notification requirement to ensure that
small businesses recycle used oil. If, a
"service station" meeting the small ',
generator exemption wants to be eligible
for the CERCLA section 114(c) liability
exemption then, at a minimum, EPA may
require the generator to (a) certify that
used oil is being recycled on-site in
compliance with the section 3014 used
oil management standards and 40 CFR
part 266, subpart E, and/or (b) have a
used oil recycling contract with an
authorized recycler stating that it would
. be recycled as burner fuel or as lube oil.
feedstock. The proposed paperwork '
would have to be maintained at
generator's location and updated as ,
necessary (e.g., if a new recycling
contract is signed). These generators
would be exempted from section 3014
management standards such as,
corrective action (e.g., inspection arid
used oil release/spill cleanup), used oil
tracking, and other requirements, that
are currently under consideration for all
regulated used oil generators. EPA
requests comment on the minimal
paperwork (recordkeeping) requirement
that may allow otherwise section 3014-
exempted small businesses to obtain the
CERCLA liability exemption. In
particular, is it appropriate not to
impose corrective action requirements
oh small generators? (See CERCLA
section 114[c)(4));
4. Dust Suppression/Road Oiling
On November 29,1985 (50 FR 49239),
EPA proposed to ban the use of used oil
as a dust suppressant (road oiling). On
that date, EPA also proposed to list all :
used oils as hazardous Waste (see 50 FR •
49258). Both RCRA section 3004(1) and
40 CFR 266.23(b) prohibit using "a waste
or used oil * * * mixed with hazardous
waste" as a dust suppressant. EPA
interprets this prohibition to apply to all
solid wastes, including used oils, that
are themselves hazardous wastes, ' •
whether mixed with other hazardous
wastes or not.36Thus, by proposing to
"Except for wastes that are hazardous soieiy
because of ignitability; see RCRA Section 3004 (I)
and 40 CFR 268.23 (b). r
list all used oils as hazardous waste;
. EPA was also proposing to ban the
practice of using used oils as dust
suppressants. Even if EPA elects to list
only certain used oils as hazardous
: waste or does riot list any used oils as
hazardous waste, EPA may elect to
apply the dust suppression prohibition
to all used oils. ,
As discussed earlier iri this notice,
EPAmay determine that it Is not . _
appropriate to list any or all used oils as
hazardous waste. However, given the
ability of all used oils, when applied to
the la'nd for disposal or recycling, to
contaminate water and make it non- , •
potable, and given that used oil often
contains toxic constituents from a '-..
variety of sources, the Agency is
currently .considering, a ban on using any
. used oil as a dust suppressant, " •
regardless of whether the used oil is a
hazardous waste by definition. .
Additionally, considering the fact that it
.may be difficult to differentiate between
non-listed used oils.and listed used oils,
that mixing of various types of used oils-
is common and difficult to control, and: :
that mixing of hazardous waste into.
used oil has occurred commonly prior to
; land apRlication,as:;£il:diist. suppressant,_
(causing_serious,damage at .Times Beach.
and other locations), EPA believes it ; ;
may be necessary to ban the use of used
oil for road oiling. EPA recognizes that
mixtures;of usedpil and hazardous •; >;
waste are currently-brought under ; ':••.•
•regulation as hazardous waste via the
"mixture rule". However, used oils have
historically come to be: contaminated
with toxic constituents, that .may. or may
not originate with listed.wastesJA-ban--'•',
will effectively eliminate the potential
environmental damages that may result
from the migration _of used oil and/or ;
hazardous constituents after road oiling.
Since road oiling is, in fact, a type of
"recycling," RCRA section 30i4'provides
EPA the authority to tontrol (or ban) .
road oiling of all used oils. The use of
used oil for road oiling or dust : ,:-
suppression may not be protective of ;
human health and the environment. The
Agency solicits comments on whether ''", ,
any used oils may be used as a dust ;
suppressant without posingpotential
environmental and human health risks..•-•.
As discussed in section IX.G., the .... , •'.-.'.
. Agency may allow some level of. road'.'.
oiling on a case-by-ease basis. For that
purpose, however, the party intending: to
apply used oil for dust suppression may
have to demonstrate through'analysis ;- •
.that the used oil isnonhazardous:ahd ,
.that the land^ area on which it is to be v ,
used meets certain, siteTSpecific^criteria;
Commenters whofayorallp.wingxoad .. - -'.
oiling should specify,how EPA,can / , •' '
-------
4S042 Federal Register / Vol. .56, No. 184 /Monday. September 23. 1991 / Proposed Rniei!_
ensure lhat hazardous wastes are not
mixed with nonhazardous used oil, and
how the Agency can prevent the
contamination of ground waters and
surface waters from used oils that have
not been mixed with hazardous wastes,
The Agency also solicits comment on
environmentally safe alternatives to
applying used oil for dust suppression.
5. Proposed Exemption for Primary Oil
Refiners
In the November 29,1983 final rule
regulating hazardous wastes burned in
industrial furnaces and boilers, EPA
exempted from regulation hazardous
waste fuels derived from the refining of
oil-bearing hazardous wastes along with
normal process streams. EPA also
exempted oil reclaimed from hazardous
waste generated hi normal petroleum
refining, production, and transportation,
if the oil was to be refined with the
normal process stream. These
exemptions were provided because most
hazardous waste constituents are
thought to be either removed in the
normal refining process or to contribute
insubstantial quantities of contaminants
to the final product (see the discussion
at 50 FR 49168), EPA is considering
extending the exclusion to fuels derived
from used oils that are reinserted as
feedstocks at primary petroleum
refineries. This exclusion would
effectively exempt the fuel from the
derived-from provision in section
261.3(c)(2). As with the existing
exclusion however, management
standards would apply to the waste
materials prior to reinsertion. Therefore,
EPA may apply the section 3014
management standards to the used oil
collected and stored prior to reinsertion
in the crude oil pipeline or directly into
the refining process. EPA requests
comment on ihe exclusion for fuels
derived from used oils that are usedas
feedstocks at primary petroleum
refineries.
6. Underground Storage Tanks
Technical requirements for
underground storage tanks fUSTs)
storing petroleum products and certain
hazardous substances have been
promulgated under RCRA subtitle I (see
40 CFR part 280) since the 1985 used oil
proposal. EPA included underground
storage tanks containing used oils in the
universe of tanks covered by the UST
standards promulgated in 1988. As tne
Agency stated in the preamble to the
1088 final rule for the UST technical
requirements (53 FR 37112; September
23,1988), EPA believes that used oil,
when stored in underground storage
tanks, presents risks similar to other
petroleum products stored in USTs. EPA
stated in 1988, and the Agency reiterates
here, that releases from both used oil..
USTs and other petroleum product USTs
cam be prevented through the
implementation of sound management
practices. As a result, the Agency
determined that used oil USTs must
comply with the tank upgrading,
operation and maintenance, corrosion
protection, corrective action, closure
requirements, and financial
responsibility requirements promulgated
for other petroleum product USTs. EPA
' believes that the subtitle I standards are
sufficient to protect human health, and
the environment from potential releases
•of used oil from underground -storage
tanks (see Table VIH.F.2). EPA believes
it is also important to continue to
regulate used oils that are stored in
underground tanks under the subtitle I
regulations to avoid 'Confusion -on the
part of the regulated community and to
avoid dual enforcement and "compliance
monitoring responsibilities at the same
generator or facility site. ..
Although not all underground tanks ,
are currently regulated under subtitle I
(i.e., those with a capacity of less than
110 gallons are exempt),37 the majority
of: the used oil tanks tkat are
underground are currently regulated
under the .RCRA 40 CFR part 280
regulations.
It was not clearly stated in tthe final
rule for the UST technical standards '(53
FR 37082, September 23,1988) whether
EPA intended to include USTs
containing hazardous -used oil under the
part 280 regulations. Although the
preamble discussion ;(53FR 37112) '
indicates that all used oils in USTs fall
within the purview of the subtitle I
program, i 280.10(b) excludes any UST
system holding hazardous waste listed
or identified .under subtitle C from part '
280 requirements. At this time, EPA
wishes to clarify that all USTs of a -
capacity greater than lib gallons
containing used oil {regardless of
whether the used oil is listed or
identified as hazardous waste), are
regulated under 40 CFR part 280
standards for underground storage
tanks. EP/ may further clarify this point
when the Agency, promulgates section
3014 used oil management .standards.
The clarification could be codified in the
new part .279, or in 40 CFR 280,lQ(b).
Again, the Agency is making Ms
"The Agency chose under subtitle I to regulate
all USTs oia.capacity grfiaterihan lU^allons
because 110-gallon levdfioincjdes wathDOTu
definition for minimum portable tank for the
transportation of 'hazardous -materials. In the
preamble to the final UST requirements EPA notes
that this tank size is probably below ihe smallest
petroleum tanlc routinely mass .produced .(275
gallons) and this level probably tonly .excludes small
sumps and other "atypical" tanks.
clarification to avoid confusion on'the '
part of ithe regulated .community and
avoid the administrative burdenof :
having two regulating ageiicies
responsible for enforcement and
compliance monitoring at a single
generator site ;or facility.';
EPA has determined that since it is
not necessary to incorporate the part '280
UST standards verbatim 'into the section
3014 used oil management standards
regulations. Therefore, underground
tanks storing used oil will continue to be
- regulated under the UST program (40
CFR part ,280). Nonetheless, EPA
proposes to clarify that compliance with
part 280 will constitute compliance with
section 3014, and that part 280 may be
co-enforced against used ofiUSTs under
both RCRA section 3008 and RCRA
section 9006. EPA believes that a
compliance with the UST requirements
for the storage of used oil in
underground storage tanks would.be
adequate to receive the CERCLA
liability exemption available to service
station dealers as defined in CERCLA
section 114(c). ,(See further discussion ul
the CERCLA section Il4(c) requirements
in IX.B.2.b of the notice.) EPA requests
comment on whether the, compliance
with the UST requirements would be
adequate to .activate the applicability of
CERCLA liability exemption. Further,, ,
EPA believes it is important to minimize
disruption in the;current UST program,
and section 3014 standards would be
duplicative of those promulgated as part
280 requirements. Comments are
requested on the proposal to continue to
regulate the storage of used oil stored in
underground tanks under 40 CER part
280. . '''. . • ii... r, . : . "
Under the federal UST program, states
have the authority to implement and :
enforce ,the UST regulations. In some
states used oil is a state-listed
hazardous waste, while in other states
used oil is regulated as a "special
waste". EPA has no Imowledge of (aj)
how these states apply the part 280 DST
requirements to underground tanks used
for the storage of used oil, or{bi) whether
the part 264, subpart} requirements are
implemented and enforced for these
underground tanks. EPA requests
comment on this issue from states with
used oil xegulations. EPA also wants to
know what difficulties may be
encountered in the states ithat regulate
used oil but do not enforce the part 280
UST requirements for tmdergrouna used
oil storage tanks. , .
7. Applicability of SPCC Requirements
In 1985,, EPA proposed to require used
oil handlers who were, otherwise .subject,
to the Spill Prevention, Control am*
-------
JEederal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday. September 23, -1991 / Proposed Rules. 413043
Countermea'sure requirements (SPCC)
also to comply with the proposed
section 3014 used oil-management
standards (50 FR 49245). Since 1985, EPA
has further evaluated the SPCG
regulations as they apply to used oil
storage tanks, and the Agency reiterates
here that the SPCC requirements would
continue to apply to, facilities meeting
the SPCC applicability criteria, in
addition to the section 3014 management
standards.SPCC requirements apply to
. owners or operators of non-
transportation-related onshore and
offshore facilities engaged in drilling,
.producing, gathering, storing, processing,
refining, transferring, distributing, or
consuming oil and oil products, and
which, due to their location, could
reasonably be. expected to discharge oil
in harmful quantities into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or
adjoining shorelines (40 CFR 112.1(b]).
More specifically, part 112 applies to
facilities with underground storage
capacity greater than 42,000 gallons and
aboveground storage capacity greater
than 1,320 gallons of oil.
EPA is currently developing revisions
to the Federal SPCC requirements
pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
enacted in-resporise .to the 1988 Ashland
,oil spill. In addition, a number of states
(e.g., ME, NY, NJ, FL) have programs
. similar to the SPCC program while some
others (e.g., OR, AL,_WA) are developing
similar regulations. EPA believes that
many of the large used oil handlers are
already in compliance with the SPCC
regulations. These used oil handlers
currently maintain approved SPCC •
plans and are equipped to execute, . ,
specific requirements in the plan if used
oil is discharged in harmful quantities,
as defined in 40 CFR part 110, EPA is
considering requiring used oil handlers
who are subject to SPCC standards to '
comply with both the SPCC
requirements and the used oil
management standards since the focus
of both sets of requirements, although
related, is different.
The section 3014 standards discussed
in today's notice cover routine operating
practices rather than the response and .
countermeasure activities required by
the SPCG regulations. Some of the .•-.-
differences between the SPCC
requirements and the aboveground
storage tank requirements under
consideration for used oil handlers as
discussed in this notice; are the ''•' '
following:
• Today's requirements would be
promulgated under RCRA rather than '
the Clean Water Act authority, ::
'•• The tank .standards and the ~.
associated inspection and cleanup
requirements that are under1
consideration would cover a wide
variety of tank sizes^and visible
. releases, leaks, or drips. The SPCC
program, on the other hand, primarily
covers large size tanks and the ' '
associated spills that could reach
navigable waters, and
• The basic requirements to.be V.
promulgated for aboveground tanks-
used to store used oil would focus on.
routine inspections and cleanup of
spills. The SPCC requirements identify
additional, containment ajid ;
countermeasure guidelines such as
secondary Containment (curbing and
diking), monitoring controls, integrity.
testing and certification, and corrosion
protection.
Table VIII.F.l. summarizes in detail
the requirements of 40 CFR 112.7 and 40
CFR 264.193 and 265.193. The SPCC
requirements must be implemented in
the event of a spill or a massive release >
of oils to navigable waters, while
RCRA's aboveground storage tank.
regulations address standards for .
: operating, maintaining, and closing
tanks used to Store hazardous wastes...'.;
TABLE VIII.F.1.—COMPARISON OF SPCC REQ.uiREMENts.AND SUBTITLE C TANK REQUIREMENTS
SPCC requirements
Subtitle tank requirements
Authority
Objectives..
Applicability.
Conditions....
The Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Control Act authorizes EPA
to regulate activities that may harm navigable surface waters: -
The SPCC requirements in 40 CFR part 113 are designed to protect
• surface water from oil contamination. ..
Each facility must keep the SPCC plan on file to be' implemented in
response to a spillor leak that threatens to contaminate navigable-
waters. • , "
Non-transportation-related onshore and off-shore facilities'engaged in
drilling, producing, gathering, storing, processing, refining, transfer-
ring, distributing, or consuming oil and oil products which, due to
their location, could potentially discharge oil into or upon navigable
U.S. waters or adjoining shorelines. '
Facilites with underground storage capacity less than or equal '"'to
42,000 gallons and aboveground capacity less than or equal to
1,320 gallons, provided, no single container has a capacity in excess
of 660 gallons.
Must develop and maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
measure Plan for oil spills, which includes: appropriate containment
or diversionary structures/to prevent discharged oil from'-reaching
navigable surface waters. .";...;....
Provides alternative minimum containment systems that "should be
used, rather than requiring specific management standards. Contain-
ment options for onshore facilities include: dikes, berms or retaining
walls; curbing; culverting, gutters or drainage systems; weirs, booms
or other barriers; spill diversion ponds; retention ponds; and sorbent
materials. Options for off-shore facilities include: Curbing, drip parr
and sumps and collection systems.
The Resource Coriservation and Recovery Act authorizes EPA to:''
develop: management standards4hat are protective of: human health
• and the environment. •••'"••<..-••• ...
RQRA requirements in 40 CFR F»arts 264,and 265, siibpart J are
applicable to tanks storing or treating hazardous waste and are
designed to prevent ground-water contamination and other releases
to the environment . ' ; • ; • ••• - :'•
Each facility must comply with minimum management standards for the
containment and detection of hazardous wastes or constituents to
• prevent leaks and spills. .• •• ' ' ••• . - :-'
Owners or operators of facilities that use 'tank ^systems for treating or
storing, hazardous waste. . , , Y :':'•.•:•'.. : .,-',.-• :-- •
Assess the integrity or existing tanks. If leaking remove from service, '
.empty, stop flow, contain" visible releases, certify repair if applicable,
and report releases to the environment : ;
Perform daily inspections of the tank system including: Monitoring leak
^detection equipment, secondary containment system, and external
area, and documenting the inspection. '
Secondary containment must be provided, and must: Prevent migra-
tion; detect and collect wastes or accumulated liquids until'removal;
, meet all design requirements; include at least an external liner or
double walled tank ohvault or an equivalent device; and meet all
minimum management standards. •••••
Art' external liner or vault system must be designed to contain 100
:peroent. of the capacjty; oMhe largest tank within its boundary. ,
Double walled tanks must.be capable of containing any release from'
the Inner tank.. •_ ,-.... :. . , ... .,..., „ ...
-------
48044 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 / Proposed! Rules
m8!immmmmmm^mmmmH*mmammmmamm*Dmm*ffm^*mHmaiv,fm'MWi .u* i tmmmmwmuixaKAmumii*M^mnttmmmima^BE3s^Hm^^m^*eBmaBB&amammmmK mmwmammm!as®m
TABLE VHLF.1.—COMPARISON OF SPCC REQUIREMENTS AND SUBTITLE C TANK REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Enforcement „„„.„.„
SPCC requirements
Failure to prepare a SPCC plan, report discharges .of over 1;000
gallons "of oil or revise a Plan as required is punishable by a 'Civil
penalty of ttot more than $5,000 per day of violation. Failure to
implement a Plan may result in the discharge of oil to navigable ,
waters, which is prohibited under section 110.
Subtitle 'tank requirement!!
In order for a facility to operate, it must meat the minimum manage-
ment standard. Compliance is mandatory and ^abilities are subject to
strict .enforcement penalties for violation of subtitle C provisions.
i
EPA Is considering requiring Ihe
SPCC-recommended secondary
containment options for controlling
releases and spills of used oil from
aboveground storage tanks at used oil
recycling facilities. EPA believes that
ths majority of these facilities that store
used oil in aboveground tanks currently
have these areas designed and
constructed in a manner that would
meet the SPCC guidelines.38 Figure
»• The cott calculations presonled in section IX o
toddy's notice ate based on the assumption that the
majority of used oil recycling facilities would
currently be In compliance with the SPCC
VIII.E.1 illustrates secondary
containment options that are available
under RCRA subtitle C and under the
SPCC regulations. As shown in the
Figure, berms, dikes, or retaining walls
along with an oil-impervious floor
appears to be protective agamst sudden
releases or accidental .spills to contain
requirements {even those not close to navigable
waterways} and those that would not be in
compliance would be required to comply with the
SPCC secondary containment requirements, since
EPA may consider these standards as acceptable
section 3014 used oil management standards for
aboveground storage tanks.
used oil and to avoid significant
contamination of nearby 'surface and
ground water resources. EPA requests
comments on the assumption that the
majority of used -oil facilities Hre
currently in compliance with the SPCC
aboveground taak requirements. EPA
also requests comments on the
•adequacy of the SPCC secondary
containment requirements for
controlling used oil releases, and 'on the
type of material that can te used to
make storage area floors impervious to
used oil.
B1LUMG CODE BSS8-50-M
-------
Figure VIII. F. 1 Secondary Containment Options
SUBTITLEC
EXTERNAL LINER
VAULT
DOUBLE-WALLED TANK
Quick Drain
Spill Prevention Containment
and Counter-Measures (SPCC)*
Impervious to Oil
Manual valve
To Storm Sewer
DIKES, BERMS, OR RETAINING WALLS
(Quick Drain is typically used for off-shore facilities,
urban facilities, loading and unloading) '
*EPA is developing a proposal that would strengthen
the SPCC guidelines as required under the Oil "
Pollution Act of 1990 enacted following the i
Ashland Oil Spill of 1988,
.
CO '
I
I
I
I
CD
I
CD
l-l
to
O
CO
(D
CU
I
(B
W
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
48048 Federal Register / Vol 58. No. 184 ,/ Monday, September 23.1991 | Ifropased Rules
As a result of the Oil Pollution Act
(OPA) of 1990, EPA is developing a
proposed rule that would strengthen the
existing 40 CFR part 112 requirements
and would require additional
prevention, containment, and-control
measures at SPCC-regulated facilities.
EPA expects to publish the proposed
rule before the end of the year. The
OPA-mandated requirements, when
promulgated, would be independently
applicable to used oil facilities that store
used oil in aboveground tanks and are
located near navigable waterways (i.e.,
meet the applicable definition,of a
SPCC-regulated facility^.
8. Accumulation Limit for Used Oil
Storage ,
Table VIII.F.2. summarizes the main
components of the storage requirements
for all regulated used oil handlers that
are discussed in today's notice. EPA,
believes that the storage requirements
discussed in this notice are adequate to
provide a level of protection necessary
' to minimize risks associated with .used
oil leaks and releases feat .may occur
during storage at generator sites,
transfer facilities, and used pil recycling
facilities including used Ml burners.
TABLE VIII.F.2.—PROPOSED CONTAINER AND TANK STORAGE STANDARDS FOR USED OIL
Container storage
Aboveground lank storage
Underground tank
storage
Generators and. burners.
5265.171 (conolttoo of containers), §265.173 {management of con-
tainers), §265.174 (Inspections), §265.176 (special requirements
for ifloHabto wattos) and §262.31 ((labeling).
Accumulation period Hmitod to 90 days.
Transporters
§30 d«ya: 40 CFR 262JJO Packaging Standards; DOT packaging and
t«M*port requiraments in 49 CFR parts 173,178, and 179.
§ 30 day* 40 CFTJ 265 Supbart 3
Recycling facilities
40 CFR part 264 subpart I .
EsMflttaJty same as for generators, plus §264.177 (container/waste
compatibility rtxpAamonts) and § 264.175 (containment)..
May KmK accumulation period to 35 days In lieu of secondary
containment
Labeling; $265.194 /(freeboard and overflow controls), §265.195
(daily ^inspections), $ 265.196 .(response to leaks), and §265.197
(closure requirements)..
Accumulation period limited to 180 days.
Part 265, Subpart J (minus secondary containment)....;.......
Must ship used oil from generator to 'recycling facility within 35 days
of pickup.
Part 264, subpart J- . . ••'•'..'' ^ _,..*'„_,
Subject to speculative accumulation provisions defined at ,40 CFR
' '
40CF,Rpait280.
'40 CFR part 280.
40 CFR part 280.',
In the 1985 proposed rule, EPA
proposed the accumulation period for
used oil at regulated generator sites 39
^to 90 days (same as for hazardous waste
generators). EPA received many
comments requesting a longer
accumulation period for used oil
generators. Commenters said that a
longer accumulation period is needed to
allow for sufficient quantities of used oil
to be accumulated to meet transporter
minimum pickup requirements (e.g.,
some transporters -will only pickup after
the generator's storage tank or container
is full) or to allow for fluctuating market
conditions and seasonal changes in the
demand for the used oil EPA is
therefore considering limiting the
accumulation period for used oil
generators to 180 days. EPA believes
that a 100-day accumulation period will
provide an adequate amount of time for
used oil generators to collect and
accumulate sufficient quantities of used
oil to meet any restrictions on minimum
collection quantities imposed by used oil
transporters (i.e., some transporters may
require that the generator accumulate a
minimum quantity of used oil prior to
collection or may set a fixed price for
picking up a shipment of used oil on a
** EPA t« con»ldering regulating only used oil
generator* that *loia used oil In underground tanks
or have «total nbovcground capacity greater than
1,320 sultans. . " .-... , ,"••.'
minimum quantity) and will provide'a -'• -
sufficient amount of time to account for
seasonal variations in-used oil markets.
' If a used oil'generator accumulates-used-
oil on-site for a period exceeding 180
days, the generator becomes subject to
the permit-by-rule requirements
proposed for used oil storage in tanks
and containers at recycling facilities.
EPA is not proposing a specific
limitation on the accumulation of used
oils stored at transfer facilities that are
• in compliance with the permlt-by-rule
provisions as proposed in 1985.
However, EPA may require transporters
to deliver a shipment of used oil to a
recycling facility within 35 days of
accepting the shipment from tie
generator. If the transporter fails to
deliver a shipment of used oil to a
recycler within 35 days of its pickup,
then he may be required to submit an
exception report (see discussion in
section IX.C.4 of today's notice). In
addition, thirty-five days may be
allowed for storage and/or transport of
the used oil from the generator to the
recycler. A 35-day limit on used oil
storage will ensure against over
accumulation of used oil at transfer
facilities, decrease the likelihood of
releases of used oil to the environment,
and will provide used oil generators
with a level of assurance that their used
.--. oil is reaching a recycling facility in EL
timely manner. Storage of used oil for a
period longer thani35,days at;a transfer
facility may require secondary
' containment for tank-s and.containers as .--
discussed for used oil recycling facilities
(see discussion in IX.D.l of today's
notice),
EPA is not proposing to limit the
storage of rased oil at used oil recycling
facilities and used oil burners that are in
compliance with the permit-by-rule ..",'.
provisions {as proposed in 1985) beyond
the current .speculative accumulation
provision of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) that is
applicable to all solid waste recycling
facilities.40
EPA requests comments on a 130-day
accumulation period for used oil
generators. EPA also requests comment
on the proposed 35-day limit on the
shipment period for used oil
transporters. ,
40 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) defines a material as being
accumulated speculatively when it Is accumulated
"before being recycled. A material is not
.-accumulated speculatively, however, if the person
accumulating it can show that the material is
potentially recyclable and that, during the, calendar
year, the amount of material that is recycled, or sent
off-site for recycling, equals lit least 75% by weight
or volume of the amount of thatmaterial -- . ..
accumulated at the beglnnlns'df the period.. ; -,.•. ..
-------
The standards and alternatives that
EPA is considering for the first phase of
the contemplated phased approach
include some of those proposed in 1985
and some new requirements that EPA
may deem to be necessary in light of the
analysis of used oil characterization
data, review of the 1985 proposed
management standards and public
comments specific to the 1985 proposal^
and the promulgation of other EPA
regulations, particularly the
underground storage tank (UST)
regulations. The management standards
proposed in 1985 applied to all used oils;
as discussed above, EPA is considering
options that may apply the Phase I
standards to all recycled used oils or
only to used oils that are determined to
be hazardous. Commenters are asked to
clarify whether they believe the
standards discussed below should apply
to all used oils or only to a subset of the
universe.
EPA solicits comments on the specific
management practices and alternatives
discussed in greater detail below. The
reader should note that requirements
proposed in 1985 but not discussed in
this notice remain under active
consideration. A table listing each
proposed regulatory provision and its
status as of today's notice (whether the
same as the proposal, modified from the
proposal, or a new provision) is
provided in appendix A of'today's
notice. The table in appendix A is an
easy-reference guide that summarizes
the relationship between the ,
requirements proposed in today's notice
and the management standards . .
proposed in 1985.
A. Applicability
1. Rebuttable. Presumption
EPA is considering applying the
rebuttable presumption for used oil fuels
(§ 266.40(c}) to all used oils. The
application of the 1,000 ppm halogen ; • .,
limit helps ensure that used oil has not
been mixed with hazardous waste (see
discussion in VIII.F.2 of today's notice).
2. Mixtures of Used Oil and Absorbent
Materials ;'..., ; . ' .
As discussed above, absorbent
materials (e.g., sawdust, kitty litter.
baled .hay,-absorbent socks,;rags and
wipers, and sorptive minerals) are often
. used in the cleanup of small releases ,
..and leaks. Mixing TC hazardous used oil •
with absorbent materials for the sole
purpose^f evading RGRA regulation .
will be considered to be impermissible
dilution,under,the land .disposal; ,
• restrietions.iohce treatment standards
have been set for the TC wastes (40 GFR
268.3(a)).
The Agency is interested in knowing
whether (a) used oil can be drained .or
separated from a saturated mixture of
absorbent material or (b) whether a
mixture of used oil and absorbents can
be safely burned. In addition, EPA
requests information on whether the
used oil recovered from such mixtures
can be recycled. Recently, EPA received
information from an entrepreneur
indicating that a procedure for
recovering used oil from used oil-
contaminated materials or mixtures of
used oil and other solid waste has been
developed and a patent application is -
being processed. Based on this
information, EPA is considering
requiring used oil handlers that mix
used oils with absorbents to comply
with RCRA section 3014 management
standards when the used oil recovered
from mixtures is recycled. Other
mixtures are discussed in the section on
mixtures in the listing portion of this
notice.
Any disposal of mixtures of used oil
and absorbents may have to be done in
accordance with the final disposal
standards chosen from the options
discussed in this notice. The spent
absorbent materials would have to be
managed as any other solid waste. If the
material is mixed with a listed
hazardous waste or if the mixture
exhibits one of the hazardous waste
characteristics, it is subject to subtitle C
management (treatment and disposal)
requirements. •
EPA requests comment on these
requirements for recycling used oil
recovered from mixtures.
3. Reclamation of Used Oils Containing
CFCs ; s
EPA recently published an interim
final rule exempting from the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) refrigerants that are reclaimed
(see discussion in 56 FR 5910, February
13,1991). This exclusion was provided
after EPA received information •
indicating that application of the TC
may promote venting, rather than :
recycling, of the CFCs, which are ozone-
depleting substances. EPA has received
additional information indicating that
lubricating oils in refrigeration units •
often contain CFCs, EPA is currently-
considering .two .options for the ;
regulation of used oils containing CFCs
that are to be reclaimed at CFC- :
reclaiming facilities. The first option !is
, to regulate the used oil as generated! :
(and incidentally contaminated with'' .
CFCs) uriderthe section 3014 , ,;
management standards. This.option. : .<
does not provide any special exclusion
orexemptio'n for used oils containing
CFCs. The second option is to apply
section 3014 standards to the used oil
only after the CFCs have been
reclaimed. This option may allow CFC
reclamation facilities to continue their
operations without becoming subject to
additional regulation, except for the
used oil generator standards for
accumulation of the "cleaned" used oil
prior to shipment off-site for used oil
recycling. EPA believes this option will
encourage the reclamation of CFCs,
preventing further releases into the
atmosphere.JSPArequests comments on
the options presented for used oils from
which CFCs can be reclaimed. .., ,.. -
EPA is aware of a research and
development effort underway to
formulate CFC substitutes for
refrigeration units. EPA believes, that
used oils collected from refrigeration
units need to.be managed in an
environmentally sound manner. EPA
requests comments on the types and
quantities of used oils that may be
associated with refrigeration units that
contain CFC substitutes in the future.
The lubricating oils generated while
servicing Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) systems are
covered under today's notice as well.
EPA believes that some of these oils are
likely to be processed to reclaim CFCs
and following the CFC recovery they are .
recycled as burner fuel. In the case of
lubricating oils generated when
servicing refrigeration units located at
small commercial establishments and
homes, the used lubricating oils are
drained from refrigeration units by the
service company staff and the servicing.
establishment, therefore, is the '
generator of the used oil. Following the
collection' of the us_ed oil, the servicing
establishment, as a generator of used :
oil, must comply with all applicable
standards when the used oil -.'••'-'•
management standards are promulgated.
EPA solicits comment on whether
HVAC trucks carry sufficient quantities .
of used oils that;may be mixed with
CFCs that the tracks should be regulated
as used oil containers or whether EPA >
should only regulate the used oil after,
the CFCs (or CFC substitutes) are .,.,. v
reclaimed from the mixture., , : • .
.4. Oil/Water Mixtures ; ••,'•-.'•
In 1985, EPA proposed to exempt oily
wastewaters containing de minimi's •
losses of used oils from the mixture rule
(50 FR 49269). EPA is still considering
excluding such mixtures from the
mixture rule and the section 3014 '•••
-management standards..--.' r,..
EPA is aware, however, that bilge :
waters genierated on ships may contain
-------
•10030
Federal Rogister / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules
significant quantities of oil and
hazardous constituents. EPA Is,
therefore, considering applying section
3014 management standards to bilge
\vatcrs prior to discharge to a publicly-
owned treatment works (POTW). EPA is
also considering an exemption for bilge
waters that have been treated in an oil/
water separator. Under MARPOL 73/78
provisions, ocean-going ships are
required to maintain oil/water
separators on board. Under this scheme,
bilgo water upstream of an oil/water
separator may be subject to section
3014; bilge water downstream may be
exempt. The oil recovered in the oil/
water separator may be subject to
section 3014 standards. The generator of
the bilge water may also be allowed to
demonstrate that the quantity of oil in
die bilge is insignificant and that the oil
cannot be practicably separated. The
Agency requests comments on the
regulation of bilge waters containing
used oil. In addition, the Agency
requests analytical data on the
composition of bilge waters.
EPA is also aware of certain
petroleum refineries that manage used
oil/water mixtures on-site prior to the
disposal/treatment of the water portion
of the mixture in wastewater treatment
plants. EPA's understanding of the
treatment of used oil/water mixtures is
as follows: The mixture is passed
through an oil/water separator to
remove oil. The "oil-free" water is then
sent to a wastewater treatment system
for further treatment prior to its
discharge. The used oil that is recovered
and the used oil/water mixture
upstream of an oil/water separator may
be subject to section 3014 management
standards. The refinery, in this case,
may demonstrate that the quantities of
used oil in the mixture are such that oil
is not recoverable and hence adequately
treated and discharged at the on-site
wastewater treatment facility. EPA
requests comment on the used oil/water
mixtures handled by petroleum
refineries, on other used oil/petroleum
handling facilities, and on the oil
content of used oil/water mixtures.
5. Used Oil Filters
As explained above in the listing
section, EPA is considering exempting
from regulation as a hazardous waste
under § 261.4(b), used oil fillers
containing a,listed used oil that have
been drained and crushed '(see section
V.C). EPA is not proposing to regulate
the act of draining and crushing oil
filters. However, the used oil drained
from the filters will be subject-to the
section 3014 management standards. If a
drained filter casing exhibiting a
hazardous waste characteristic is'sent
for scrap metal reclamation; it is exempt
from regulation, per § 261-6(a)(3j(iv).
Drained or crushed filters that are not
recycled can only be disposed of in
landfills that are in compliance with
state regulations governing solid waste
landfills. The generator of the used
filters must demonstrate-that the
drained and/orcrushed filters do not
exhibit the toxicity characteristic (using
generator knowledge or filter analysis
data]. Used filters not going for recycling
that exhibit the TC mustie handled as
hazardous wastes.
6. Used Oil Used as a Fuel in
Incinerators and Municipal Solid Waste
Combustors
Currently, the management or burning
of any material or solid waste in a unit
meeting the definition of an incinerator
in 40 CFR 260.10 is not considered to be
recycling. Also, hazardous wastes,
including hazardous used oils, destined
for incineration (not burning for energy
recovery] must go to a permitted facility
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part
264 subpart O. Materials and solid
wastes that are not hazardous wastes
can be burned in any solid waste
combustor or incinerator that is in
compliance with the municipal
combustor standards.
EPA is considering allowing the use of
used oil to enhance the combustion of
either hazardous wastes in a permitted
hazardous waste incinerator or of
municipal waste in .a municipal waste
combustor. EPA may .allow this use of
used oil (whether it is determined to be
hazardous or not) to be considered
recycling (/.e., a form of burning for
energy recovery) and therefore be
subject to the proposed section 3014
tracking and storage .standards, rather
than the hazardous waste manifesting
and storage requirements. EPA,requests
comments on whether used oil sent to a -
permitted hazardous waste incinerator
to enhance combustion should be
.subject to the hazardous waste storage
and manifesting requirements or subject
to the proposed section 3014
requirements, EPA also requests ..
comments on whether or inot the Agency.
should permit the burning of used oils
that may be listed or used oils that
exhibit one or, more of the hazardous
waste characteristics in municipal waste
combustors -to enhance combustion.
Also, if the Agency determines4hat this
practice is indeed a form of recycling,
the Agency requests comments-en
whether the used oil.should be subject
to the proposed section 3014 used oil
tracking and storage standards. The
Agency believes that the section'3014 •
standards may provide ail adequate
.level of protection, in this case because
the used oil would be transported and
Stored prior to recycling, much as it •
would be at a recycling facility that
would be subject only to section 3014 .
and permit-by-rule standards.
EPA requests comment on t
used oil as a fuel to enhance waste
combustion at permitted hazardous
waste incinerators and the regulation of
this activity as a form of recycling,
subject to the section 3014 standards.
, B. Generator. Requirements
Table,TX.B,l. provides a brief
summary of the proposed used oil
generator requirements under the
heading "all generators", that EPA is
considering adopting under Phase I of
the used oil management standards.
Table IX.B.l. also compares the
requirements'that th'e Agency is now
considering with those proposed in 1985
A more detailed discussion of the
generator requirements is provided . ,
below. EPA believes thait if .thePhase I
management standards are hilly
implemented and practiced by —
generators, then additional generator
standards may. not be necessary since
the Phase 1 standards may both foster
recycling and minimize human health
and environmental hazards.
-------
•FederalRegister / Vol, 56.'No. 184'/ Monday; September 23. 1991 ^Proposed Rules '-*- V 48049
: TABLE IX.B.1 .—PROPOSED USED OIL GENERATOR STANDARDS
1985
SQG'S
Storage •' •
< 1,000 kg accumulated on-site in tanks;
corrosion protection; tank material com,
patibility requirements,
None..
Corrective" Action
"Closure
None......
LQQ's
Containers; labeling; §365.171 "(condition of containers)
§265.173 (management of containers, §265.174' (in-
spections), § 265.176 (requirements for ignitable wastes).
Tanks: freeboard and overflow controls; daily inspections;^
labeling; response to leaks; and closure requirements. ',
Secondary containment for* riew tanks ~...... ..„..;......,
Containment of visible releases..
Removal of oil and residues?from tanks and discharae
control equipment.' .--,--.,-. ; - •
:foday—all generators '
Containers: 40 CFR 265.171'(condition of containers)
265.173 (management of containers), 265.174 (ifispec-
: -tons), and 265.176 (ignitable and reactive wastes)
AbovegroUnd 'tanks:. 40 CFR 265.195 (daily inspections)
•265.196 (response to leaks), 265.197 (closure)
USTs: 40 GFR Part 280.
Also see table VIII.Fi. :'/ • '" "..
Containers: 40 CFR 265,171V • •, ; :
Aboveground tanks: 40 CFR 265.196 and 265 15fc) • '•
USTs: 40 CFR part 280. Subpart E & F. ' ;. ,
Aboveground tanks: :40CFR 265.197 -•'-:--•-'''--•-•..-.,•
USTs: 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart G & H. .' .>.
TABLE IX.B.1.—PROPOSED USED OIL GENERATOR STANDARDS
1985
SQG's
None.....
Preparedness and Prevention
None...
Tracking
None...
Ftecordkeeping
None.
Reporting
LOG'S
Telephone, fire extinguishers, "absorbents: Requirements
for emergency coordinator .and arrangements with' local
authorities; personnel training' and emergency jjrdce-
§265, Subpart'.B (hazardous waste roanifestyand §262.42
(excepttori reporting) or recycling [Contract with, author-
ized recycling facility.; Also pretranspoii requirements'
§262.30 (packaging), §262.31 .' (labeling). 1§26232
(marking); §262.33 (placarding); ' '' ' ~?\
Operating record for each shipment, including: name ad-
dress, and EPA ID number of transporter;;'quanffiy of
used oil shipped; and date of shipment . :
No requirements^.....
—• ' •.
'column i
Today—all generators'
Same as proposed for LQGs.
'Collection log signed by generator and transporter - regard-
^•less-of the; existence of a recycling agreement; (Two
. .additional options under consideration): •,'•..-
Sarhe-as proposed for LQGs.
Reporting required only for disposal.
ca^JSfa^lhl^Jf"!^9'? Sr to aj! generators wfth underground tanks or
capacitv less than 660 gallons), .depending upon the regulatory option that EPA
. As discussed previously in VIII.F 7-
and VHI^,8.^RA. is considering... •
exempting-used-oil generators that have
a total abdveground storage capacity
less, than a,320fgallons^frqm the used oil
generator standards. EPA believes that-
this is onejvayLtp,exempt only the
.smallest businesses from.the used oil
management standards. If EPA
promulgates the.proposed definition of
. small quantity used oil generator ;
discussed above, generators meeting the
definition of. a small quantity used oil <
generator will be .exempt from the
generator standards discussed below
and presented in Table IX.B.1. All
exempted generators, however, would
have to recycle the used-oil they
generate, either by burning the used oil
onrsite for energy .recovery or by
•.shipping it,off-site for recycling. The •/-•••
proposed exemption for small quantity
. geoeratoTs of used oil will not be
applicable if used oil is :not recycled.
1. Storage in Cohtainers and Tanks
As evident throughout today's notice,
the storage standards that EPA is
considering for the different segments of
the; used oil industry ^are customized; to
fit the potential risks associated with
used oil handling..EPA believes: that the
. storage standards address the potential
hazards associated with used oil. They
are developed such that used oil storage
, and associated leaks and spills are .
monitored on an on-going basis .(i.e., .-
daily or weekly inspections) and " •
releases are cleaned up. EPA believes
that the specific requirements discussed .
below for different categories of used oil
handlers are.environmentally protective
and are very .similar to those that are
currently practiced by-reputable used oil
•handlers. •. .,,, • • _ : ---•.: ; .".
Note that the Spill Prevention, .
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
requirements in 40 CFR part 112 and:the
underground storage tank (UST) '
standards in 40 CFR part. 280 also apply
to used :oil handlers meeting the ".
applicability criteria for these
regulations. Also; regardless of whether
EPA-promulgates a^^ definition of small
quantity used oil generator, all used oil
genera tors Storing used oil in ; : ,
• underground tanks with a capacity of
llO.gallons; or greater must comply with
the Part 280. UST standards. The : '
following section discusses the storage
requirements that EPA is currently
considering for used oU generators;
Specific storage requirements for other
types of used oil handlers are discussed
in'later sections of today's notice:
• a.: Storage in Containers: Under the
1985 proposal, large quantity generators
would be required to comply with '
selected-40 CFR part 265, subpart I
standards (50 FR 49252, November 29,
1985) for used oil container storage, EPA
may require all used oil generators to l
-------
48050
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 184 •/
prapose .Rules
comply with Ihe same container
standards proposed in 1985 for large
generators (see Table IX.B.l). These
basic "minimum technical"
requirements would ensure that
containers (a) remain closed and are not
damaged or leaking, (b) are properly
labeled, (c) are inspected For leaks and
releases on a routine basis ^preferably
daily), and (d) immediate cleanup is
undertaken when a release occurs.
As discussed previously In sections
V1H.F.7 and VI1I.F.8, EPA is considering
exempting used oil generators that have
a total aboveground storage capacity of
less than 1,320 gallons from the used oil
management standards. EPA believes
that this approach may exempt the
smallest businesses from the used oil
generator standards. EPA is considering
including the capacity of any containers
storing used oil on-site in the 1,320
gallon capacity limit for small quantity
used oil generators. For example, if a
generator has five containers with a
total capacity of 275 gallons (5x55
gallons) on-site and a single
aboveground tank with a capacity of 660
gallons, then the total storage capacity
at the site meets the exemption limit
since the total aboveground storage
capacity is less than 1,320 gallons. EPA
requests comment on whether container
storage capacity should be included as
part of the total aboveground storage
capacity for defining the small quantity
used oil generator exemption.
As discussed above, the Agency
presumes that all used oils are destined
for recycling, unless the presumption of
recycling can be rebutted. Therefore,
EPA will presume that any container of
used oil at a generator site is subject to
the proposed regulations as discussed
here.
EPA requests comment on the
container standards proposed for used
ofl generators. EPA also requests
comment on the proposed exemption for
small quantity used oil generators and
on whether small quantity used oil
generators should be exempt from the
proposed container standards.
b. Storage in Aboveground Tanks. On
November 29,1985, EPA proposed a set
of standards for all tanks used to store
used oil (50 KR 49251 through 49254 and
49256). At the time, EPA proposed to
pattern the tank requirements after the
(then proposed) hazardous waste tank
standards. The storage requirements
outlined in the 1985 proposal are
summarized below. Since 1985,
additional technical requirements
(including design, installation, operating,
release response and detection,
secondary containment, closure, and
corrective action requirements) have
b«cn promulgated for tanks used to
store hazardous waste under 40 CFR
parts 264 and 265, subpart J. The 1985
proposal specified the following tank
storage standards:
• Small quantity generators (Less than
1,000 kg/month of used oil] must store
used oil in tanks that meet the Subtitle I
"interim prohibition" on installing
unprotected tanks; :
• Large quantity generators, owners
and operators of transfer facilities,'and
owners and operators of recycling
'facilities (including used oil burning
facilities) had to comply with the then
existing 40 CFR part 265, subpart J •
standards. 4l
The 1985 proposal requested comment
on secondary containment requirements
for new aboveground tanks located at
large quantity generators, and at
transfer and recycling facilities. The
1985 proposed aboveground tank
storage requirements were based on the
fact that all used oils would have been
designated as listed hazardous wastes.
The used oil management standards
that are being considered at present are
for all recycled used oils, only a portion
of which may or may not he listed or
identified as hazardous waste. With this
in mind, EPA re-evaluated the 1985-
proposed used oil storage standards and
concluded that the then proposed
storage requirements for large quantity
generators may be excessive and may
need to be modified or replaced with
requirements that are compatible with a
broad universe of used, oil handlers. EPA
is therefore considering the following
approach for .used oil.storage . :- .
requirements.
First, EPA is considering the deferral
of any secondary containment
requirements for used oil storage tanks
at generator sites. Comments received ,
on the 1985 proposal indicate that the
costs of upgrading generators' tanks
may seriously affect used oil recycling
(i.e.. API and NORA indicated that
secondary containment was too
expensive and does not provide
significant additional environmental
benefit). In addition, only a limited
number of used oil handlers iave used
oil that may be identified or listed as
hazardous, and full secondary . .
containment may not be necessary for
the diverse universe of used oil
generators, particularly since EPA is ,
considering requiring daily inspection of
tanks and immediate cleanup of
releases. In addition, used oils are
41 Part 285. Sufapart^ nas Deen amended since
the 1985 proposal by the addition of secondary
containment and other requirements (See 51FR
25479. July 14,19B3). The pre-Existing tank
standards, however, remain in Section 265.201 for
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste.
generally not corrosive and thus waste/
tank compatibility problems do not
arise. ;
Therefore, EPA may finalize selected
1985-proposed tank standards (minus
secondary containment) for
aboveground tank storage ;for used oil
generators (50 FR 49251). These are:
* Inspection of all tanks for tank
damage, tank rupture, tank condition,
and leaks; ,,
• Cleanup of visible releases, leaks,
or drips around the storage units;
• Requirements for storage of
ignitable used oil;
• Labeling requirements for
aboveground tanks demonstrating "used
oil" storage;
• Freeboard controls for open tanks;
• Overflow controls (e.g., automatic
cut-off) for continuously-fed tanks; and
• Closure (remove all used oil from
tanks, discharge control equipment, and
discharge confinement structures, if
present). | ' ' . • ,
These requirements take into account
that many or most used oil .generators
are small businesses and therefore, may
experience an undue economic burden.
'The storage requirements under
.consideration are similar to those
.applicable to generators of between 100
and 1,000 kg/month accumulating
hazardous waste in tanks (40 CFR
265.201, 51 FR 25479, July 14,1986). EPA
believes that the requirements listed
.above provide adequate control against
health and environmental hazards
associated with used oil (storage. The
requirements identified above ensure
" against .releases and spills that may
occur during used oil handling and
storage in aboveground tanks. These
requirements are designed to minimize •
potential risks to human health and the
environment '-, . , . . "j .. . ' .; .'
The proposed requirements are
similar to some of the controls.many
facilities may have in place.under the
Spill Prevention, Control, and ;
Countermea&ure (SPCC) program .(40
CFR part 112, .36 FR 34165, December 1'.,
1973). It is important to note that the .
SPCC standards are applicable 'Only to
facilities with a total und erground
storage,capacity of greater than 42,000
gallons, or an abov.eground storage
capacity of greater .than 1,320 gallons.
Furthermore, the SPCC requirements are
applicable only .to those facilities which
reasonably have thejjotential to
discharge oil into or uoon the navigable
waters of the United States and
adjoining shorelines. ',
When used oil management standards
are .promulgated, bath the SPCC and the
used oil tank standards i/vill apply
independently. EPA does not believe the.
-------
two programs, contain conflicting
provisions.. While the proposed
requirements in .today's notice for
abovegrpund usedqij storage tanks are
similar to those of the SPCC program,
some differences do exist as shown in
section VIH.F.7.; /
The special requirements proposed in
1985 for aboyeground tank systems that
are leaking or otherwise unfit for use (50
FR 49253) may be promulgated as
proposed; New or replacement tanks
.would be subject to the same standards
discussed above. . •,<
The Agency believes that the • :
; requirements Being considered for Phase
I can adequately minimize human health
and environmental risks associated with
routine storage procedures without
excessive, economic burden oil small
businesses at this time. These
requirements should be sufficient to
protect against spills, and releases ,
associated with normal operations. They
may riot, however, be adequate, to
ensure against unforeseen events.
However,'the probability of the - ' •'
occurrence of such events is very ,
minimah.Ifj as discussed above, used oil
management standards are implemented
in two phases, and after the Phase 1
requirements are in place, experience
suggests that additional controls (e.g.,
"• secondary.contamment, integrity testing
and certification, and monitoring
. controls) are necessary to prevent spills
and releases of used oil into the
.; environment, then EPA may-consider ,
such controls for all aboveground, tanks
used to store used oil!'.1
Comments are requested on the
approach discussed here for managing
used oils, stored in aboveground tanks.
e..Storage• in Underground'Tanks. As
explained above, generators storing
used oil in underground storage tanks
must continue to comply with the 40
CFR Part 280 standards for'underground
tanks as they were promulgated in 1988.
2. Release Detection and Cleanup
Response -. • , . ,
; a. Detection and Cleanup of Releases
and Leaks During Storage and Transfer.
Based on the potential for small
quantities of used oil to contaminate
water supplies,: EPA believes that it is
necessary to control releases or leaks
(in addition to surface spills) that may
occur during routine used oil collection,
storage, and transfer operations.
Through inspection.and cleanup
requirements, EP1 A believes that the • '•'.
potential contamination associated with
storage and transfer could be effectively
controlled.ahd mitigated..; ">'••• "\
The proposed requirements for
.containers,and tanks discussed above
specify inspection requirements for
detecting releases of used oil around the'
storage units. In.the case of containers
and aboveground tanks, these
requirements implicitly require cleanup
of releases. Spills and leaks not cleaned
up could be viewed as illegal disposal of
solid (or hazardous) waste. EPA '
believes that specific, explicit :
requirements for the detection and
cleanup of releases of used oil may be
appropriate, since they: • ,
• Are likely to occur during normal
operation (i.e., pouring of used oil into
containers arid tanks, transferring used
oil to. collection trucks or to storage
tanks at recycling facilities), and ;. /•;• V
.•'•• May remain undetected and
uncontrolled if tanks and containers are
not inspected regularly. -'-.- •: • • ,
In addition, EPA believes that . ••,-••
inspections for detecting visible -.'-•
releases, drips, and leaks arid cleanup
using absorbent materials are "good '
housekeeping" practices and is , °
proposing that all used oil generators
comply with these requirements; Many
large generators have instituted them'as
part of employee training and^site
maintenance prograrns. EPA believes .
that such "good housekeeping" '
measures .are critical for employee
health and safety as well as public
health arid environmental protection, i '
EPA requests comriients on the
requirements under consideration to,
address releases in areas around'the
; storage units. EPA also requests
comment on whether facility-based
employee-training programs for
:. detection and cleanup of leaks and
small releases are needed arid should be
required in the regulations.,:
b. Generator Spill Clean-up
Requirements and CERCLA Liability. A
separate issue that is related to the used
oil storage requirements is the issue of
off-site liability under-the
Comprehensive Environmental .
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) for generators of used oil.
Under CERCLA section 114, "service
station dealers" 42 who manage used oil
in accordance with conditions in ~ •
CERCLA section 11.4(c) are not liable,
under CERCLA section 1Q7 (a)(3) or .
(a)(4), for response costs or damages
resulting from threatened.or actual off-
site used oil releases.,One of the -;'
conditions for relief from liability in L \
"Section 114 of CERCIA (as amended.by SARA)
defines a "service station dealer" as "any person _;
'where a significant percentage of the gross :
revenue of the establishment is derived from the '
fueling, repairing, or Servicing'of motor vehicles" ;
and accepts DIY generated used oil. Section 114 *
also includes within the definition of service station
dealer, "any government agency that establishes a
facility solely for the purpose, of accepting recycled
oil" from households.and other DIY generators.7 "
CERCLA section Il4(c) is that the
-service: station dealer comply with • •
RCRA section 3014 management
. Standards, including "corrective action"
(which EPA interprets, in this context, to
; mean simply release response and
remediation) requirements. The
CERCLA section 114(c) exemption will
be effective when the RCRA section ,
3014 regulations that include RCRA
Subtitle C OJF I requirements to conduct
corrective actions are promulgated. EPA^
has concluded that the RCRA section
3014 generator standards must include
release cleanup requirements to activate
the CERCLA section 114(c) provision. ;
1 Generators storing in underground tanks
are subject to part 280 cleanup '.;'
requirements. Since EPA is today
considering in relying on the part 280 ~ '
standards as being sufficiently
protective against the human health and
; environment threats in lieu of different
standards under section 3014, EPA
believes that the 1988 promulgation of
the part 280 requirements should be
considered to have activated CERCLA
section 114(c) for generators with USTs
arid no other tanks, containers, or other
storage units. EPA requests comment on
this point particularly, whether the
section 114(c) exemption only should'
take effect prospectively when the :
Phase I management standards take
effect. . . ••-'
EPA is now considering what
requirements will activate the
, provisions for used oil generators (arid
: "service stations") that store "used oil in
either containers or aboveground'tanks.
EPA is considering applying the basic
spill cleanup requirements proposed on
November 29,1985 (50 FR 49253) to; used
oil generators that store used oil in
containers and tanks. These '"'.-.-
requirements are essentially the same as
the cleanup requirements provided in
§ 265.196 and include removal of used
oil from the tank system, removal of the
tank from use, and containment of
visible releases^ Such standards would.
require generators, in the event of a
spill, to contain the flow of oil to the
extent possible and, as sppn as
practical, to clean up the oil and any
contaminated materials, soils, ground
watersi and surface waters (see'
proposed.40 CFR 266.41(c)(6)(v), 50 FR
49253, November 29,1985). :
Other provisions proposed for used oil
generators in Noyeniber 1985 entailed :
routine inspection of containers and
tanks, and mitigation of any problems
discpvered (e.g., leaking containers) (50
FR 49221!' and 49229). Taken together,
EPA believes that, if promulgated, these
cleanup requirements may be adequate
to activate the CERGLA section 114(c) ,
-------
480S
Federal Register / V°?L^L:^°' H!JJ^£S^L^£^mt>r 2?''1^1 ^
liability exemption. Furthermore, the
regulations would specify that
compliance with part 280 corrective
action requirements for underground
storage tanks satisfies the section 3014
corrective action requirement, and that
service station dealers cleaning up
releases in compliance with the part 280
standards would be eligible for the
CERCLA section 114(c) liability
exemption.
If EPA chooses not to regulate used oil
generators who have a total on-site
aboveground storage capacity of less
than 1,320 gallons, or one aboveground
tank or container with a capacity less
than or equal to 060 gallons, service
station dealers meeting the definition of
on exempt small quantity used oil •
generator will not be eligible for the
CERCLA section 114 exemption, since
these generators may not have to
comply with the used oil management
standards, including spill and release
cleanup requirements, promulgated
under section 3014.
EPA requests comments on the
proposed spill and release cleanup
requirements, and requests information
on any alternative ways to activate the
CERCLA section 114[c) liability
exemption for used oil generators.
3. Generator Identification (ID) Numbers
In 1985, EPA proposed to require all
generators of greater than 1,000kg/
month of used oil to obtain an EPA ID
number [see proposed § 266.41(b), 51FR
49252, November 29,1985). However,
EPA is now considering dropping this
requirement. EPA believes that
reviewing notification forma and
assigning ID numbers to all used oil
generators who store more than 1,320
gallons in above ground used oil tanks
and containers would be resource
Intensive (based on the information
collected for the 1985 proposal). EPA
believes that used oil generated by
regulatftd generators will be recycled
and monitored by a chain of used oil
handlers once it leaves the generator
site and, hence, notification and ID
numbers will not be necessary.
Since the Agency primarily uses ID
numbers to identify the .regulated
universe of generators and collect
generator-specific information, and
since the Agency can obtain such
information (e.g., type of generator and
quantities of used oil generated) from
transporters and used oil recyclers, the
Agency believes that it may not be
necessary to require used oil generators
to obtain ID numbers. The tracking
alternatives discussed below may also
minimize the need for notification and
ID numbers. Therefore, EPA is
considering eliminating the notification
and EPA ID number requirements for all
used oil generators. As discussed below,
EPA is, however, considering requiring
all used oil generators to maintain
collection logs, as records of used oil
shipments, and keep them on file for at,
least three years from the date of
shipment. In addition, a generator
shipping hazardous used oil -off-site for
disposal must comply with 'the current
regulations for identification numbers in
§ 262.12 and the subpart B requirements
for manifesting.
EPA requests comment on the .
possible elimination of the EPA
identification number and notification
requirement for used oil generators who
do not send hazardous used oils off-site
for disposal.
4. Generator Tracking of Used Oil
Shipments Off-site
The November 29,1985 proposal
included requirements to track or .keep
records of all used oils sent off-site for
recycling (50 FR 49254, November 29,
1985). Generators were required to
comply with the pre-transport
requirements of 40 CFR 262.30 to 262.33
and the generator and transporter were
required to manifest the shipment using
the hazardous waste manifest, unless
the generator had a written recycling
agreement with an authorized used oil
recycling facility (50 FR 49253). The
proposed listing may have caused used
oil destined for disposal to "be
manifested as a hazardous waste. ' .
However, in contrast, if a generator had
a written agreement with a recycler,
only recordkeeping and notification
requirements were required for off-site
shipments of used oil. 43The Agency's
1985 proposal was an attempt to balance
the need for an adequate xecordkeeping
and tracking system and comply with
the mandate of RCRA section 3014(c) to
minimize the regulatory burden on used
oil .generators and transporters.
Comments were received following
the publication of the 1985 proposal that
indicated that EPA should provide
greater specificity on the proposed used
oil tracking system. As discussed above,
EPA is considering alternatives that
involve the maintenance of a collection
log by used oil generators and
transporters, regardless of the existence
of a recycling contract. The alternatives
that the Agency is currently considering
for used oil tracking from generators to
"RCRA 5 3014 .prohibits EPA from requiring
generators to comply with manifest requirement* if
a contract betweenfhe generator and an authorized
recycler is in,place.
recyclers are discussed here and the
associated advantages and
disadvantages are discussed more fully
under the transporter requirements (see
section IX.C.3). '
As discussed above, even though -all
used oils may not be hazardous,, some
level of control over the ir possible
mismanagement may be necessary. EPA
believes that such'control can be
exercised by tracking uned oil from
generator to recycler to ensure that it
reaches authorized used oil recyclers in
a timely manner. EPA now believes that
the 1985-proposed manifest requirement
for large quantity generators 'that do not
have a recycling contract in place may
be .excessive, especially since (a) all
used oils will be covered under the .
recycling presumption and (b) the
universe of recycled used oil generators
may be expanded to include all
generators of used oil. EPA is, therefore,
considering requiring the tracking of
used oil shipments from generator to
recycler by use of a, collection log
.maintained by each generator in lieu of
the hazardous waste manifest, whether
or not a recycling contract exists
between a generator and the recycler.
The use
-------
Tracking
'.'• Docu-
ment.
'. <:' 1985','
proposal
>,' Hazardous
' waste
" .'• ^manifest.
' . \ :'• : ' :,
' I ' ' - ' - '
Genera-
tors.
Trans- • •
porters.
Recy-
cling :
Facili-
ties/ .'_
Dis-
posal •'•
•• Facili-
ties. ;,
Fills 'out
appropri-
,ate
portion.
,,No
manifest
when
'generate
has
contract
with
•;,recyc!er.
Fills' out' :
appropri-
ate,
• portion. '.'"•
1 "• :' i
"r° , . ' , •> .
ills out -••
appropri-
ate, .;.'•...
portion ...
and
returns
copy to
generator
when no
contract
.exists. •
: Option. 1
Collection '
-log ••'•"
.: main-
•• tainedby
a!r "..".
Chandlers.
. " ; /', - ;
.' .' ' " • • '' - '
, • .
Must record
quantities
: of used
.OH., ; , ,
shipped;
name,
address, .
EPA ID
, no.. of :, .
. .transport-.
er; 'dated
' signature
•of
transport-.
•' er: . ••• • ;
Must record
quantities
. of used
,-oii -: -
'delivered;'.
' riarfjes, .
address-
es, ID
, nos.; and
' dated
•signa- '•''
turesof'
•.recycling' ,
-'or-! ; ',
disposal
facilities'.' '
Must retain
'copies of '
•collection ,
logs with
dated ;", ;
signature .
of -
ttansport-
.er.
Option 2
Collection
log
main-
tained by
all used
oil '•;
1 • handlers;
. tracking
form
initiated
:by' ,.
transport-
' • ers.
Same as '
Option 1.
Tracking
form
must
contain
'informa-
tion
required
'" under
Option 1. .
MustYetain-
copies'Of
.tracking
forms
signed by
transport-
ers.
.' , . ' ',
.• Under ;the 1985 proposal, large '-;
quantity used oil generators were
required to obtain EPA identification
numbers (50 PR 49252) and to maintain
operating records of all used oil
shipments sent off-site (50 FR 49253 and
49254). Each off-site shipment was to be
recorded with the name, address, and
EPA ID number of the transporter; the
.quantity of used oil shipped; and the .
date/of the shipment. These rec'ords '
we're required to be maintained for Jhxee
.years from the date of shipment. Used
oil generators with a recycling ; , :
agreement were required to maintain a
copy of the agreement as long as it was
in effect, and to obtain a one-time •
signed notice from the recycler
certifying that the facility is authorized
to recycle used oil. EPA sees no need to
change these requirements from the 1985
proposal with the exception of the
I possible eliminatioriof the generator '
EPA ID number as discussed above.
. No recordkeeping and reporting
requirements were proposed for small
quantity usejd.oil generators (generators
of less than 1000 kg of used oil per
month) in 1985. As discussed earlier,
EPA is, considering an option that may
include eliminating the small quantity
used oil generator category. Under this
approach, all generators would be
subject to the same recordkeeping,
requirements proposed in 1985 for large
generators. EPA solicits comments on
;whether the recordkeeping requirements
discussed above should be applicable to
small quantity generators, which may be
defined as generators with total
abovegrouhd storage capacity less than
1,320 gallons. The Agency is also
interested in receiving qomments on
whether a modified set of requirements
might be appropriate.
In 1985, EPA proposed no reporting '•
requirements for used oil generators
who had recycling contracts, although
generators using the manifests would
TABLE IX.C.1.—USED OIL TRANSPORTERS
have been^ubject to exception
reporting. EPA does not see a need for 1
generator reporting when the used oil is
recycled on- or off-site, because . .
recycling facilities will provide this
information in their biennial report.
However, EPA is considering imposing
new recordkeeping or reporting -"'
requirements under Sections 3014 and
3007 authorities for generators who can
rebut the recycling presumption (see;
.discussion in Vm.D.3.) and who dispose
of used oil. (Generators disposing of
hazardous used oil on-site, however, are
subject to other recordkeepihg and
reporting requirements as a hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal
: facility.) Generators who dispose of
used oil would have to comply with the
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
associated with the recycling ~
presumption rebuttal prior to the
disposal of used oils. EPA believes that
reporting of disposal practices may
allow the Agency to determine Whether
additional controls may be necessary .to
control used oil disposal in the future.
EPA requests comment on reporting of
generator-based disposal activities,
C. Transporter Requirements
Table IX.C.1 provides a Jbrief summary
of the used oil transporter requirements
that EPA is currently considering. Table
IX.C.1 also compares the requirements
that the Agency is how considering with
those proposed in 1985 for used oil .
transporters. A more detailed discussion
of the proposed transporter
requirements is provided below. - -
Storage '
*',? tranSter 'acifity: DQT requirements in 49 CFR Parts 173
^ners), ^ 179
.Corrective Action
Containers: (storage ,<30 days) 40 CFR §262.30
49 CFR 173
USTs: 40 CFR Part 280.
Also, see Table IX.F.2.
. ^-196 (response to
rt P> in perrnit-by-rule:facilittes; 40
sr, .„ art F for aboveground tanks. .
40 CFR § 280, Subparts E and F for USTs. . ^ .
-------
48054 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 184 I Monday. September 23. ,1991 ,/ Proposed Rules
TABLE IX.C.1.—USED OIL TRANSPORTERS—Continued
Closure
Remov* 08 and rescues from tanto ....
Preparedness and Prevention
40 CFR Part 2C4. Subparts C and D
Tracking
40 CFR Part 263, Subpart B Hazardous Waste Manifests or Records of Accept-
ano wd Oeiivafy whers generator has contact with authorized recycler.
.Rocordkoqping
Record* ol Acceptance and Delivery, including: name, address and 'EPA :ID
wmbw by-rule requirements of proposed
part 270. EPA "is now considering
increasing the 10 day storage provision
for container storage to 30 days and
requiring transporters storing used oil in
containers at transfer facilities to
comply with part 265, subpart L In the
1985 proposal, EPA meant to propose
that transporters comply with 40 CFR
part 265, subpart I, rather than part 264,
subpart I. Compliance with the part 264
standards, therefore, may only be
necessary if an individual subtitle C
permit is required.
Following the 1985 proposal, EPA
received several comments requesting
that the 10-day storage period at
transfer facilities be extended to allow
for sufficient accumulation of-a
marketable quantity of used oil. . •:
Alternatively, .to accommodate this .
, concern, EPA is considering extending
the exempt storage period for container
storage at used oil transfer facilities to
35 days. The Agency requests comments .
on whether an extended period of 35
days is appropriate for transfer facilities
storing used oil In containers. {See
discussion on Accumulation Limit in
section VIII.R8 of this notice)
b. Storage in Aboveground and
. Underground Tanks. In 11985, EPA '
proposed that transporters storing used
oil in tanks for more than 10 days be
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 265, subpart J, including secondary
containment (50 FR 49254, November 25.
1985). The Agencyis now considering .
adopting the tank standards proposed in
the 1985 rule {40 CFR part 265, subpart
J), minus secondary containment for
aboveground tank storage at used oil
transfer facilities and eliminating the 10-
day storage exemption for tank storage.
These standards are the same as those
currently applicable to small quantity
hazardous waste generators (40 CFR
265.201).
EPA is considering adopting the tank
storage standards without the
requirement for secondary containment
due to the Agency's concern that many
independent transporters are small
businesses and therefore the viability of
these operations may be put in jeopardy
by the secondary containment provision
proposed in 1985. ,
Since the Agency may eliminate the
proposed requirement for secondary
containment, EPA is proposing .that
owners and operators of transfer
facilities conduct inspections of
aboveground tariks for releases and
spills of used oil and conduct
appropriate spill response to "cleanup
-------
J ^^|p^jh^ ^o^Wiriatipn.pf the. ;; with ^e ftermit-byirule provisions for^
..,
; alJerna.te.sssurance: of prpteetioii.of
.human health and the environment, EPA
• requests cpmm.ent, on"tlys ab.oyeground,
storage tanfc:standalrds presented here
; arid on their potential?ijnpact pii'the
tfsed pil recycling business..; " : ,
As noted in the preamble to the • ,
proposed rale, there is presently iio
• , permitting exemption fop tank,storage at
transfer facilities in the hazardous :
waste regulations (50 FR 49233). Under
subtitle C, hazardous waste .transfer
facilities with tank storage are required
to obtain a storage permit and comply
with all applicable standards in 40 CFR
parts 264 and 265. The Agency is now
considering eliminating the 10-day
permitting exemption for tank storage at
transfer facilities. The Agency is
. concerned that the storage exemption :
: period allowed for containers is not
protective for tank storage since the '
/tanks remain at the facility and may
always contain used oil. In the case of
coritaineira, the cpntainer is removed
from the facility .when the used oil is .,
( shipped off-site. ;,•'., [•'.''- ..,,.".""'...,;.'...,/'
..;• To assure that adequate protection oi
human health.and the environment is
••- provided, EPA believes (hat a level of
protection beyond the technicarr ""
.' 8Janrfards alone may bVne.cessary for
used oil tank storage at transfer" '""/
'facilities. EPA is therefore proposing • j
. that transfer facilities storing used oil in
-tanks or incontainersfor a period
longer than 35, days comply with the
permit-by-rule provfsidns. The Agency
believes that requiring facilities; to "
cpmply with the permit-by-rule '
provisions will facilitate compliance
_ with the technical standards since
nphcpmpliance could lead to the
requirement laobtain anindividual -
':'• .subtitle C permit Therefore, the Agency,
in addition to requiring transfer facilities.
storing used oil in tanks to meet the 40
CFRpart 265, subpart j (minus
secondary containment) and 40 CFR
part 280 U$T requirements, is ,
corisideringTequiring used pit transfer
Facilities with storage tanks to comply
with the used oil facility and permit-by-
rule standards.** 1 ,; /,-"..,
-..- The Subtitle I requirements (4OGFR
part 280) for underground storage tanks
apply to USTs at transfer facilities. - •-•'-.
Transfer facilities storing used oil in
USTs.that are in compliance'With the
part 280 standards will be in compliance
The Agency requests CommentonJhe
regulatory restrictions proposed for tank
,.. 'arid container storage at usecloJil:'~ '•.;/ >!W
transfer facilities, inbluding the, r \;
proposed permit-by-mle requirements
for all tank storage at used oil transfer
facilities. EPA reiterates thatfransfer
facilities storing iised bfl in tanks would
also be required to comply with the '
Spec standards, if applicable; -
2. Transporter Discharge Cleanup c
Today, EPA is considering applying
provisions similar to those proposed in '•••
1985 for cleanup: of releases during
transport. Used Oil transporters may be ''
required to comply with,the 40 GFR part
263, subpart C standards. These ' - - '•
provisions require that discharges of
hazardous wastes during transportation
be reported:to:DOT and cleaned up -
immediately; Reference to the part 28a
requirements was made in the 1985
proposal because; EPA was;proposing to
list all used oils as hazardous. The
provisions contemplated today are
essentially the same as thpse proposed,
but would apply to all used oils, .""•!
regardless of whether or not they are '
identified as hazardous. Additionally,
transporters storing used oil in .-.-"•••'-..-',-••'
containers at transfer facilities for a
period longer than 35 days, may be
subject to the same correcfiye action
standards (release detection and
cleanup) being proposed today for
recycling facilities (see section IX.D.3).
Transfer facilities storing used oil in
aboveground tanks may be subject to
permit-by-rule requirements and ,tb-the
corrective action standards of part 265,
Subpart J and the general inspection
requirements of § 265.15(g)..Transfer •
facilities storing used oil in USTs may
have;to comply j/vith the used pi}: permit-
by-rule requirements, but would remain
subject tp the correptive action -
requirements, of 40 CFR part280*
siibparts E arid F (standards for release
response and cprrectiveaction;fpr
underground storage tank .systems ;
containing petroleum or hazardous
substances).'
: -^ Note that the JO day petirilttfngexemptroh'';:-
• Proposed forTOhlainerstorage (sTOWppKcable to
l?nk 8tor,88e. EPAJrproposing that^tank Btorage
Bt iused ojltransfet fatilitfes bem compliance with
-the permlt-by-nile requirements and the '
3vTranspprterTracking of Used pil
. EPA is considering two alternatives
for tracking used oils. Both alternatives -
;inyplve the m&intenance:of a collection
log by used oil transporters. Table - ,'
IX.B.2, (above) prbvides a suiftiniaiy of!
*e two options Under consideration for
used oil tracking. v -: • /
Option1: TranspOTters \yould Iceeg J
•reciirds in a collection log to xtobunierit"
•all pickups. .Upfed oil transporters:%<»$$r'
be required to keep^ a:copy of the - r :-
refcyeh'nfadhBnpr' -:>
dated sijmajture acknowledging receipt^ -
:.The recycling facilityvpwnei-or operator'
-would have to keep a copy of the
;^transjior.ter's,cpllec1ion log. In lieu of ' J
; r.keepiiig the4olie"ctipn log, transporters"
Jnay elect to use the hazardpus w^ste
>; manifest (see discussion in iXJB.4 of
,• today's-riptice). '..-"• .7'\ : %.; C ; "' '"
,,,• Option2^6'hsvegenerators keep :
; the same records described above, with
the transporter responsible for initiating
. a used oil tracking form at the r
- cohclusibhofa"milk;run" and prior to: "
delivering the full shipment to a used oil
recycling facility, Under this .approach,
the transporter would complete the '
: 'generator" portion of the tracking form.
Transporters and recyclers would be
required to keep copies of the signed' "
forms. This approach is consistent with
RCRA section 3014(c) in that generators
with recycling agreements in plac> n^ed
not fill out a manifest or similar tracking
document. This approach provides a
single tracking document that record^ ''
the oil's movement. In addition, " (
problems with multiple tracking forms
originated by different generators are
minimized under this approach. — .
- The advantages of tracking records
and/or collection logsppmpared to
. manifest reports for used oil handlers '•
are as follows: A generator does npt-
have to-{a) prepare a tracking form; ': :
every time he/she ships a batch of used
oil off-site, (p) maintain a separate " ',;
accounting system for quantities and "
; types (i.e., hazardous and • ..-; ,
nohhazardpus) of used oil generated,"
quantities and types of used oil stored in
^particular storage device, and
quantifies and types of used oil pibked
up by a transporter. The generator ;
merely has to maintain one document
;;with multiple jentries^Evfery time a '
- ;shhiment of us^dr oil is picked ;up,^he
transporter acknowledges the pickup on
. .the generator^ log with a dated ? .' -.'
.-;'. signature. Similarly, a .transporter
maintains ia collection log that identifies/
- thequiantities.of used oil picked upper
generator along with Jhe name-and: '••
address Of each used o^ generator Jiefg "
serving. A' used oil generator '.'' -• ; ".. "
acknowledges the pibkup of used oil
with a dated signature "on the , V' '
- itransportef ?log. The transporter, whert
-delivering used Oil to a.recycler, submits• *'
•' a copy of his collectioii log toihd facility • ^
"-.-owner or operator. Both transporter and / •
recycler must sign the collection log^ (p
; acknowledge delivery and acceptance, of
; /used oil. Each party^ would maintain a
Vcopy^bTth^recprdcif jthe^usedpil v^":v'!; .;'
I v^90,s;&6tion,on\fi!4 for three, years."' >."
.-'As dispus'sed above, EPA is :• v"v'." '--..'^:' .',:„
considering promulgating a!presumpt5prt :
7'bf recycling for aUusedjOils. Undejr Ms ;Vr ':
-------
48056
Federal Raster / Vol. 56,;No. 184 / Monday, ^September, 23; ^991 ^Proposed
approach, all used oils woujd be .subject
to the tracking system putjinedliere,
unless the person successfully rebuts the
presumption. Procedures for rebutting
the recycling presumption were,. ,
discussed above. ... • •: ;
4. Transporter Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements ' .
In 1985, EPA required transporters to
document all records of acceptance and
delivery of recycled used oil by
identifying the name, address, and ID
number of the generator or recycling
facility; the quantity of used oil received
or delivered; and the date of acceptance
or delivery {50 FR 49254). Transporters •_'
were required to maintain these records
for three years from the date of
acceptance or delivery. No reporting
requirements for transporters were
proposed in. 1985.
As stated in VIII.F.8.. EPA is
considering limiting the transport period
for uaed oil (period of time from
transporter pickup at generator to
acceptance at a recycling facility) to 35
days. This storage limit of 35 days is
similar:to the;35-day limit-applicable,to
the transport of hazardous waste
(§§ 262.42(a) and 263.21). The initial day
of the 35:day period will begin when the
used oilis collected from a used oil
generator. Transporters and recycling
facilities can document that used oil is
delivered to the recycler within the 35-
day period through the use of collection
logs or tracking forms, as discussed
below. In the event a transporter is
unable to deliver a shipment of used oil
to a recycling facility within the 35-day
period, the transporter Will be required
to file an exception report with the I
Regional Administrator explaining the |
reasons for the delay. EPA requests !
' cojiiment on thfe 35-day shipment period;
• being proposed today. • • [
D. Used Oil Recycling Facilit/iss' ' '( . [ '
Table IX.D.1 provides .a brie j: !
summary of the used oil recycling
facility requirements that EPA-is
considering adoptirig'under Phase I of
the used oil management standards (if
the Agency decides to promulgate the
management standards in two phases).
.Table IX,p.l also compares ;the •*;. i ;i .,;;; •':•
requirements that the Agency Is ;''• •••• •
considering now with those proposed in-
1985. In addition to the requirements :'•
discussed below, all used oil recyclpra;
must comply with all applicable, ;•. / ,
generator and transporter requirements
discussed in previous sections of today's
proposal. A more detailed discussion of
the specific recycling facility, j ' «
requirements; is provided belpw. ,; _: .
1. Recycler Storage i; -i r:
EPA believes that there is a.need to .:
assure that the storage practices at Used
oil r0cycling facilities are protective of , -;,
human health and ithe environment. EPA •
may regulate usetloil storage; in the :
manner described Ibelow regardless of .-.
whether the;>us,ed oil is,d,e^erinined to be,
a hazardou?; waste pr not, sirjjce EPA- ,,•
believes that the;potential fotused oil to
be released into the environment and
the potential damagesIrom.such leaks is
hot necessarily dependent upoh. whether
the used oil-is a hazardous waste,ibut is,
dependent upon the way in.which the
used oil is managed. , • • .
1 TABIE IX.p.1.—PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR USED OIL RECYCLING FACILITIES
1985
' Storage
Container Storaas: 40 CFR Part 264. Subpart I •.—, •-•••••
Abovearound Tank»t 40 CFR Part 265. Subpart J.~...., )_.........
UfKtofground Storage Tanks: 40 CFR Part 265. Subpart J....
' Correctlva Action | •'
Remove tanking tanks from use; releases must be remedied........—-
Roplftco leaking contilnot(s) and stop leaks.— .;............,.....
Closure ; : ; ' -
Ramova «K tar* systems' wastes, and meet all various technical and financial
* rwpAwnortsof Subparts Q and H of Part 265.
Preparedness and Prevention .'.(<•
40 CFR Part 264, Subparts C and D-.1—.........l..;_..........> '•—:..,....'...».:.,..
Tracking . ' . '
Racordkeoptng « « contract b tn place with the generator. Hazardous Waste
Manifest roqulrerhenls. Including exception reporting when there is noeontracL
. ; . Recordkeeping and Reporting - , . ;
Analysis records, manifests, operating record, retention and accessibility^ biennial
and additional reports. , ' ' '
Hazardous Waste. Mixtures • • • •• .
Rabuttabte pres-Jroption—used oil containing more than 1.000 ppm total halogens
I» presumed to have been mtxod with hazardous waste. Mixtures of oil and
hazardous wast* must ba managed as hazardous waste. ,
40 CFR 266.40(0) i_.—~L_'—'-—•—-— :.-.™..~.,
• •• • ' Permitting ::•.••••.••.
,^j unloss excluded and-requIfB-lridivldual permli (surface Impound-
oc wodHy existing. Subtitle C: permit-to handle: used oil: for co-
Today
Container Storge: 4o'cFR Part 264, Subpart I (same as proposed)
Aboveground Tanks: 40 CFR Pah 264, Subpart J (or SPCC)
Underground Storage Tanks: 40 CFR Part 280 ,,
See Table IX.B.2.,; '
Containers: :§ 264.171. '...' •'.; i ' ' '
Abovegrouna tanks: § 264^97,,..;
USTs: 40 CFR Part 280, Subparts 'E and F
Abbvegrouna tanks: Same as proposed for closure, defer financial responsibility
USTs: 40 CFR Part 280. Subparts G and H.
49 CFR; Part 264, Subparts C and b. H I J ' '
Sign Transporter's Collection Log: and maintain separrte log fat the facility
(Two additional options under consideration) ,
Maintain copies of collection logs; prepare and submit Used <>il Management
Report
-Same as proposed, but extend application of rebuttable presumption to all used
oils. Test all used oils for halogen content- i
r Same a.s proposed In 1985.
• r or o recycling it be In compliance;
SfhSe technical requirements listed '
be ovT the permlt-by-ru!e prbvisloris
• « ^po ed inPSand In addiurih, EPA
iswnslderirig requiringfcompllance with
,. .. .,
: the speculative accumulation provision-
of§8261.lfck6). TO ensure that used oils
are being 'accumulated for the purpose
of recycling them and not being stored
. indefinitely, used oil recycling facilities
may have to demonstrate that 75 percent
. of the usedsil .accumulated at the i ...... ,_
beginning of a one-year period is '
recycled wlthm&e ore-year period
a: Contorted Stongr. EPA 16 retaining
the container standards proposed m
1985 for used oil reeve ling fauh he* EPA
^proposing that usedo^l W^
facilities comply with 40 CFR part 264
-------
,r-subpart I standards, when storinjguseii
pil.in containers (5() M. 49256); EPAis
•'- 'retaining this pfoyisipTi,^whi;ch requires
,.- a containment systern around th£ : '
• 1 ^containeris, fer yse.• ^-: ^si
impoundments used by recycHng • :
Waste,s,;thejr storage daii pose healtjii . ~
.and enyironmeritaihazarjis associated^'
with^the:,release^pf;oil and its toxic ,,-' i
.constituents. In fact,:man;y of the: , -i "'•:'
Damage cases,cited earlier in tKis notice
involved impoundmerits.lt is EPA's '
• understanding that surface
impoundment storage is very unusual at;
niodem used oil recycling facilities. To-
me extent impoundments are1 used, EPA
is very concerned about the pbtentiai fpr
ground-water cpntamination.,
EPA is considering three ways to .
control the use of surface impoundments
for storing used oil. First, as proposed in
1985, EPA could use section 3014
authorities to require surface
impoundment standards similar to or
identical to those found in 40 CFR part
264 or 265 subpart K for hazardous
wastes and require the facility to. pbtain
a subtitle C permit fpr their use (as :
fprpposed in i985) .whether or npt .the, ,
used oil being stored.pr recycled is
hazardous, in addition, the Agency - -
requests comment on two alternatives
;for regulating surface impoundments ?
used tp stbre used oils. EPA could ban'
the use pf surface imppundments under
sectipns 1008, 3014,jand 4005 authprities
since the Agency believes that the
placement of usedoils in uhlined
surface impoun
-------
48058
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. l64 / MoruJajr. -
28.-
J9&*?
<^ui:yM&,fesv.ry
oil at recycling facilities are subject to
the corrective action requirements for •" <
USTs in part 280, subpart F EPA is not
proposing, at this time, that used oil
recycling facilities undertake full facility
corrective action, unless required to
obtain a full Subtitle C permit. Instead,
used oil recycling facilities may be
required to clean up all visible and
detected releases of used oil in
accordance with either the cleanup
requirements proposed in 1985 (in the
cose of containers and aboveground
tank?) or those provided in 40 CFR part
280 subpart F (in the case of , , ;
underground storage tanks). Due to the
fact thatthe USTregulations were not
promulgated until 1988, the approach
proposed today for response and
cleanup of releases from underground
tanks storing used oil are different than
the requirements proposed in 1985, EPA
requests comment on the
appropriateness of retaining the UST
release response and clean up
requirements for used oil recycling
facilities storing used oils in
underground tanks. The Agency also
requests comment on the release
response requirements being considered
for aboveground tank and container ,
storage at used oil recycling facilities;
4, Recycler Closure and Financial ;
Responsibility
In the 1985 proposed rule, used oil j
recycling facilities were subject to the ,
closure and post-closure and financial
responsibility requirements of subparts
G and H of part 265 (50 FR 49256). EPA
believes that all uni^s used for used oil
storage, treatment, .and in certain cases,
disposal (e.g., surface impoundments) at
these recycling facilities must be closed
in a manner that will minimize risk to
human health and the environment. EPA
is retaining the proposed requirements
for closure and post-closure for
aboveground tanks. However, facilities
storing used oil in underground tanks
will be subject to the UST closure
requirements in part 280 in lieu of the
closure requirements proposed in 1985.
EPA requests comment on the closure
requirements described above for used
oil recycling facilities.
EPA is considering deferring financial •
responsibility requirements for
aboveground tanks until a later, date.
Comments were received after the 1985
proposed rule was published, claiming
that financial responsibility is not
needed for recycling facilities and'tha^
most recyclers may not be able to ob'ain
.coverage and may therefore go out of '
business if the Agency promulgated the
financial responsibility requirements
proposed in 1985. Commenters claimed
that financial responsibility •, > , - •
requirements'would have serious
detrimental effects on the used oil
recycling market, and that recycling
facilities should be subject to less
rigorous financial responsibility
requirements than treatment,: storage,
and disposal facilities. One commenter
also questioned how financial
responsibility requirements would be
implemented at permit-by-rule facilities.
EPA is now proposing to require used
oil recycling facilities to comply with the
speculative accumulation provision
applicable to hazardous waste recycling,
facilities (§ 261.il(c)(8)). EPA believes i
that the speculative accumulation i j
provision will reduce the potential for 1
releases associated with long-term j
storage and therefore may minimize the [.
need for financial assurance at used oil 1
recycling facilities. The Agency will,
however, continue to evaluate the need ,
for financial responsibility requirements
at used oil recycling facilities and may
propose .financial requirements at a later
date. The Agency is concerned that
financial responsibility requirements
may place a significant economic
burden on used oil recycling facilities
and may result in a decrease in the
quantity of used oil that is recycled. The
financial responsibility requirements
given in subpart H of part 280
concerning underground tanks .are ,
applicable; however, t6 facilities storing j
jised oil iii underground tanks.; . J
EPA requests" comments on the ,. j
; deferral of financial responsibility ;
' requirements for facilities storing used \
oil in aboveground tanks and containers*"
5. Recycler Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
Used oil re'cyclers engaged in
marketing or burning used oil fuel are .
required to comply with the 40 CFR part
266, subpart;E recordkeeping
requirements. EPA is now considering
modifying these requirements. In 1985,
EPA proposed additional recordkeeping
arid reporting requirements, beyond
those required by 40 CFR part 266,
1 subpart E. for recycling facilities (40
| CFR 266.43(f), 50 FR 49256). These
I requirements were more extensive than
! those proposed'fbr used oil generators
and transporters and were similar to ;
i those established for hazardous waste
i management facilities, these included
'• the following: ' ........ .^ ....
—Operating records (§ 264.73)
—Availability, retention, and
' disposition of records (§ 264.74).
—Biennial reports (§264.75)
—Additional reports (§264.77^.
i •, > a. Recordkeeping. As discussed :
• above, EPA is considering several ;
. options for used oil tracking (see Table
;IX.B.2,J. Under each option, the
maintenance: of collection logs by, , ,
transporters and recycling facilities, is , .;
required to confirm the, receipt ofused
oil shipments from a used,oil generator
at a recycling facility. The log : :
maintained by recycles would fulfill; a,-.,..
portion of the operating record . ,"• i :
requirements that EPA.proposed in 1985.
Information recorded in the used oil j
tracking log would not have to be. • j .
duplicated in a facility's operating >
record (the log will be considered.to be r
a part of the operating record). . •
b. Reporting. EPA has re-evaluated ,, -..
the biennial reporting requirements •'••; ' <-•
proposed in'1985 for used oil recycling •
facilities (5pFR 49258) and determined V
. that some, elements of the biennial" ! ,;
report are not appropriate foriised od
recyclers, particularly iri h'ght'pf the fact .
that all used oils may not be identified .
as hazardous wastes and EPA may . •. •
defer other requirements (e.g., facility
financial responsibility requirements).
EPA is therefore considering, in lieu of
the use of tile biennial report Designed ;.
for hazardous waste TSD facilities, a
separate reporting system for used op -
recycling facilities that would parallel
the hazardous waste biennial report.;
The used oil recycling report may have
data elements more applicable to used ,,
oil recycling activities. The used oil ;
recycling report would have to be yjy, , ,
prepared arid submitted to.EPA; .;:
• biennially using the same schedule as
that established for the'hazardous Waste;
biennial reporting requirement?! 1 :j ' /
however,,E?A may, consider changing _ :
the required'submission date. Under, this
approach, EPA may develop a form with
reporting requirements fpr used oil |
recycling facilities that may include:
• The:average'quantity of jised oil >
typically stored on-site prior to j
• recycling; ' , • , i
• The quantity, of used oil recycled a^
lube oils or petroleum fractions .; •.
annually; ... { " .._. j
• The annual quantity of used oil:
shipped off-site as specification fuel;
• The'annual quantity of used oil;
marketed as off-spec Used oil; .-, |; ;/ ,
";•- Jhe annual quantity of u4ed;turhed
as off-specif|catiorj used.o|rWel burned; ;;
.• The annual qiiantjtyiof usjed ojl,; : ,'
.dispps.ediOn^site;, i ..\, ^ •. « i << i - ,;..; n i»»
• ••• the quantity.qf used oil sent off-site, <
for sybtitle C dispbsal annually; and .
• The quantity1 of used oil sent off-site'
for subtitle D disposal arinually!. ,' : r ; .
EPA may require used oil recyclers to ",
report annual quantities of, used oil , ,
handled by category of used oil , , . ;
generator (if EPA promulgates Tracking
Option 1). EPA may use the generator- .
specific information obtained from
recyplers'biennial reports to evaluate
-------
•; ;: :^deral Register// VoL 56;- No.184,7 -Monday,' September 23. '1991^ -Proposed Rules
48059
the impacts of the Phase I management
standards on used o|l generators and to
assess the need for EPA; to develop non-
regulatory incentives to encourage used
oil recyclingvEPA may also use this ' ,,,
informatipri to .determin e what , , > „
percentage,pf the total quantity ,pf used
oil generated annually enters the used
oil management system, is used to
produce burner fuel, and is used as
feedstock for lube oil.
EPA requests comment .on the
suggested reporting alternatives to the
proposed requirement for biennial
reports discussed above. ..-"'•
_J3. Analytical Requirements
In 1985, under proposed § 264.73, EPA
required analysis of used oil to
. determine halogen content, ignitability,
fuel specification, and additional
parameter testing for used oil recycling
facilities that also manage hazardous '
wastes. EPA still believes that testing
.for indicator parameters (e.g., part 261,
'appendix VIII constituents) is 'necessary
to ensure used oil and other hazardous'
wastes are hbt^mixed. EPA believes that
the indicator ; parameter testing •
•requirement, in addition to the h'afogen ;
content' analysis, will discourage mixing
at co-management facilities. Therefore,
the 'analytical requirements propPsed in
1985 will remain unchanged.
In addition, used oil that is mixed with
hazardous waste is a hazardous waste
by virtue of the "mixture rule" (40 CER
261.3(a)). Such mixtures of used oil and
hazardous waste would have to be
managed in compliance with 40 CFR
•part 266, subpart D. To ensure that used
oil and hazardous waste mixtures are
not either sold as:blended used oil fuels
or rerefined to manufacture lube oil
feedstock, EPA is considering: requiring
recycling facilities to test each shipment
of .Used -oil for halogen content and, in
the case of co-managemetitjcilities,
test for part. 261, appendix^! f '.
constituents (indicator parameters], =
prior :to shipment of the recycled product
. to end users.' • • - '•" \-~ ••, " •,-
EPA requests .cOmmeijfofl the testing
requirements discussed here. . -.'.?.'
7. Recycler'Permits. : tf : _ '. . ;
In the 1985 proposed rule, EPA used
the authority of RGRA section 3014 to
propose permitting, refinements for -
used oil recycling faciliUgs (5p FR 49255,
49257). RGRA section 3014( (//provides '
that owners and operatpg^f.USed.oil
recycling facilities are^e^^ tp ha/ye a
p.ermit for,.the.ir recycling .activities -and
associated tank and containerstQI,ag'e;;
provided they comply /ywttv the',Used oil'
-
EPA/ UiKJgf.th«,l||85 •ir
recycling. fa:c,jli
permits-by-rule by complying with 40 .
CFR 266.43 and 266.44, the proposed .
requirements for usefj oil recycler.s and
burners, the Agency.is considering • •••
retaining .the 1985 proposed- permit-by-
rule requirements. Although EPA. •'..';.
proposed financial responsibility :;
requirements for used oil reoyclers in '.''
1985, EPA is not including such
requirements for aboveground tank and
container storage in today's proposed '
standards. Financial responsibility
standards for these used oil recycling :
facilities are being deferred until the
Phase II management standards are;
promulgated.
EPA believes that the permit-by-rule
requirements proposed in 1985 are
appropriate for all used recycling
facilities,-even if some used oils are , .
determined not be hazardous wastes. As
discussed earlier in today's notice,
potential hazards to human health and;
'the environment exist regardless of .
whether or not the used oil is a; "••:-. •••-.
hazardous waste. • . •
Certain types of used oil recycling
facilities were excluded from permit-by-
rule eligibility in the1985 proposal.
These include facilities that recycle or
store used oil in surface Impoundments
and facilities that manage other '
hazardous wastes in addition to used oil
(co-management facilities). These types
pf facilities may be required to obtain an
individual subtitle C permit or modify
their existing permit, in the case of co- •
njanagement facilities. In addition, as
proposed, the Regional Administrator or
the: .director of an approved state
program may have the discretion to
require individpal permits for. other,
facilities that could pose a substantial
potential or present hazard. The Agency
will also require used oil recycling
facilities that accumulate used oil .'•;
speculativejy (i.e., are not in compliance'
with the speculative accumulation
provision off 261.l(c)(8)) to obtain a juk
subtitle C permit. These facilities would
be subject,to the § 3004(u) corrective
action proyisions for permitted facilities:
EPA is not proposing any changes to the
exclusions tp permit-by-rule eligibility
proposed in 1985. , ;•;,•>. ;vl v"',;-.
If EPA promulgates used oil v •..• -.".••
management standards in two phases, .':
used oil recycling facilities that are :
eligible for a permit-by-rule will be/- ...
deemed to have a permit-byrrule when.••;..
the owner pi; operator-is in. cbmpliaAce •
with all of, the Phase Imanagertient :
standards.Then'later.-.^^^^^^^.,, ,.:1....
•promulgatjes any Phase:ILmanagement ;.
standards, the, owner.OF. operator will
have,to.be. In; cpmp)iance..w.ith^both the-:
Ptese;l:and Phase II managewsent.: ;';-xi;>
standards an,the-.e|fe:ctiMei:d^te-of .the . >
Phase II standards tQ keep the facility's
permit-byrrule, status. . , ,'
E. Used Oil Marketers ''"••! ' ;"'.-";i '''""'
In 1985, EPA propo.sed to replace the
existing Part 266 Subpart E requirements
with the proposed generator and '
transporter requirements (50 FR 49239
November 25, 1985). Under the proposed
scheme, marketers were intended to
become subject to the generator
standards. That proposed requirement
remains unchanged in the case of
generators who market specification
fuel: Recyclers who market specification
used oil fuel must be in compliance with
the recycling facility standards .
(including the permit-by-rule provisions)
included in today's notice and those
proposed in 1985.
The 1985 proposed regulations were
unclear as to the'status of the marketer '
notification requirements and the
requirements relating to one-time
notices to be received from the burners
to which the marketer sells' used oil.
EPA wishes to clarify in this notice that
the final requirements in § 266!43(b)(3),
relating to. notification to EPA of used oil
marketing '.activities and in
§ 266.43(b)(5), requiring that marketers
obtain a one-time written and signed
notice from burners that the off-
specification used oil fuel will be burned
only in industrial boilers or furnaces, '
will still apply to marketers. These
regulations will be moved to the, newly-
created section on used oil; part 279.
; As propose'd in 1985, marketers will
become subject to the generator arid '•
transporter regulations, including the
prpvisipn relating to maintaining records
of .shipments in a logbook. Marketers
will'also be required to comply with
whatever tracking option is selected.
EPA believes that since used oil .
marketers are the first party to
determine^ the disposition of used oil and '
since marketers generally store used oil
prior to shipping it tp burners', used oil
marketers may be required to comply
with all applicable generator and v , '..
transporter standards proposed today
arid/or discussedln'the .1985J proposal. 'V
In addition, marlceters are responsible -
for qoriductingahalytical tests, to , .
document that used oil being sold as .
specification fuel doe? riot exceed any of
the spec.ificatioii.parametersi " , ! .'-. '.'.'
-, EPA-requests comments on the . •
a'pprppriateness;pf subjecting marketers" '
to the 'generator; and -transporter. • "•",'.•; : . ;•.
standard^prpppsediforPart^a. ;.;:,,",;/.
Readers should -note that, as proposed in
..i..
would,b;e;is.ubject:ip,the|Tecycling.faCility
standards. .,^'-.^^iiM--i^ i^,^>:,-^\,--
-------
48060
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.184
F. Burners of Specification Used Oil
In 1985, EPA promulgated a
specification for used oil fuel [50 FR
49205,40 CFR 206.40 and 266.43(b)(l)
nnd (6)). Used oil fuel meeting these
specifications can be burned without
regulation in non-industrial boilers such
as those Jn apartment or office buildings,
provided an analysis is conducted and
records are kept by the first person who
claims that the fuel meets the
specification (i.e., the marketer). The
specification was intended to be
protccUve,under virtually all
circumstances. EPA believed that used
oil fuels meeting the specification would
not pose hazards significantly greater
than virgin fuel oil when burned. In fact,
the specification levels for arsenic,
cadmium and chromium were selected
to be equivalent to virgin fuel levels. The
specification for lead was set at 100
ppm, which was about 10 times greater
than lead levels found in virgin fuel oils,
and was intended as an interim measure
until the Phase II burning rules were
promulgated.
When EPA developed the used oil fuel
specification levels in 1985, the Agency
based the constituent levels for the
specification on the possible human
health effects from an urban burning
scenario (50 FR 49180). EPA performed a
risk assessment to identify constituents
that may pose increased risks to human
health given that used oil could be
burned in highly populated urban areas.
When the constituents of concern were
typically found in used oil at levels
greater than in virgin fuel oils, they were
included in the specification at their 95th
percentile levels in virgin fuel oils. EPA
reasoned that higher levels could pose
substantial risk, and levels lower than
those found for the same constituents in
virgin fuel oils would not provide
protection of human health and the
environment given that used oil fuels
could replace virgin oil fuels.46
EPA continues to believe that there is
little protection to be gained by
regulating processed used oil fuels that
meet the specification levels any more
stringently than virgin oil fuels, since
these used oil fuels essentially present
no greater risk to human health and the
environment than virgin oil fuels. Also,
the Agency believes that the costs
associated with the regulation of used
oil fuels that meet the specification
limits (that are essentially the same as
" the virgin oil fuel specification) may
result in burners substituting virgin oil
fuels, which are unregulated, for used oil
«• Sea PEDCo Environmental Inc, A Risk
Aucutna il of Waste Oil Burning In Boilers and
Spico Hotter*. August 1984.
fuels. Therefore, EPA is considering
providing a regulatory exemption from
the used oil management standards for
those used oil fuels that meet the used
oil fuel specification in 40 CFR 266.40(e).
As explained above, the specification
was developed to provide virtually the
same level of protection from the
burning of used oil fuels as that
exhibited by the burning of virgin oil
fuels. Therefore. EPA sees no reason to
regulate used oil fuels that meet the
specification levels beyond requiring the
marketer to test the fuel and document
that it meets the specification levels for
each constituent and comply with the
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
266.43.
In 1985, EPA set the specification limit
for total halogens at 4,000 ppm (based
upon emission standards modelling).
EPA also promulgated a rebuttable
presumption for mixtures of used oil and
hazardous wastes in 1985. The
rebuttable presumption limit for halogen
content was set at 1,000 ppm (based
upon probable mixing scenarios). The
Agency believes (due to enforcement
experience) that used oils exhibiting a
total halogen level greater than 1,000
ppm have most likely been mixed with
chlorinated hazardous wastes.
The Agency wants to discourage all
mixing of used oils and hazardous
wastes. However, EPA understands that
some used oils (e.g., metalworking oils
with chlorinated additives) may exceed
the 1,000 ppm total halogen limit without
having been mixed with hazardous
waste. In these cases, the generator can
rebut the presumption of mixing and the
used oil would be regulated under the
§ 3014 management standards and not
as a hazardous waste. However, even if
the presumption of mixing is rebutted, if
the total halogen level in the used oil
exceeds 4,000 ppm, the used oil will not
meet the used oil specification limit for
halogens. Therefore, if the used oil is to
be burned for energy recovery, the used
oil will have to undergo further
processing to meet the used oil fuel
specification (to lower the total halogen
level) or the used oil must be burned as
off-specification used oil fuel (in which
case the marketer of the used oil fuel
must be in compliance with the current
part 268 subpart E requirements).
However, EPA is considering
eliminating the total halogen level of
4,000 ppm from the used oil fuel
specification. The deletion of the total
halogen level in the specification criteria
may eliminate any current confusion
regarding the difference In the 4,000 ppm
level of the used oil specification and
the 1,000 ppm level of the rebuttable
presumption. The result of establishing
only one limit for total halogen content
would be that the specification level for
used oil fuels would contain only
concentration limits for metals and the
halogen limit for the presumption of
mixing would remain at 1,000 ppm total
halogens. EPA believes that industry
currently complies with the 1,000 ppm
total halogen limit for used oil fuels.
Therefore, it may be unnecessary to ,
include a total halogen limit in the used
oil fuel specification. The Agency
requests comment on the need for and
consequences of eliminating the total
halogen limit in the used oil fuel
specification. ', .
Used oil recyclers commonly test used
oil samples prior to accepting used oil to
determine whether the used oil was
mixed with hazardous waste or not.
Many times recyclers, if the presence of
halogens is detected, perform additional
testing (e.g., EPA SW-846 test method
8010) to determine the quantity and the
type ofrhazardous waste that may have
been mixed with the used oil. If mixing
is confirmed, then the shipment is many
times rejected or the generator is
advised to send the contaminated used
oil to a hazardous waste incinerator. On
occasion, the quantities of used oil
rejected, and therefore required to be
incinerated (or otherwise burned as a
• . hazardous waste fuel), axe not large
enough to warrant the handling and
transportation costs associated with
sending them to an incinerator. In these
cases, the generator may consider
handling the mixture differently than
sending it to an incinerator or other
permitted hazardous waste burner
facility. To discourage mismanagement
of such mixtures, EPA is considering
allowing recyclera to accept this mixture
if it is accompanied by proper manifest
forms and provided the recycler agrees
to ship the used oil mixture to a
permitted hazardous waste burner to be
burned as a hazardous waste fuel. EPA
requests comment on what additional
requirements may be necessary to
ensure that a recycler does not conduct
any mixing with other unadulterated ,
used oils to lower the halogen content
and market the mixture as a used oil
fuel.
EPA solicits comment on the Agency's
proposal to allow used oil fuels meeting
the specification levels to be burned
without regulation under the section
3014 management standards. '
EPA received a correspondence from
the National Oil Recyclers Association
(NQRA) requesting an Interpretation of
the current regulations (Concerning
mixtures of used oil and characteristic
hazardous waste (in. this case mineral
spirits that exhibit the characteristic of
-------
* Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 / Proposed Rules 48061
y) '* Mineral spirits, when
mixed with used oil, no-longer exhibit
the characteristic of ignitability and the
resultant mixture is subsequently
burned for energy recovery. Since the
mixture no longer exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability, the burning
of such a mixture for energy recovery is
subject to part 266, subpart E as a used
oil fuel, and is not subjest to part 266
subpart D as a hazardous waste fuel.
G. 'Burners of. Off-Specification Used Oil
In November 1985, EPA proposed that
burners of off-specification used oil fuel
would be subject to regulation as
recycling facilities, and as such would
have to comply with the proposed
storage and other management
requirements (see proposed
§ 266.43(a)(l) and SO FR 49239).
Comments were received indicating that
these requirements would be too costly,
and would discourage the use of used oil
fuel. This section discusses some
possible changes to the proposal for pff-
- specification: used oil burners'. If hot
discussed here, provisions proposed
under §: 266.43 and § 266.44 are still
under consideration for used oil burners.
Table IX.G.l provides a brief
summary of the uSed oil burner
requirements that EPA is currently
considering for promulgation. These
standards will be included under Phase I
if The, used oil management standards
are promulgated in two phases. Table •
IX.G.l also compares the requirementa
that the Agency is now considering with
those proposed in 1985. A more detailed
discussion of the proposed used oil
burner requirements is provided below.
TABLE IX.G,1.—USED OIL BURNERS
1985
Today
Storage
Container Storage: 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart I- „
Aboveground Tanks: 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart J: „„ . .
Underground Storage Tanks; 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart J „_.
Corrective Action.
Remove (eakfng'tanks from Use; refeases must be remedied..
Replace leaking.coritalner requirements for tank and container
storage, and accompanying
preparedness and prevention and
emergency procedures. EPA is
concerned that the 1985 proposed
storage requirements (which were
similar to those proposed for used oil
recycling facilities) may be too stringent
and unnecessarily expensive for used oil
burners. EPA believes that used oil
burners store used oil merely to meet
their fuel needs and generally not to
stockpile used oils for an extended
period of time. Therefore, in lieu of-the
storage requirements proposed, EPAia
now considering requiring the same on-
site storage requirements for burners as
those outlined above for generators.
These provisions are essentially the
same as those proposed in 1985 for
aboveground tanks and containers,
except for the secondary containment
. requirement, and include inspection of
tanks for corrosion andjeaks, closure,
special provisionafor ignuable oil.
cleanup of visible releases, leaks* and
drips, labelling of tanks and containers
used for storage, and overflow and
freeboard controls. In the case of
underground tanks used to store used oil
fuels, EPA is proposing to retain the
current 40 CFR part 280 requirements for
used oil burners. Also, to ensure against
potential hazards from extensive
accumulation and storage of used oil at
burning facilities, EPA is considering
limiting the storage period at burning
facilities to 180 days. Burners storing
used oil for a period longer than 180
days may have to comply with the
recycling facility storage and permit-by-
rule requirements. EPA requests
comments on the proposed storage
standards for burners of non-
specification used oil fuels. As
discussed above, the SPCC regulations .
would continue to apply independently
to the section 3014 standards for used oil
burners.
2. Burner Analysis Requirements
'EPAproposed that all recycling
facilities, including burners, analyze the
used oil managed at the facility for total
halogens, ignitability, and indicator
parameters (when other hazardous
wastes are also managed at the facility).
Commenters stated that the analysis
requirements were duplicative since
such a determination has already been
made by a used oil recycler or marketer.
As One commenter pointed out,.
marketers have already performed
analyses to determine if the used oil
meets the specification and to determine
if the oil has been mixed with hazardous
waste. EPA is aware that, at a minimum,
most reputable used oil handlers
conduct relatively simple analyses using
test kits to determine if the used oil has-
been mixed with hazardous waste.
EPA is considering allowing burners
to use information provided by
marketers (e.g., certification or '
analytical results) in lieu of requiring the
burnerjo perform analyses for halogen
"Letter to Mr. David Bussard, Director,
Characterization and Assessnrent Division of EPA's
Office of Solid Waste, from Mr Chris Harris,
National Oil Recyclers Association of June 5,1G91.
-------
48062 Federal Register /' Vol. 56, Np; "184 •-/ Mottday,' September 23; l9iH / 'Prbposfed Rufes^ •';
content and ignitabllify. Where
information is not available from the '• -• -
marketer, however, the burner would
still be required to perform the analyses.
EPA -believed that when the oil is ; •
provided by a non-marketer!(i.e.,
generator or transporter transporting:
directly from the generator's site(s)),
there is a potential for contamination of
the used oil prior to delivery to the
burner. Therefore, in such cases, EPA
believes the only way that a burner,can
ensure that the oil has not been mixed
with hazardous waste (or the oilmeets'
the specification, if the burner wishes to
burn specification fuel) is to perform an
analysis for halogens and ignitability (or
specification parameters). The turner
would have to keep records of the fuel
specification, certification oh-'site as part
of the operating record. EPA requests
comments on the analytical .'•":.'
requirements proposed for used oil "
burners. '
3. Space Heaters ; ' . „ .
EPA's proposal in November, 1985
inadvertently omitted the.conditions on
space heaters currently required in part
208, subpart E. When the used, oil
management standards are promulgated,
EPA will clarify that continued use of
used oil-fired space heaters under the
conditions specified in § 268.41(b)(2)(iii)
Is still allowed (even if used oil is listed
as a hazardous waste.) , .
4. Burner Permitting and Corrective
Action ' :, .
The 1985 proposal required off-
specification used oil burners to comply
with the peraiit-by-rule provisions:
-. proposed for used oil recycling facilities.
Many commenters stated that the
permitting requirements were too
burdensome for burners and would
discourage the recycling of used oil as
fuel. EPA is hence concerned that such a
large outlet for used oil may be
restricted. At,the same time, EPA
recognizes the need to provide for the
safe Handling of used oil and to control
against possible releases during the '
storage of used oil. Therefore-, EPA is
proposing a limited set of requirements
for used oil burners that will provide a •
necessary level of protection while
minimizing the adverse impacts on the
used oil fuel market
In light of the fact that all used'oils •
may not be classified as hazardous, EPA
is proposing to apply the permit-by-rule
provisions to burners, but with a V. ., • • '
reduced set of standards.,These \ ;
standards are as follows: (a) The^tank
storage standards would be the same as
those discussed above for generators;'
(b) the burner would :not be required to .
perform analyses for halogen content
and ignitability if that information's • •
provided by the marketer; (c) EPA may '
require that a log indicating the dates,
quantities, and types of used oil
acceptedfor burning be maintained (as
-required for other types of recycling
facilities); (d) reduced closure
requirements, the unit specific closure ;
Requirements in part 265, subpart J
Would apply to burners, rather than the
closure requirements proposed for the
other types of recyclers; and (e) EPA
may require biennial reporting for
burners as discussed above for recycling
facilities, especially when used oilfuel '
is accepted directly from used oil
•generators1. Burners may also be subject '
to the same unit-specific corrective
action/release response requirements' as
other recycling facilities. .Therefore, ;
requirements for burners 'relating to tank
• storage; analysis (|f analytical results
are provided by the marketer), and '
'.• closure are less stringent than those:
'requirements for other types of used oil ,
•.recycling facilities. ' , • >
To date,. EPA has not proposed
regulations covering technical burning
requirements for used oil burners. Also,
today's proposal does not add emission
standards for devices that burn used oil
for energy ^recovery. EPA requests
comments and supporting data on
emissions from used oil burners and the
, need for.deyelopment of emission
standards' for burners as part of the •
Phase ^'requirements.
EP A: requests comments on the •
reduced permitting standards including;
storage, analytical, and'recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for used oil '
burners 'of off-specification oil.
, H. Facilities tising Distillation Bottoms
or Baghouse Dust to Produce Asphalt •.
EPA does not generally view the
residues from processing and re-refining
of used oil as within the scope of section
3014. As discussed earlier in this notice,
these residues may be subject to listings,
characteristic determinations, and the
hazardous waste management
' regulations under subtitle C.' An
exception, however, may be'the use of
distillation bottoms and baghouse dust
to make asphalt products (e.g., road-
paving material, roofing tiled, etc,). Re-
refineries produce substantial amounts
of distillation bottoms (approximately 21
million gallons annually) and EPA has
1 been told that the revenues from the;
sale of these residues are important to ; :
• the viability of re^refineries. To meet the
statutory gbal of a protective and viable
usedjoilrecycling system, EPA considers
', the use of distillation bottoms as an
ingredient in asphalt products, where
the starting material is used oil and it
becomes' an integral patt of thVasphalt/ ! "
to be withhytheicbpeof the universe'of''
recycled used oils governed'by RCRA '
section 3014. (See discussion in VILA; of
.the notice.) Similarly, asphalt plaints ' !
burning used bil as a fuel may ,:' *!' s
incorporate baghouse dust from air .
pollution control device8,;used tp control.
emissions from used oil combustion into
asphalt products, This process also
seem? to be closely related to* used oil
recycling (i,e.,,it may be integral to the .
use of .used oil as a fuel at asphalt.
plants) and so it may also be withinth?
scope of section 3Ql4 ^thp^ity, • -•/./
In 1985, EPA proposed a special
, pxeriiptipi).from the prpposed used,oil ';'•-'
;-. management.staridard.il for asphalt •,'
paving materials containing distillation •„' .
bottoms from used oilye-refining. or , •'[
rbaghouse^usts from air pollution ; r ; ,
• pontrol devices used to. control, .
emissions from recycled used oiK ,•* >.'.
combustion. Persons using1 the ;' j'; • ;
distillation;.bottoms or baghouse dusts .,. _.
into the asphalt would have been i
regulated as used oil rtscycling facilities.
EPA asked for comments on the hazards
associated with these fesiduals and the! ' '
need for controls over asphalt products
made from used oil residues1 in'the 1985 '
proposal. Very little information was '' ;
received iri answer to this request.
EPA may propose 'regulations for,
hazardous wasterderived products that,;
ar,e placed on' the land (e^g, aggregates^
^^phalt, cement). Under such proposal,
. pro'ducersoif hazardous, waste-der.iviBd , ;
; products may have to demonstrate that',. .
their products are no fess p'rptectiye. •'
than non-wa;ste-d;e^ived products'. EPA .
requests poininent pn whether such an
approach "is' Applicable |o asphalt ;,
proo^ucts derived from used oil residuals,
Or as an alternative, whether other
means (lie., .'a limit on the percentage of
used pil that the asphalt can contain, or
a leach test such as $ie JO.LP, etc.) could
ensure the safety'ofs.uch prpduct's.
Finally, EPA is proposing a change
from the 1985 proposal for the facilities
' that make asphalt using used oil •.' .;
residuals. .Instead of regulating asphalt
plants as'used oiijecygliftg facilities,. '
EPA is considering regulating such;''..,' • •- -.
facilities: inia;manner;identibal;tb!that
outlined above for burners of off- :.',. ?; •
specification used oil fuels. EPAis
considering regulating:asphak plants! Ift-i
the -same mariner |a& bi^ners pf off-; ; •': -r ~
• Specification used oil finel!b;ecaus"e .the '< ••':
Agency belieyps, thaUhe us.ed-oilisj'in i, •'
i both eases,. b"ein£ iis'ed for its inherent \ '
, characteristics; (e^g.i BWlvalUbJi These .
facilities wpuld be subject to": , ' i '
.Inspe'ction arid's'pfllT'esponse for "
' ' r"' ; "' '
-------
parlv28arequirements- .:
fOr underground tank; storage;1 '%' ' ,
-.; '•'•' Analysis and documerttatipn'pf rio
', mixing with hazardous; waste (which the
•marketer of-the residues may provide);
•• aild • .. .,,; v -y.-v^tv^y;" X,y,x ,•? -;..
i ">'*^eGordkfeeping"associate'd with a 1 :
OpUectiqn log or inyqice ^system. *
, These requirements woiim help; -. •:,
ensure proper management of the used
oi| residuals prior to their incorporation
, into the asphalt-: Facilities making' such .
products would also have to: obtain a ;
permit by;rule [Le., asproppsed for used
oil burners), • ' -. - '; •
^Comments are requested on the
appropriateness of including these .
.. residues in the scope, of the:section 3014
regulations and on, the approach . .; :
outlined above for regulating this type of
recycling activity," ;:--•• ,,-
I. fload Oilers . ,•;'••• ',;•- j .;.'.-.' !;•;/•' .:
In 1985,;EPA proposed a ban on the-
use of used oil for dust suppression^
..based on the premise-that all used-oils
.would:be listed as hazardous waste.-; '
RGRA section 3004(1) prohibits the use
'of materials containing hazardous-waste
for dust suppression. As:discussed:' ..-t
previously in this notice '{Section —. f
ViII.F.4),' EPA is still considering using
section .3014 authority to ban road oiling.
Alteriiatively,.EPA may allow;spme ' .'•.'•
road oiling under certain conditions:,-.;.
(e:g., when used oil is applied, to land in
'. compliance with the LDR standards and
the disposal guidelines that EPA may
• develop in the future]. If that is the case,
: EPA may subject road'oilers to ,;- ,
analytical requirements to document
that the^oil is safe, for toad application
(e.g., testing each batch prior to'use). In
addition EPA may regulate toad-biters
the same as recycling faPilities, requiring
Compiiance'with the: permit-by-rule. '
. provisions (including storage,, closure,
release response requirements, and ;
recordkeeping and repprting) for their
storage units, EPA requests comment on
this alternative regulatpry^scheme to.
allow for limited roadpiling. EPA also
requests comments on whaianalyses
will demonstrate that the used oil is safe
fcr road applicatipriJ ,';-::;
/. DisposalFaciliiieis : '-"'.^ . i _'.".'••,
• In 1985, because.EPA proposed to list
all used oils, the disposal of used oils
would have been regulated under ---• •
Subtitle C.4? The approach burrently
•ta Used pi! that is deterininfed'tOihe hazaraoua |by,
a listing or because It exhibits one or-mpre of the'
charagteristics of a hazardous waste) must continue
'''
,. ;
requirements. . .,'i:^';i.'!| !'':- j'-,:"iv.,-";i-;";'5'.;S"'^',< :'" •••
:under consideration iriaynbt list pr // _,,
. identify all used: Oils as hazardous, :,
howeveftEPAJs therefore: considering, ,
specialjrequirements.(e.g.',; analyses, ,-; ,
recprdkeeping, arid'tepprtirig) :fpr.: /;;
. disposal pf rionhazardous.' used oils; The
party-intendirig to disppse'of used Oil /.' V ,
must prove that itis nonLrecydable ; ,; .
before determining wh'etherdt is . . ;.
hazardous. For non-hazardous :used oil •
disposal, EPA "may develop disppsal •
criteria, under the authpritiesproyided to .
the Agency under RCRA; sections 1008, ••
3007, arid 4005; RCRA -authorizes EPA to
provide technical descriptions of the ,;,
level of performance that provides ' i
protection of public health and the
environment and to provide minimum :
criteria defining those practices which
. constitute open dumping. '
•:- The'options for disposal of ; •;-
nonhazardous .used oil ar.e discussed •'• '-,-
extensively in section Vinjl. The ' '"•'
.Agency requests comments- on. the
appropriateness of codifying; the chosen.
option in the new part 279, ratheV than in
part 257 or 258^relating to solid waste
:facilities). -' i; -,;"'"-' *;*';•' .;."";-;,;••-'>-:'
— Thedispbsatgtiidejines-deyelpped1 by
: EPA could establish design arid-_ ;•. .
operation steps fon ' ; •--.[- ' ; '
• Controlling down-gradient , ' :
migration .of used oil or generation pf oil
plumes that could reach drinking water •
sources'; --:' \- / ••" - :. •• ;--;; ;•'•''""•';•.';''
?T Locating certain sites or
' designating/dedieating other sites as
'acceptable used oil disposal sites based
/on: ".-/ ••-,-••• •;.;-•,"..; :'".; s.,::'-'/"••'•••':;'. - ./''
i—Simple;site-specific" factors such as/ "..
soil type, arinual rainfall^ proximity .to-
surface water:and/or ground.water; ,:.
sources,'prpxiiriity. "to the nearest , /
. human popiilaifionj and proximity to'
- ecologically sensitive habitats ..--'•*.
(aquatic and ;terrestrial); or :;, •
—Other site-specific prevention arid, '
v' deteetibrimeasures. ; "• ••*• . : - :; ,
X. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive; Order 12291 ;.'-:•
Executive Orderil2291 (46 FR13193) '
requires that a regulatory agency ; :
determine whether a new regulation; will
be "major"-and,; if so, that a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) be conducted.-A ".
major rule is .defined as a regulatipri that
is likely toTesult in pile pr'more of the
followingimpactst -.- . .;,...,.
(1) Annual effect on the economy of
$100 million pr more;
'(2) A major increase in costs-or prices
"fbr consumers. Individuals,, industries;
Federal; Stafe^ and local government
agencies,.prgePgraphic;regions;,or .;,-.'.--..'
(3) Significant adverse effeets on/, ;% .-.
competitipri;:em^lpyment, 'inyestmenti' •'
" ' tio'rii pr-oni.the;, ;~i, ,
•: ability of, IJnitedStatesTbased; /_>vi;:, •: •;•'
.enterprises t6. cdmpete.wi&ipre.ign^ • " .
basfed enterpriseslri dbmesticprpxport,
; markets.; VJ i"'^'1.'?^' r' 'i^;. «•"•'-'-' '-^V,.
Consistent' with Executive Order: ^:. •; .
12291, the Agency has completed a.-",:- ! '. •....
. prelirtiiriary •economic impact scXeeninjg; .
anaTysis'for the regulatory Options; ,., -
discussed in today's Supplemental. ...
Notice, including those pertaining to ; , _:i .
listing of used oil. as a hazardous waste
and. related land disposal- restrictions as
well as , the .proposals for Phase J .:'• :'. . , .
alternative management staridardsfor '
used pil under sectipn 3014 of the Used
dilRecycling Act. -., , • , ,
- The Agency's analysis suggests that.
.the varipus- management practices " ~.\ .,
proposed for the storage, handling and
effective tracking of used oil are similar:
to or the': same as those required by , . ,.. •
other existing federal and State" ,
regulations or .current business jpractices
for most of the^ facilities in the:industry .
.segments potentially affected by the, ,
proposed, yule. Because of this, although
the total: number off facilitiea that could
;pptentiaily be affec.ted.by .thesai, ; • ; ;- - • ••
^standards is large (approximately -,
:.B4p,pOO,.used'pil-generator,.c.pllectpr,, • .
transppi?terr processing; rerefining, -'„.'-.". , ,
marketing, and biijnirig facilities), .. . :.,.
incremental costs -to- most of the affected
facilities wpftld be quite mpdest.
.Household "dp-it-yburself ' (DIY) used •'.-
oil activity would not be regulated as ,
siich until after the pU enters the , '•• •
collection system.;; ;;. ; J" .' : -,: . :
,'\, TJht&_Agency\s'best'estimate .is that the
.Jange of likely annual costs pf : • : ; „ ;
cpmpliance with various cbmbinatipns :
ofthe options being considered in
tbday's Notice, .including Phase I of the
section 3014 management standards,-
imposing bans.on road oiling and 'land
disposal of used oil, ;and listing ,
processor and rerefirier; used Oil -
residuals.-.would -not much:exceed;$6p
million 'and could be less than $10 ;: •'.•'.
million per year, •depending on the '
combination of 'options selected for the
finarrulemaking. Thus, based on this -
cost-screening analysis, -the Agency
. does not believe that the regulatory
options presented in today's preamble
would constitute a major rule' according
to the'first criterion of E.Q; 12291. '.',-.:;;
.;.: Adlditionai analysis of potential : •
effects oil individual sectors also leads
the Agency to conclude that there would
not -be a substantial increase in cpsts.pr
prices for consumers or a significant ; .
.effect on.interna-tipnal trade or - . , >•
eiriployirierit, everi'if all optipnsf were ', '
iiftplemeiited in'their entirety. ;Certairi of
f ;
•substantial effe:cits?ori a' femaitbiit,' '
-------
48064 Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 184 • /' Mondays September 23^ 1991; / ^
' RuteS ': 4 :- ii ;i i: * f -! g i? J: § )i< fc Pd
Industry, On balance, however, the t :
Agency does not believe that today's
proposed rule constitutes a major rule as
defined by E.0.12291.
Several elements of EPA,'s cost
screening are, however, subject to
uncertainty due to Insufficient data. In
addition, the Agency has not been able
to evaluate fully the costs and recycle
market implications of certain of the
used oil listing options related to boiler
and furnace markets for "derived from"
used oil fuels or the listing of distillation
bottoms on rerefiners' distillation .
asphalt product markets. The Agency
therefore solicits additional data and , .
comments pertinent to any aspects of ,
this cost screening analysis, and, in
particular, on the effects of the "deriyed-
from rule" on processor fuel markets
and effects of listing distillation bottoms
on rcrefiner asphalt markets and their
implications for used oil recycling.
As stated above, based on work to .
date the Agency does not believe that
any combination of today's proposed
listing alternatives and/or management
standard options would constitute a
major rule requiring a Regulatory Impact
Assessment under EO. 12291. However,
if EPA's further work or public review
comments lead to substantial
reassessment of this position, and
depending on the options selected in the
final rulemaking, the Agency will . ;
appropriately update the 1985 RIA in
support of the final rulemaking.
The following paragraphs of this
section lay out in greater detail the
Agency's approach and findings from
the economic impact screening analysis,
as well as some background on the
assumptions made to arrive at the cost
estimates. For further detail, .the reader ,
Is referred to the supporting technical
background document "Cost and
Economic Impact Screening Analysis for.
the 1991 Used Oil Proposal" available in
the docket ,
A. Scope and Approach for Impact
Screening
1. Overview of Used Oil Generation and
Management , •
Used crankcase oils and other used
oils are a very common and pervasive
byproduct of a highly mobile, industrial
society. Every mode of transportation,
every machine, and virtually every
industrial process which relies on oil for
lubrication, hydraulic fluid, insulation,
or other processing generates used oil.
For 1908 the Agency estimates that
about 1.35 billion gallons of used oil was
generated in the United States by
households, and industrial and non-
industrial generators. Tho Agency has
also estimated that approximately
640,000 industrial and non-industrial ;.
generators, and several thousand
collectors, handlers, processors,
rerefiiiers, marketers and burners could
potentially be regulated undeif various
options included in this Notice. - ,.
Household generators would not be
regulated under any of the used oil
regulatory proposals. Table XiA.l
presents in greater detajl the Variety of
business sectors potentially subject to
these regulatory options, including the
total number of facilities estimated to be
operating in each sector. The number of
facilities in each sector potentially
• affected by. various options discussed in
today's Notice is discussed below.
TABLE X.A.1).—TpTAL ^ON-HOUSEHOLD
'FACILITIES HANDLING USED biL IN
t Facility type ,
Gsncrators Total. .....>....»..»..»...»...».«.
. Non-Industrial Subtotal™ ......
Service Stations «...»
New & Used Dealers :.....
= : Non-service Retailers
Air/Marine/RR .».< «
Public Collection Centers.., ..........
Industrial Subtotal j
Collectors/Transporters Total ......
>10 Days ...«, ...'.....
processors and Rerefiners Total..... —
Major Processors .- .*.,.!•»«
' Kflinor Processors.«............».,;....«...U...'..».
Re-refiners ..*.«.......w.,»»»..»»...»; *...
Subtotal Facilities................... ..!,...
Marketers not already counted * ...... ...L...
Burners * «.. . ... ...... «»» J««.
Off-Spec..........—..™.........
Space Heaters ... .......
On-SpeC »..»..«»». JHM
Total No.
of
facilities
640.413
282,413
45,000
100,000
56,000
72,500
400
7,513
1,000
358,000
383
1 345
38
1 186
112
70
. '.- ,4
640.982
?
- 1,121
60,000
?
1 According to the Hazardous Waste 'Data Man-
agement System (HWDMS), 1,567 facilities market-
ing off-specification used oil have notified EPA of
this practice. However, this figure includes collectors,
processors, rerefiners and some generators. The
total number of marketers not already counted re-
mains unclear. Marketers of on-specification used oil
may Include any general fuel oil dealers, and are not
regulated under this proposal.
? According to HWDMS, 1,121 off-specification
burners of used oil have notified EPA of this prac-
tice. An additional fO.OOO facilities are estimated to
bum used oil for fuel in space heaters; however,
used oil burned for this use is exempted from regula-
tion under this proposal; Burners of on-spec used oit
include general fuel oil customers, and are also not
regulated under this proposal. ' , ' ,
Used oil is currently managed to a
substantial degree by an established
recycling and reuse system of oil
accumulation, collection, transportation,
processing, rerefining and marketing to
end users. In 1988, 70 percent or 949
million gallons of the used oil generated
were recycled through the used oil
management system of collectors,
processors, and end users, or were
reused on-site by the generators
themselves; approximately 34 million
gallons were reused fpr ;the purpose of ,
road oiling-Of the 1.35 billion gallons . ..
generated in ,1988,58 percent or 784
million; gallons; were burned for energy
recovery, either on;site by the generator ,
space heaters Or ^industrial boilers, or
off-site in boilers and furnaces, cement,
kilns, and diespl engines. At .each stage
of the process, used oil is. accumulated
and stored and may be subject to ;
mismanagement in handling or 'Storage. ,
The Phase I management .standards seek
to safeguard against mismanagement of
the used oil at each step in the proce.S3.; ,
B~ Section SfOH ManqgemeM Siatidards ,
for Recycled Used Oil j^":' ^ ._;, ,^ v,; \'
i l.-B'ackground Assumptions and ,,: .•
r Regulatory Options Analyzed >fqr Phase :
I Management''Standards '• '.: ; ''• '
The regulatory options analyzed for,
this cost screening analysis are t|iose ' ;
described previously in the preamble.
For the purpose of conducting this
screening analysis, the costs' attributable
to the alternative management > ,
standards are understporj to apply to
generators and handlers of used oil '.
regardless of.thg decision tolist all used
oil or any^sujjcategory' caused oil as, a.
hazardous w.aste. All used oils except
those, generated by households,are' .; ,
presumed to be bquhd for recycling, arid
all non-hpusehold genei^tors and ftthef !
facilities could be sub'je"pt to.the Mase I
Staridards.^oweyer, most'generators v
Would, be eXeriipted under the small , .'
; quantity ge'heratqriexeriiptiohoptipii" :
discussed in sectiops yiHand^iOf- ' '.
today's notice, Used "oil not bound for .
recycling would ha;ve to be tested to
demonstrate nph-recyclabilUy due ,tp its
physical characteristics: (e.g.', jow heat
content or high water content).
The Phase I alternative management
standards for generators, handlers, •, ,
processors and end users of used, oil, as ,
described earlier in today's preamble,
would describe basic management
practices for .used oil storage, ,,
preparedness and spill prevention, spill
response and .cleanup, recprdkeeping
and Deporting, and testing (for those .; ,
facilities that want to dispose of their,'.. ..
'., used oil)- The Jlndiyidu.al requirements
vary by facility typeiIn general, „.;, , ^ ,
,hpweyer,, compliance costs fp^r the: ], ;!. ;.,
affected, facilities relate primarily tp | ;
additional labor hours required to
provide, regular tank inspections,, ,
provide training, maintain.records or .
compile reports. 1 .. •,
Specific assumptions and features .
significant to the cost analysis are
described briefly below:
• Storage requirements for drums and
containers, above-ground tanks,
-------
.Federal Register^ Vol,:56;:.ISfp.-a84-if Monday,:^September. 23,\199K I Proposedi'Rules
48065
underground tanks, and surface ..,.;:.'. .
impoundments apply uniformly ,to.allr . .•
non-household generators, collectors .
and, transporters, processors, rerefiners,
marketers, and;burners. All.such-„ ,.
facilities'are .assumed to be.requjrerd to
apply "good housekeeping" standards of
regular inspection of the tanks to ensure
tank integrity,., and.clean up all drips and
small leaks as soon as they are detected.
In addition, all storage facilities are
assumed to be required to label tanks as
"used oil storage." Based on interviews
with association and other industry,
representatives of each of the .categories
of facilities affected, we estimate that -
approximately 10 percent of generators
and burners would require additional
measures to comply with the storage
and spill response requirements.
However, used oil storage identification
labels may be required at every facility
and .on every tank and storage
container^ since these labels are riot !
common among either generators, or -.
used oil processing or:management;
facilities. Secondary containment for .
used oil collectop.and processor . :
facilities has not been explicitly ;
included at this time, but because-of the
Spill Prevention, Control, and.,. : . ;
Countermeasures progra'm (SPCG),'.-.-'
incremental costs are likely to be ; .':
minimal.- -
• Spill response and cleanup'standards
would apply to all facility types in order to
ensure that, in the event that a spill occurs,
the spill be contained and qleaned up as
rapidly, as possible. It is assumed that any
failed tank, container, or equipment would -:•
have, to be drained of remaining oil and either
repaired or replaced. With/the-exception
noted below, costs for spill response a'nd '.
cleanup hiaterials'are assumed to be'already
accounted for at all or most facilities in the
used oil generating and handling sectqrs-ss-a
matter.of common business practice due to
local fire code regulations and insurance ..-. .. ,.
requirements. Major spills !that could involve
the cleanup and removal of contaminated
soils, pumping or treating of groundw'ater, or
surface water.oil containment are hot : :.
addressed by today's proposal." : -
> Preparedness and prevention standards
also apply to all facilities arid are the same as
those contained in 40 CFR subpart C arid
subpartD, including installation of an;.
internal communications or alarm system,
fire extinguishers, adequate water supply,
and emergency training plans and
procedures. We have assumed,,based on
interviews"with industry representatives, that
facilities in only two generator subcategories
(npriseryiqe retailers and public collection- ••••:•
centers), comprising less, than one percent of
all generators, will require additional;.. •
measures for preparedness and preventiori.
• 'Used oil tracking, "recbrdkeepirig and'
reporting requirements, .All facilities, !: c- •"
including generators/would be required to '
ikeep a record..Qf used oil shipments .and/or
deliveries,for aipedod of three years .in the, .
form of a log. In addition, transporters: would
be required to initiate a separate paper ..
tracking sysfem of the used oil they handle,
with inforffiattort.on both .the origin arid,
destination of the used Oil. Transporters, fuel
processors arid rerefmers, and burners of:
used oil which fails to'meet the fuel oil ' -
specification would be required to report
biennially on the volumes'of recycled ; ;
products handled, by categories. We have
assumed that all industrial generators and
handlers and 97 percent of non-industrial
generators already have standard business
recordkeeping systems in place which could
be supplemented or revised at rib measurable
incremental cost. For biennial reporting, xve
have assumed that all collectors/ -,-.
transporters, processors, and rerefmers
would incur modest additional costs. -
• Testing for generators (for BTU contend
: viscosity, total halogens, or water content)
would be necessary only for that subset of
generators who choose to utilize disposal
options instead of recycling their used oil. We
believe that, only a very small portion of
facilities' would generate used oil that is
characteristically non-recyclable.
. Accordingly, we have estimated that only, 5
percent 6f industrial generators' and an '
additional 5 percent of the air/marine/
railroad non-industrial subcategpry would be.
required;to test for non-recyclability. No
additional testing requirements are assumed;
•for used Oil management facilities. "'
• Permitting requirements are assuhied to
apply to .all. trarisporters, processors anidL
rerefiners, as well as to marketers and
burners of used oil fuel which fails to meet
the existing used oil fuel specification
standards, with such permits to be issued by
rule at no cost. Hazardous waste co-
management facilities, however, would be
; required,to file for a modification of their,. ..
existing Subtitle C penhH, and would .
Hereford incur a modest one-time'cost.
2'. Existing (Baseline) Regulations an^
Practices That Lijnit Incremental..." . ...
•Impacts of Phase I Management
. Standard's ,.•'..'".. '.]-'•'; .', -';•".'..
, The Agency estimates that only a
small fraction of facilities storing, •'
.handling, and burning used oil will incur •
additional costs attributable to the
'Phase I Management"Standard '
.alternatives, because the administrative
and other facility standards .are already- -
substantially in place due to .other
federal, State; and local requirements, '
arid standard-industry practices. The ';"•
alternative management standards that
are urider consideration and described *
in today's Phase I proposal were
deyeloped to ensure that used oil is
adequately stored ;and handled to , •
protect public health and the," ::. i:,.
environment while imposing a minimal..
burdenonthe existing used oil ;'• '.-,:.,.-•..'
collection ;and recycling, system. Since ..
the storage, .handling, and management.,
of all waste.s has.becpme: a niajor[issue,:, •
many.used oilfacilities bg-yej.;„„;.!.• ,. ,:•;,•
incorporated pr^tectiye measures.,:in .;.
response.. . -...,5 ;..: •..-...•-'..f-.'•..-..'.;.'••,.
:'' The. alternative management .
standards proposed today incpipQrate
or overlap with portions of three federal
statutes already promulgated: The '
Underground Storage Tank rule.(UST, 40
, GER part 280), the Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures program
[SPCC, 40 CFR part 112), and regulations
and guidelines promulgated under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (29
CFR part 1910). Since the UST "''"-,.
regulations have been incorporated in •
today's rulemaking to cover all '.-. '
underground used oil storage
requirements for leak detection, :
containment, and spill response, today's
rule imposes no additional requirements
or costs attributable to underground
storage. --...-'. . .,',.-'. ,
In addition; the federal SPCC .
: abovegrourid tank inspection and • :• >
containment requirements substantially
overlap today's storage regulations and,
effectively preclude additional burdens
for large generators as well as
collectors.-processors, rerefiners,
marketers, and burners that store oil.-•. :
above ground in tanks larger than 660
gallons or combinations of tanks and
containers with aggregate capacity of !
greater than 1,320 gallons. SPCC is
designed to protect against petroleum ,
, spills into navigable waterways;
however, the statute has been broadly
interpreted by the federal government as
well as by the regulated .sectors to apply
to virtually all large facilities, regardless ,
of gebgraphio loGation.'These . . '
requirements, described earlier in the ,
preambJe,; stipulate management
- practices for storing 'arid monitoring1 of.-.'•
"Oil- in aboveground taiiks, spill response
and cleanup, and. preparedness and
prevention to an ;extent which we' '
believe" would require no additional
_ compliance cost; ;- ' ,.•:••/ :
. Finally, the requirements for worker:
training and protection against hazards
in the workplace issued by pSHA, , .
require training for workers engaged in
. the handling d'f hazardous materials,
although the requirements are not
specific to used oil facilities. Even if
many or all categories of used oil;are •
non-hazardous, used oil is typically -.... •
generated in facilities where other '
hazardous materials such as degreasers,
paint thinners, and other solvents are - ,
handled, VN/e believe that preexisting.;
• bSHA-mandated training programs for
.other materials handled:at used .oil , i
facilities can be .expanded to'include ,
used oil handling considerations at'iio. .-.-
additional post. -:.• ..,:. •;-(aKr-: ; •>'••.':•-•• '•',--*
AtShe.State.level,^ey.en.-States :ri:f.,.i
regulate used oil as afhazardqus.waste,-
-------
48066
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 / Monday, September 23. 1991 / Proposed Rules
controlling (he storage, handling and
management of used oil. Four States
(California, Missouri. Rhode Island and
Vermont) have set the small quantity
generator exception threshold low
chough that hazardous waste
management regulations cover even
very small generators such as small
service stations and community
collection facilities. The other three
States (Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Oklahoma), have SQG thresholds high
enough to exempt small generators, but
do regulate other used oil management
facilities. Depending on the States in
question, we have assumed that no
additional compliance costs for
management (standards are incurred by
the covered facilities in these States.
At the local level, fire code
regulations typically mandate
equivalent physical preparedness and
prevention equipment such as alarm or
communications systems and spill
absorbent materials. Also, on an
individual facility basis, management
guidelines stipulating "good
housekeeping" management standards
imposed by insurers are common among
processors, marketers, and burners.
Ona additional factor may limit the
incremental costs below what is
presented here. As mentioned earlier,
the majority of costs estimated for the
management standards are labor- rather
than capital- dependent. Some of the
labor requirements are so low (e.g. daily
inspection time for storage) that the cost
may be absorbed into the amount of *
"down time" of unallocated flexible time
available in most businesses. They can
also be absorbed by providing proper
braining and education to workers and
emphasizing the need for inspection and
cleanup to minimize the potential
hazards to human health and the
environment associated with used oil
releases and spills and improper
disposal.
3. Summary of Potentially" Affected
Activities and Facilities Under Phase I
Management Standards With no Small
Business Generator Exemption
After accounting for existing
requirements and standard industry
practices dictating storage, monitoring,
and handling of used oil compelled by.
the provisions of UST regulations, SPCC
program requirements, OSHA
requirements and guidelines, existing
state regulations, and local fire codes,
and insurance requirements, only a
much smaller subset of the total number
of potentially affected facilities remains.
Table X.B.1 shows that, of the total
population of approximately 642,000
facilities potentially affected by Phase I
management standards, approximately
60,000 will bear additional costs for
storage measures, 1,200 for
preparedness and prevention, 9,400 for
tracking, recordkeeping and/or
reporting, and just over i.8,000 for
testing. The vast majority of these
facilities are generators. Since permit by
rule would be applied for the majority of
used oil handling and recycling facilities
except for used oil generators, no
additional permitting cost is assumed in
the majority of cases. However,
additional permitting costs for permit
modifications would be borne by,
approximately twenty rerefiners and
other used oil processors that are
currently permitted subtitle C co-
management facilities. '
The numbers of facilities shown in
table X.B.I assumed to incur additional
costs are those facilities which have
non-standardized regular storage
inspections, have no OSHA training
programs because no other hazardous
materials are handled on site (as in the
case of public collection centers and
non-service retailers), do not keep -
records of the used oil transported off
site, or are used oil generators,
processors, or rerefiners. who are
required to test used oil before disposing
of it (i.e. if the oil is not recyclable).
Although collectors, transporters, and
processors all have in place invoice and
tracking systems as a matter of standard
industry accounting and. billing practice,
they are not currently required to report
the volumes of used oil picked up from
generators, accumulated and processed
on site, and delivered to end users.
TABLE X.B.1 .—NUMBER OF FACILITIES ASSUMED TO INCUR INCREMENTAL COST WITH SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR EXEMPTION
Facilities
Oonofiktocs
Trsnspoftiktlofi »»....•«.».._.«....................»..........«.
—with SQG Exemption .
— without SQG ExempUon...»...»«..«.«« »...»......«...
tfKtutWal , , ,. ,
—With SQG EXQfnptiOn «*..4.»t.Mi.~.........~..».M............M....»..
—without SQG Exomption. .»M..«H.«W.«.....»« «
Cof!oc(o
,i ' .0
•
0
! o
0
0
"19
0
0
19
19
Disposal
presumption
testing
standards
18,276
376
376
1,215
17,900
0
0
0
0
1,591
18,276
1 Mafkotoa iocluda gonoral fuel dealers assumed to handle only specification fuel which are exempt from
NoUca.
* Bomof» of off-epeciflcatkxi used oil
* Permitted hazardous waste co-management facilities will incur additional costs for modifying their Subtitle C permit
the Section 3014 Management Standards under today's
For the facilities that do Incur
incremental costs, Table X.B.2 presents
the annual cost per facility for each of
the components of the management
standards. Generators are subject to the
highest unit cost for these requirements.
Additional detail on the numbers of
affected facilities and unit cost of
compliance is available in the technical
background documentation available in
the docket
-------
-''.;••.- .-:,'. • • • •': :••.'.' '; ^Sectors:-* f' r/Vi-V--" : '
'"•••- -'-•'•. .'. '. :. •,i'--:.;.:7.-.- ':'•-*,"-.'- ':-'•• " \
Gerierators_.£™.™; " • -•"•-". '• -'• '•'..-.'•
'v. .. , - • Non-lptjusfrt?i,^mm_^_;im^..™rj™|V...;^ J"~"
.".-,. : . - Service Slaik>ns_^..;.".™™i.;_.m^._.;_:..l.J".';"
'• ••"". Repair Shops.~:^..™™m_J;.u_.' -L'^^:'-
• . . New& Used Dealers^---.^.^;.™.™^™1.....!
NorVseh/ice'Retailers.;™™.2.™L".Z!™Zr" '"
-:-. • Alr/Marlne/Railroad...;_l..._ " ' --•'•• •
• - Puttie Collection. Cfen:- l ••"•'•- '""•'
:Burrrers:.t:™...;™_,...;.™U.;:.™™..;™ •'•• •^^'~"'"'~""~"'"
• •-; ; Total,3.™ ™™~4™L™..;^.._.ZZ™~™iZ
: .' Storage .costs for labels will" be borne bv all tenli
• Storage1
; , -i 8,os8,i80
'• >' - 2,966.580
2,197,500
246,000
• .,2,360,400
•" ."-,: '0'
' 137,700
.150,000
.10,013,100
0
•••:'•?.: 0 •
; 18,100,000
" : Spill. '"'
• prepared- .
. ness arid
prevention
$154,440
; 154,440
-•-••.••• "• o
;- 'v --".- . O
'•* .••>;. .---,0.'
; ---/>
^ 51^480
-••-." o
• '102,960
b
0
0
"•;."•'; -0'.
0
' 154,000
,- : Spill-.
response
• - • ' .-.- -
,- "•.•'-..so
•••"• " o
•:'-" ' ..-.-0:
':• • •'-." Q'
.-,•> : o.
: o
".'.-. o
0
: .- 0
0
0
,0
-. • ;• o"
0
-. •• -• o
..Tracking/
recordkeep-
• ing and .
reporting,
:.-•• S422.028'
.:422,028.
.•v.; :-.':-'o-
•'.---•'. •'*'.
'' .- -• :;0
374,438
. ':• .' ,.' o-
9,518
, 38,072 '
H •,:•-•,•.-: -0;
. •99,275:
92,870
..'•:''';•• o^
0
.614,000
^Permitting •
• -. .
• - . '••.-•- =$0
••'•;'-:.- ^-'-.o,-
• : • ..- . • ..o-
'_ ;.:,' . o
.• .--.i ,--, '0'
•• "•. .-;- ., ^0"
;-::-. :.v.-.6'
: .;••.. •>"•<><
:•••-•• o
:'-'•. ?•:••;.: o.-
, . o
8 50,000
. '•'.-.• o
-, ":, -..-••O'
50,000
- ',Testipg' ;;
•$5,555,904
"; » 114,304,
'" .:•'•""•': 0
-.-v. •v""0-
•' ••..• .! .;• 0
. '-.-;-.-" :".. '.•'•-. 0.
"•'-•'.-' 'V. '"0
•; :. 114,304'
-:-..-"•-(• '0
5,441,600
••:.-'••' ' 0
,--•.-' - o
" -; •- b
;"--; '•'.'• ft
:- 5,560,000
— -r — • • ; .
•;; pvirall cosr
1 $24,200,000
,. ..- '8*750,000
2,970,000
: - 2ioo;odo
•''' 246,000 '
•-: 2;73o,ooo
-,.;, '51,500;.
262,000
.-•-';"iZ91iOO.&'-'
IS.'SOO.OOtO
':-• .' 99;300V
L .143,000.
• ' '.'.'• - •„ '.. Q- .
'-:•-" 33,60,0
24,500:000
'' ' ••• ! Permitted hazardous waste co^management fa
• •'• s Totals are rounded to three significant digits.
"Table X.E3 provides tlte Agency's
best present estimates of the total
national costs, by sector, for each of the
, Phase I Management Standards,
discussed in relation to today's
proposed rule. In the absence of a small
business generator exemption, the
Agency's best estimate is that today's
^approximately, $300,000 to the total cost
proposed Section 3014 Managehient ., -
Standards would result in a total annual
•'- compliance cost of approximately $25 :. •
" '' '
' -TABLE X.B.3.\NNUAL COSTS
FACILITY FOR FACILITIES ASSUMED TO INCUR COSTS AS A RESULT OF SECTION 3014
MANAGEMENT STANDARDS . . .
[Dollars per year]
-_. . •-.-; - - '; -: -, -.. •-. ' .,* ,-7.'.... ... -.*,:,. , •.•..•,....-..••-.
--,.,,: ,.,-;^:/;.^r>.y,,Septors >,.,_.;.,. .; '. . _V _;...; ;.
''Generatorsr- •••.'-.•.;.•. ; : . : ' '".. '-.'•-.•''•'. '•'•'. ~ ..•! •>—'-• • -
Transportation _..^_^_ii._^,^__ •-'.•- ;..•-•-..
...••Industrial;;.™.^.™ ._X! "™*",""' "" T""™ — -
-.Collectors'/transporters™ ; 1_-.. - •••.-- ,•••-••"••."
Processors/re;refiners...™.™™™™™...._.^."l_ ~~ '"""'"
Marketers .™™.™.™i."™;..__;...'..^.;.'"j -"?~ .~'"" -:-f—— ~~-~™
Bujnersi... — -.—-.-^.ICI^Zi^CZZiCZZiZl'I™"!""""^""' — '
.-^., -^^R^nfMiety .20 already permitted hazardous waste co-manftr
•' Storage - :
.: "'• ': -;$300.
' ...•• 3°°
--•,• : •-: . o
,....-.: . 01
0
300
Preparedness &
prevention' ;
"-'""''- ' : &29
: - _, ,-- •::••- 0
' -- --•;...-;. 6
.-.;.-• . •••'.' .. .0.
..-..'. .' ,0.
. •:• . 0-
•'"••- . •> •' " ,••'.-"•'--
Tracking/. '•"
.recordkeeping &
reporting •
;•--'"•.'•'•''-•• ."--'sia'.
,•-•-• *-:>:'-:<>
:': -'•'- •-••;''259!
. -407-555
:v^^vf
. .Permitting
\-^".:'":" -' 'sa
.'-•.-' ,-.:.; ... -;0
.'.'-•-, .'vr- -..-0-
,;';,—: -.'.y.'-O-
.;. .-,.--/••••; -o'
•'':;,:/ : •.-:;;''.«>
— =— ; — —i
,. Testing; .:
• ';••"•• ' $304
v ' --'.-• 304
• -•••-. .; . .v-:v-a
• ,":-'^-cr--^0.
-..-••:.• ••:-;. -o
-.-. -^ :• -,Y..-O
• "»-This:co
'The greatest part of this cost is
' ^attributable to;additional inspection
•••• requirements for used oil storage at
generator facilities. The next highest
cost is for testing used oil for the small
percentage of industrial .facilities that .
Would test to be able to dispose of their
, vusedoilundertherebuttable .';'-'.
presumption for disposal, estimated at
approximately $5.6 million. As a sector,
industrial generators are estimated to
bear the greatest costs, with an annual
cost of $15.4 million. Together, industrial
and.non-industrial generators combined
bear.over 90 percent of the total cost of
. compliance with the proposed
management standards.
•" •• Allowing a small quantity generator
exemption changes both the total cost
, and;the distribution of the cost of Phase
:,,I,of-the management standards
• - significantly., As Table X.B.3 shows, -
tatal compliance costs for the ;/
management standards difops from $24.5
million to $2.1 million when a SQG -
exemption is included. .
,4. Summary of Potentially Affected
Facilities Given a Small Business ;
Generator Exemption .! , ."
; The original 1985 proposal included ah
exemption from management standards
for small quantity generators (SQG).
Today's proposal also discusses two
SQG options, based either on oil
generation of less, than 1,000 kg/month
(about 280 gallons) oir based on storage -
capacity equivalent to the SPGG
minimum for above ground storage.
Because of data limitations, we were :
able to analyze only the 1,000 kg limit.
. The net effect of exempting facilities
generating less than 1000 kg/month of
used oil would be to significantly reduce
the number of industrial andrhon- ' •"•••'•••
'•'• industrial genera tors affected by.the [•'.'-.
management standard requirements! ::
The Agency believes that 91 percent of
the npn-iridustrial generators and all of
the mdustriaLgenerators that would''..'.-.•
• bear additional storage requirements :
(shown in Table. X.B;1) would be
eliminated, leaving only-about 2,400
generators ^nd 112 used oil fuel burners
•; With additional storage costs.:• ,-'."'.
. The Agency estimates conservatively ;
that the generator facilities bearing
;additional compliance costs for
preparedness and prevention, tracking,
arid recordkeeping would remain ' : •
unchanged, as.would the number of non-
industrial generators required to test ...
.Tfte number of industrial facilities that '
would :be exemJEJied from testing ,
requirements is also significant, The
Agency estimates that 93 percent of
otherwise affected industrial facilities • •
-------
'48068'
Federal' Register ^'Voli 56V No.; 1S47 rviomtay' Septemljk 23, 1991 / Iro
,.,: -,. ,..*. '„ jhr if' i.,5t f:( ". •"-•}!- t't-
'BLui0s.'.'.:•!-,!••;-""'
would be exempt, leaving about 1,200
industrial facilities with additional
testing requirements, and reducing.total
compliance costs for generators to about
$1.2 million per year from over $24
million per year.
C, Listing and Related Land Disposal
Options ,
. Today's Notice discusses several '
fisting and related land disposal
regulatory options. These proposals
range from listing all used oil as a RCRA.
hazardous waste (the 1985 proposal) to
listing specific waste oil type/sources
(Internal combustion crankcase, for
example), to not listing any used oils
(and relying on section 3014
management standards and the Toxicity
Characteristics Rule to assure proper
management). Related to these is the
possibility of imposing a ban on any
direct land applications of used oil (road
oiling, landfill, surface impoundment,
land farming). In addition, and separate
from the above, is a proposal to list four
categories of used oil processing
residuals as RCRA hazardous wastes,
including a sub-option to regulate
rerefiner distillation bottoms sold as an
asphalt extender as a section 3014
recycled used oil product, similar to off-
specification used oil fuel, rather than as
a listed hazardous waste. ;
All of these options and alternatives '
involve various and complex
implications for direct compliance costs
of waste management aa well aa
potential Indirect market repercussions
on the oil recycling sectors. The Agency
has not evaluated all the individual
options separately in detail. However,
we have evaluated what we believe to
bo the major economic cost aspects of
these options under the following 5
headings:
• Road oiling ban effects
• Land ban effects
* Effects of listing processing
residuals (excluding the special case of
distillation bottoms)
• Effects of regulating distillation
bottoms, either as a hazardous waste or'
as a recycled used oil product.
* Combustion residuals "derived-
from" burning listed used oil fuels.
The Agency has estimated the direct
costs of each of these possible
regulatory approaches, as discussed in
the following paragraphs.
1. Ban on Road Oiling
For the purpose of this cost screening ,
analysis, we have assumed the extreme
case that spreading used oil on roads for
the purpose of dust suppression or for
any other purpose would be totally
banned, either as an outcome of listing
all used oil as a hazardous waste or as a
j. •,;•:.• '•;;, ..; ,>.,:•. ... : .
separate banned activity, EPA has . .
previously estimated that 33 million
gallons of used oil was used as a dust
suppressant in 1988. At the time, 18
stages prohibited this practice. Since
then, the number of states prohibiting its
use-has climbed to 28 and these states
include 60 percent of the population. An
additional 15 states regulate this
application of used oil. Gitferi this
change, EPA now believes only 24
million gallons of used oil is used for
. road oiling. Thirteen million gallons are ,
used by firms that are paid to provide _
this service (i.e., commercial road
• oilers). The remaining 11 million gallons' ,
are.used on-site by generators. '
EPA believes that much of the
'generator-road oiling is designed to
provide an inexpensive disposal option
for the generator. It is likely that if road
oiling were banned, these generators
• would simply divert the oil into the used
oil management system and pay
collectors (if necessary) to pick-up the
' oil.
Commercial road oilers, however, will
still be called upon to provide their
services and will utilize alternative dust
suppression materials; Based on •
discussions with highway departments,
public works officials^ and general
contractors around the country, EPA ..'
believes that the most common
alternative to used oil would be water.'
In some places, salts such 'as calcium
chloride may be applied, particularly in
cold weather, but this is a relatively
expensive alternative. '.'-.'• '
To estimate total costs-associated'
with a ban on road oiling, we have
assumed that generators or collectors
sihiply divert the oil from road oiling
into the used oil, recycling system and
incur no incremental costs for dust
suppression. Currently, prices paid for
used oil for recycling are very close to
$0 (i.e., the generator neither pays nor is
paid for used oil), although considerable
regional variation exists. Therefore, as a
• national average, we have assumed no
incremental management costs, either. •
, As a.best estimate, commercial tit public1
' sector road oilers that continue to ;
provide dust suppression services are
assumed to replace half of their used oil
With calcium chloride and half with
water. At this substitution rate, the total
Nationwide annual cost would be $7.4
bullion per year for 13, million gallons
per year of diverted used oil. To show
the sensitivity of the estimate to this
assumption, the annual cost would
range between $3.7 million and $11.1
million if the replacement fraction were
25 percent salts or 75 percent salts,
respectively. Again, these estimates
assume no incremental cost for
• generators, who divert their oil into the
used oif Management,351 stem §t;att;-, •,. -,; '
average price'of $0. ' ';,"," ; -".;".".''_ \ '•. '"':
2. Ban on Land Disposal '.','' ;' ': ' ,
Today's notice also discusses the •?,•-...,
possibility of banning the land disposal, ...•
of any used oil (equivalent to listing at
the ipoint of, disposal). Since residuals
from fuel processing and rerefining , ;
would be separately 'listed as hazardous
wastes'.(•discussed below), only.oil;land.: ,
' disposed ;by'industrial and other ppn-
household'genera tors W.puld be directly
affected by this provision. In 19$8, ;7l, , ;., '
million gallons of used oil was land '. ,
disppseld by industrial generators and 6 .
milfion gallons by non-Industrial. ; , . :
generators. Used oil illegally dumped by,
generators or collectors was assumed to .
be unaffected by this provision. Some, of
the legally-disposed Oil was.disposed in
States that have listed used oil as a
hazardous waste..Based on populations
residing in those seven States, 16 million
gallons (21 percent of tiie used oil)
would thus already be precluded from
land disposal because of State i
regulations. In addition, some of the .oil
is hazardous under the TOxicity .
Characteristic Leaching Procedure , ,
(TCLP) and yvpuld already be Jiegally
required l^b^e managed as.a hazarjdpusj -s .
Waiste,.B^sed on sampling dat.a provided, .
earlier in the preamble, about.20 percent!
" of industrial, samples and 50 .percent of, .,
transportation engine aamples tested; • , ,
exhibited the tpxicity charaqteristic. ;
Allowing for these.two factors, the . ,
Agency estimated the adjusted total, • .'.,'-
quantity of land disposed 64 that would
be newly subject.to Subtitie C disposal
by the proposed land disposal ban (or as
a Tesult of hazardous waste listing) at'.
about 46 million gallons (175 thousand .'
tons). .,.''.,,-. , ..:••'.!
! We can approximate the current
disposal cost for this oil based on '
typical subtitle D disposal costs of ;,
approximately $30 per ton or $0,12 per
gallon; If the oil were recyclable, we ,
assumed that collectors, would charge • >
$0.30 per gallon,to pick it up (a high ;
current price for collection for recycled
used oils, to allow for possible smaller
quantities and/or longer haul distances),.
This would result in aa incremental cost'
. of $0.18 per gallon to recycle^the oil '.
instead of dispose of it. Alternatively, :
some fraction of this oil may not be
recyclable by used oil processors, using
conventional oil cleaning technologies
and would have to be sent to a . ,
hazardous waste treatment facility such •
as a cement kiln, at an average price of
$1.00 per gallon ($240 per ton drummed
waste). The latter alternative implies an ,
incremental disposal cost of $0.88 per
gallon over the current baseline. .
-------
/^oL-S6;:^Vl84;;/;Mbn
To .compute a range of totalNational
-compliance cbsts fdrthebdijonland
' disposal of used ;oil, the Agency ;'''•':•
,, assumed,three scenarios* For the lower
.bound, all 461 .million gallons are .
assumBdjdireptly recyclable&\^n/-'"
•' incremental cost of $0.18 per gallon; over
current subtitleD practices, for;afetalof
, $8,3imillionvper year. As a reasonable '•
; upper bound^ we assumed that half of .
. the:oil^a.s;recyc}.able.(at'$0,i8) and .half
. was sentio hazardousiiyaste treatment
.or recovery at'an incremental, cbst;b|
$0.88 per galloii, yielding ajcost per year
• ~.C (hn'ii it _' "it» _"_"_" ' n' ~ ' ' '-' ''','".*•'. "-T *• '• ". r-'." .-"• '
,...
• scenario,. we assumed that only 2& .'
pejeejit.fif '.the disposed oil was sent .to a
cement Win for, energy.recoyery, arid 7$ ',
.percent to thVrecycUng systeni, fora
best estimate of increineinfel ^national :
3. Listing Processing and Rerefinihg
•.•Residuals••'::•'^•'•..-;'"- '"vrf-S.- ;'v;^><;;:-.;;-".
r--' ttis.,Supj)lemental:Npiice^^ ideniifies
four^^asfe^^.streamVr^sriltirig'frpm usfed
oil ^rbcessing thai are proposed" tP be
'. pfpcesses (fcl52), 'spent pplishihg:!media
' W153), distiUation'bottpms 0^154), and
:'residuei ifroin bil/Watelf/splids f;^,' : -
'• " -^
'; 1K155). tovthe e^efit that ; these:;
^residuals ^afe riot'reused pnllte or, - :
; Already recycled prdisp6sed bf as ;
- ba^arflptfs w^astes^the' pfo'cesstn's or ' ' '
jHrerefiners.wpuia incur increflientar -,-. ;;'
>maflagemep£cpst$ as a result of the v
listing. This ;sectipn;considers all of 1 '
v ;.afo.; :
,,bpttpms ^^ which are addressed separately
..inthenextiseclipn. '.''.••"•'.-.'5'i \-vtvl; r •:•••".-''
511? quanHty of residuals produced by
in the.us^d oil inarfagement"
''
yie.pe
of oirhandlsd and th^ processes ; used.
• : Marty facilities; report generating ; no :
' i residttals since their tanks are routinely
- ; P^peS dry and any settled material is
-blended with fteoU and is: ultimately
:•, burne_das fuel: At the same time, ; •' •--
proee'ssors of certain types of industrial
•'.! Pil may extract and-dispose of a <^
rS'ubstanUal amount of solids (3 to '5^:
; percerit'bf dry oil weight) -from-tne "bii: - '
- they prpcess. Also, based pi.the
= litetatute and .interviews with • •'•;. '•*"' /••
companies and industry associatibnst
"-many' facilities ah-eady manage'or ; •
'; market these residuals as hazardous ' .
•, -waste; even in states where used bil is
'tnbt already listed as a hazafdbjus waste
•
already'a hazardous'waste, leaving 608
million gallons. We applied a range of
average residual content estimates ok
bptweenO.5 percent ahd 1 percent ;of the
Pil based, bnicurrently reported actual :
•: .experience at used oil'management
facilities..The resulting range of ':•••.
^estimated national residual generation is
.. 3.O million gallons to,6.1 million gallons
per;yeart Asa final adjustment; we • ;'--•
eliminated from consideration the share
-,,,. of estimated residuals attributable to the
Breslubeplant in Ontario,- which •
rerefines approximately^ percent of all
- :oil entering the used oil management - :
system and which would not be subject
to y^regulations. After the 4percent
~ .reduetipn the estimated range of
Tesiduals is 2.9 million gallons to 5.9 ;;
'.jnillioijgallons per year, not including
Distillation bottoms. ';,:• -.;"'
•For the lower bound cost, we assumed
that 75 percent of these residuals are;
^currently managed as hazardous wastes
and would thus have no incremental '
compliance cost attributable to the .
proposed option. Incremental costs '.-
•would apply to only 0,73; millibri gallons
; of residuals ;(25 percent Of 2.9 million
gallons), Virtually:all of the processors
an«J rerefinera cpntacted reported that
their •residuals were already handled in*
cement kilns or hazardous waste - ,---* i-
; landfills. For the upper bound cost, we
assumed that only 25 percent of the •
residuals are already managed as ;; - ;
hazardpns waste, so incremerital costs
are based on the remaining 75 percent of
5:9 millipn gallons (the upper bound .
volume), or 4:4 million gallons Of h
residuals per yeaf, ,v . • , - -•-' • . :
The Waste management options for'
these residualsrare assumed to be used
as fuel in a cement kiln or disposal in a
hazardous waste lahdfill depending ori:
.-waste heat value characteristics. The
price~ftir drummedmaterialat bement
.kilns is set at $1;00 per gallon (see note
'5); taking away the cost of Subtitle D .--
land disposal leaves an incremental cost
of $0.88 per gallori. This price is applied .
to the total estiriiated quantity of •
residuals in thie lower bound for a-
national cost of $0.64 million (0.73 ••"•'
million gallons at $0.88 per gallon). "
For the upper bound cost, we assumed
that only half of the residuals would b'e
sent to cement kilns with the'remainder
going to hazardous waste landfills. •/
Based pn estimatesTeceiyedfrpin . ;;
seyerar^ed:bil prpcessprs7we.use§I aj
dispbsalprice^of$200]p£r^
•$3.60'pergallonfo^disposal-in~ .' ';'= > ;
hazkMous waste landfills: Subh-acthig ?" •
the bas>lme dispbsral cost of $0\12:per ^ >
an incfemenfaScbstpF
:
; mahagenlent cost for the .upperrbpund is
;therefore:$2,a$;per gallon (the average of
$0.88 and; $3.48); Applying this average;
price to the upper bound residuals ; ; ,
.estimatepf 4.4 million gallons '.yield's an
• upper-bound •annual cost o'f $9.6 million.
The midpoint and best estimate is $5.1
million per year! The wide range of costs
Deflects uncertainty over the quantity of
residuals genera ted,^ the c6s'ts..pf current
management prabtices, and the costs iof
• alternatiyei hazardbus waste " • ' ?! i :
managemeht. ;! • "..;;;•"- / -; •:'.'-•
4riBfigulation:of tlsed Oil pistillation- ,
Bottoms . ,; ••',- -•'--. ..-•. :: '•'' •'• '••.• ;,, ;./';' .•
One of the residuals proposed for
listing ; is distillation bottoms ifrom used :
:ofl'rerefihmg[; the'proposal also ! i! ::^ ;
discussfes regufating distillation ^bottoms
Used in iasphalt j^rbdiiction as recycled
used oil. Beeause of thfe substantial !
revenue Value of these distiftation'
;; bottoms' to^usecLgU rerefthers; any
regulatipii on;the us^s of these bottbins
; will have eMnomiccbnseq^uences. ';' ; ' '
. :..:Throug| .phone interyiews With '-•'" "'•[
indu^tr^ nienibers. We : identified five
.rerefiriing facilities that curresitly '•''*
pfocessjused birorigiriating in the U.S.,"
using disUllation technology and
marketing |h^iaiStHiatipn bottoms as ; : :
^P^* ?•!?*• ''feseS bri ; current" ^practipe s',
•• these five rerejBherles produce about 20 ' '-
• million gallojis df^sphalt fliix per year
•--''
,
bil.4* ^ne rerefihef is a Canadian
bperiation, Bresjiube, which Would riot be
'' "
-. -.-.-•
;'asph>ltwere,spldln Calnadal As it • ".'./•"
t -Produces abqut 20 percent of this ; ;,'
' asphalt :fhixi;the;(:bst estimates are; •'•'."
based "on orily;2i :million gallons of ''•- "•."•
distillation Jbottomsi A , , v ^" ";: ' '
•'; -^ The fecillties interviewed .estimated ,
the average, price received for these ; '
^bottoms -at abput $0.3q'per jgallbri, as- =-. "; • ' ~
so^ ;tp paving anid roofing asphalt ;
, plants near the rerefiheries. The asphalt
•'-:';':
;..-.-'.
AdiscpuntTelatiye jo primary refinery r '
.asphalt, arid it poiild be' easily replaced
' with ..virgin materials , by the market :
a. Option 1: pi&tiUation^Bottoms , •
Lis.tedAs' Hazardous Waste. ^^Undeir ^he
first option, if the distillation bpttoms
Were subject to hazardous waste •"•-•
management (either,through listing'pr
regulation of waste-derived products),-
rerefinm .would' be adversely affecte<3, '_
..-i-
perc&if asphdlt. e^ipKasiziiig the prodiiciiOii of base
w-i
-. jess -.
c
-------
48070 •..; Federal Register / Vol. 5ft NO. lB4'/: ^Jnfey. Septe
To estimate worst-case, short-run
impacts, we assumed that the residuals
would all shlfl from a revenue
generating product to a waste burned as
fuel in cement kilns. As an asphalt
extender product, rerefiners currently
receive about $0.30 per gallon. The price
for bulk shipments of this type of
material as a hazardous waste at
cement kilns is approximately $0,30 per
gallon. The net price differential to
rerefiners under this worst-case
scenario would thus be approximately
$0.60 per gallon, or an annual revenue,
loss of about $13 million across these
four domestic rerefiners. •••"•..
This estimate overstates the real
resource cost associated with this
option, however, because the material
still has substantial fuel value: The '
cement kilns would be receiving a
valuable fuel source and would be paid
to take it. Most of the $0.60 per gallon •
price swing would thus represent a :
transfer of wealth from the rerefiners to
the cement kilns, but not a real resource
cost. Whether rerefiners could continue
to survive under this extreme case is
questionable. -
The low-cost scenario assumes that.
the asphalt plants that purchase the
distillation bottoms continue to accept
them, but do so as hazardous waste
recycling facilities. This would require
these companies to incur permitting, and ,
other costs to bring them into
compliance with subtitle C standards.
We estimated that these four
rercfineries might serve, at most, 30
asphalt plants. At a compliance cost of
about $30,000 per year per asphalt
facility, the total cost for this option
would be approximately $1 million.50
This scenario assumes that this $1
million would be passed back to
rerefiners as a lower price received for
the bottoms, although rerefiners could
experience a market price reduction
greater than the costs incurred by the
asphalt plants.
The most likely estimate falls
somewhere between these two
boundary scenarios. Since asphalt
plants have a ready substitute fot
distillation bottoms (virgin asphalt), they
could easiiy shift away from these
materials, although at a slightly higher
cost. Because the distillation bottoms
from rerefiners account for such a small'
share of total supply, however, the effect
on the paving or roofing markets would
••This csllmiito Is very rough and was developed
for illustrative purposes only. It assumes initial
Subtitle C treatment facility permitting coats of
$100.000 for B previously unpermltted asphalt plant
and annual costs for financial responsibility.
reporting, and other requirements of about 515,000
per year for an annuattzad total cost of $30,000 per
facility.
be negligible. Some rerefiners could
make arrangements with cement kilns or
other facilities permitted to burn,
hazardous waste and still earn , ; • • .
something for the residuals (i.e., instead ;
of facing a loss of $0.60 per gallon,
reduce the loss to $0.20 or $0.30). Finally,
rerefiners could alter their processes
somewhat to produce fewer bottoms
and change the characteristics of their.
other products. As a most likely cost
estimate for this option, we chose the
midpoint between the -bounds: an annual
cost of $7 million. The midpoint still
represents a relatively high cost—about
8 cents per gallon of dry oil throughput
at the four rerefineries, on average.
b. Option 2: Distillation Bottoms
Regulated as Recycled Used Oil. Under
this option distillation bottoms would be
regulated as a recycled used oil product.
The bottoms could still be sold if the
asphalt purchasers complied with the
Phase I management standards
appropriate for other purchasers of
recycled used oil products (i.e.,
purchasers of off-specification used oil
fuel). This option Would impose lower
costs than Option 1 and would not result
in the large transfer payments from > .
• rerefiners to hazardous waste
management facilities. v ',''•'•'•.'••
• ••• • To estimate costs under .this option,' ''
we used compliance costs for burners of
ofl>specification used oil fuel as a proxy
for asphalt plant compliance costs. As
shown in the facility cost summary in
chapter IV (Table IV-1) the annual cost
• for burners would be no higher than
$1,200 per facility. With approximately
30 asphalt plants affected, the ;
incremental national cost would likely
be less than $40,000. (If each rerefiner
marketed to only one or two asphalt
plants, aggregate^ nationwide costs !
would be less than $10,000 per year on
an annualized basis).
5. Residuals Derived From Burning Used
9U '-.'•:•. , •'•;;*: •
• EPA has proposed several options for
listing all or. some categories of used oil.
If any used oil were listed as hazardous/
waste, any other oil mixed with it and
.any residual "derived from" treating or
burning it would also be a hazardous
waste (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)). The
economic consequence of this issue is its
effect on burning, the major end use of
recycled used oil. Any air pollution
.control or other ash or sludge produced
, from the combustion of this oil (and all
: fuels mixed with it) wbuld'become ,
hazardous waste* ,,•;,,
. « The total quantity of used oil fuel and
resulting ash that might be subject to
incremental costs 'as a result of the,,
derived from rule is difficult to estimate.
EPA hasvestiniiited that in 1988 abt)ut •
680 millibri gallons was burhediiti :
boilers arid furnaces, whtchiwould
prodtice ash. Mucji ,6f this oil meets the ,
fuel specification described in,40 CFR .', ', ,
part 266 and would therefore be exempt
from any further regulation as long as
current part 266 requirements, were ; • "•
observed. Fiirtheri spme of this oil ist (
. burped in States, where jiiseaV oil i? a! ? .
hazardous ^astp'already, so'np' • !,-, -V •;: ; ,
incremental cost \would b,e attributable,. ;; ,-.,
to this proposal iri those States. Finallyt
;
be subject to hazardous Waste
regulations because of its; characteristic
toxicity,; although we have not factored
this into an quantitative estimates.,
Based on the.best available] , .( •'-:' ;
information, we calculated* rough •
estimate of the oil and residuals that
might incur additional cost as s result of
listing. Overall, 79 percent of the 682
million gallons burned (or 539 million
gallons) was burried'ih 'States where
used oil, is npt already si, hazardous .
waste. At moat, 36 percent of this oil ,',
wouldfail the, specification or a total of •
194 million gallons, based on earlier
1985 estimates of average specification
levels: The' ash feom this fqiia'ritiiy of oil1
would be about 9;900 tons! per year. (51
tons per million gallons burned times i;
194 million gallons of off-specification
'. u^e'd oil 'burned), which is certaihly,anf '•• .-,
civere'sUmatE for three reasons: ,
• A far smaller fraction of used oil
fuel Would fail the 'specification today '
because of Iftwer lead levels and
improved process or quality cpiitrol,
• AIL ash is; assumed to be captured.' ••
A more reasonable estimate ,wk>iikl,be;
thatonly 54 million gallons (ID percent '
of the 539 million gallons) currently fails
the specification, producing 2,800 tons of
ash per year (51 tons per million gallons '
times 54 million gallpriq). For a Idwe'r ,:
bound, we,assumed,"air fuel could meet
the specification so that no residuals.
'. would be handled:as hazardous wastes,
1 .Given that- additional blending with ;
virgin fuel oils might be requirfed ^o i ,; :-:
achieve this, some small cost-would be :
incurred by; marfceters jor burners, ; but * s:
We ha vie /assumed' this cdst tq.tfe' -"'-i y ;;. :,
negligible. : ' ;' ,;;v,.' y. .'.. : ; ' ••
As a hazardous solid waste., trje;8sh ,
would require stabilization and ;, :
landfilling in a subtitle .C landfill. A -,
typical commercial price for r .• ,
stabilization and disposal ;is ^400 fee'r
, .ton. The current disposal in, subtitle D ,.
landfills is assumed 'tb cosf $30 per ton,
, so the incremental! cost wbuld be $3^0
perton.:,,-' ,,, -;: ,,:, ,;; 'ii»,-.,.'./-'.--:..;,,,' ,,••,•.'.•
The.annual national cbs,t^6f managing
this ash as hazardous. waste ' iypuldLbe:
approximately $1.0 million in. the most >
-------
\J %0l. 56, fjp.; 184 1 Monday,, September- 23.;
principal exception is^the possibility of -
'
fuel specification;(2,800lohs'of a'sK jaf:
$370 per ton)-The upper bound annual -;.
cost would be $37 'million(9-900 tons at;
$370perton) andthe'lbwer^btiund- ~ •;;
would be approximately $o: ;Of course;:if
no.used Qilswere'listedashazardbus : •
wasteS;or if residuals .were exempt from
: the derived from rule,, all costs would be >.
eliminated., ; ':.-:';. ••"
/, Seyeral pther.factors could also •
reduce the incr,ementarco3t associated
with this options-First, burners;may be
.exempt from hazardous waste '.>.,.•!;
• management ;costs for ash as a result of
.the-smaU quantity generator exemption.'
Given :ati ash generation rate of 51 tons
.. per million gallons of used oil burned (at
an, average blending rate of 60 percent
virgin oil to 40 percent used; oil), a . '
faeUity would have.to burn .about :50,000,
gallons of blended fuel per month to
generate, 1.QOO kilograms (one ton) of;, ,
ash. Secdnd, fly ash from use:of .used oil
"fuel recycled at asphalt-plants may also
be exempt from hazardous,waste* .-;, .•
regulation under, another option in this •.
propo,saL If this were: the gase, asphalt: <
plants/which account for a substantial
. share of off-specification fuel use, might
incur no .incremental eosj from this ,
provision. Third, a significant fraction of
used oil fuel may bV burned at facilities
that also burn hazardous; waste_already,
so the ash would already be subject to
hazardous .waste manageijient. Fourth
and finally, the-Bevill Amendment to
RCRA (58FR7i96:et seq.) allowsfori""
exemption,fromhazaEdous waste,. ", '-.'.
regulation certain ash'from boilers and
furhace.s burning 'fossil fuels. .Cement
kilns, industrial furnacesV and.coai-fired,
b.oilers'.that use,virgin fuel for more than
I'n/*1 r . i' -• • f • a -• . ' »»•-;.= • •: . -. " • - • : <
segmentSjof the usad;gil processing sitid'
rerefinirig'sectOrs under the prbpqsals'to'
list various- processing:residuals;: - ' ;
1., NationaXCosts/. _ ". -.•-.,,"' . .'
Table X.D.I presents the Agency's^ r
total, national cost estimates for each of
... the component parts of, the cost. '.'.. ,
screening analysis: thePhase I
management standardsi road oiling andf
land disposal bans, and costs associated,
with listing processing residuals,
distillation .bottoms, and residuals ,
derived from burning used oil. Using the
"most likely" costestimates from ..
previous, sections; the Table shows the
costs for each cpmponentpart of the,
proposal with and without a small
quantity -generator exemption for the
3014 management standards, and • , :
arranges ..the cost components .into three.
possible regulatory scenarios for the ,
supplemental proposal 'as a whole. ;
TABIE X.D.l:fr-TQtAL ANNUAL COST of
P^SE-'I .MAN^PEMENT STANDARDS AND
:• LISTING OPTIONS : •;' M" ;' , . '_..- r
. [Dollars in nriillions]
half .pif their fuel can self-exempt : their
ash from hazardous waste management '
subject to testirig.bf the ash:.Ali of these1
factors would 'reduce the costs .' ''
attributable to this option. ; • • " '"
D. "Summary of Casts arid Economic. •
Impacts . '.,.".. .. .". ,.j'_; ,.,'...;.„',.,,.,, .,..'.:,
... total national cost estimates for
eabh of the components of 'the proposal
and the proposal in aggregate, including '
all listing options, indicate the proposal
is not Jilcely. to constitute a major rule.-, :,
• Similarly; the restilts -of ^screening •
, -analysis of economic in)pacts-dh; specific
.industry sectors indicafe 'thaVpef-facility
costs will be ftOfdr "'most facilities., For '
the majority of facilities that do'iricur : -
costs, ,'they Will typically pay6n the : ; ••
order'ofsjeveral hundred1 dollars peir •' :
year, with a small humber^of larger, : '---•
more complex, facilities experiencing ' '•-
cojKplianee eosts'Of up ;tb several !^ ".>•:!' v
thousari'd 'dollars jjer- year, depending on*
regulatory bption:scenaribS;-The ; ;; '••}• :-•• -'•
'. , : "•_., •':• •:•"'•
(1) Phase : ( : Mg'mt. Stand--;
ards; i..;,..: ., . , ;
Listjrig/Ban Optkins :
(2) fload Oiling Ban ...,..„
(3) Land Disposal Ban... /'.
Subtotal: BanS ......^..i;.,.:.1.;
•• Other "Listing Costs •'"
(4) Listing Residuals ,(K152i
K153, K155).:. .....:......:....
.(5) IJstin^ Asphalt Distilla-'
tion Bottoms (K154).;.......;..
Subtotal: Residuals .List-
ing...1.
(6) Listing "Derived-from"
, Fuel Combustion Residu-
. als.......:
-Subtotal: Other Listing
Costs.....: .„'...
A. Alternative Scenario A : "
All Options (l)tliru (6)...:
B. Alternative Scenario B '
Phase 1 + Bans -»- List-
,3 Process Residuals
(1) thrU (4).'..;:........;...
C. Alternative Scenario :C '. '
Phase J + List 3 Proc-
''." iess Residuals • .(i)
, and (4) only ...:........„ •
With'
SQG
exemp-
tion-
best ; .
estimate
21
:.••'''' V"4
163
•23.7
• 51
7.0
. -(2 1
10
13 1
38.9
30 9
72
Without
SQG
exemp-
tion —
best
estimate;
,?4 *i
74
; 163
. 23.7
' • 5 1
: 7.0
' 12 1
•1 0
n i
61.3
533-
29 6
wes estimate! thie ; tbtar.afinuai cosVfbr'the
. prbpbsal wouldrbe'$6i:3rittillion.^;; '-^ ; •
-_ Exempting small ^quantity generators ;;; •"
Would red_uce the annual cost by more :>
thant)ne%ird,;to;a total bfj$3a.amillionr
The least cbrfip'reheflsixe bbmbinatioh;
of the'se^optiohs j^fcehario CJ' would :-^
involve promulgatibrilofonifylhe. Phase 1 1
management standards knd listing of
.processing residuals (except distillation"
' bottoms). In this case, the incremental '
cost per year would be $29.6 million
with no small quantity:generator
exemption and $7.2 milli9n with the
"exemption: ~ ,.,;....,.,„-..,._,, ,.,,,
The actual costs will be determined: •'-.-
by the mix of options] selected for '
promulgation^ Several assumptions that,
' affect the magnitude of the estimates are
important to reiterate at this "time. Fjrst,
the, options that involve /land disposal -s' ,",
(listin;g.-prbcessjng.Tesiduals, distillatio'n "
bottoms, and"derjiyed-:from ash) were
costed put assuming compliance with ,
BDAT for the.disposed, materials, even ';-.
though 3D AT,' is not yet es,tablished for
.'., these iWastes^Sorfle other form of ,. ', , .',, : ' ,', •,
.hazardous waste, disposal that is less ,
expensive may.be appropriate for some '
of these residuals, so our cost estimates, '
may be overstated somewhat. Similarly,
some of ^the.cbsts, especially for . . :'-'••
distillation bottoms, reflect private, not
social, costs. Transfer payments .';.- . ;
between rer.fefiners and hazardbus:waste
management jFacijities do not.represent
social costs, but rather a redistribution y
'If ihie'indst stringent scenario for the
rule were adopted (Scferianp A), : c
imposihg"PhaseImarikgement ,', !
standards, banning land| disposal-Mrid";j'i!
road qilingriistirig prodess residua'ls; • '
distiilktioief.bottbms',.grid residuals'-•'•''•'•'':•
derived:frorh burning use^'oili with hb";'"''
exemption for sriiall quantity generafbfsr
2. Facility- aind Sectpf-Specific Costs "
Table. X.D.2 summarizes the incidence'.
of section 3014 management standard :.
costs as well as the listing and related • ,
land disposal options discussed in the
preyious^sections. Because typical •..••. :
facilities handle relatively small ; ; '.
volumes, the generator, sector may '•'•'. , .
include a small proportion^df ^facilities , J:
that Would incur.high costs. First,-'
however, we should reiterate that. over ,
90 percent of the generators Would incur
no incremental costs as a result of the '•
managemerit standards. (If generators
smaller than 1,000 kilogram's per month ,
were exempt from the regulation, ; •:'..'
approximately;99 percent of'the. • •
generators Would incur no incremental :
costs.) For those generators, that do >, .
incur Costs, the annual facility costs SOF-
management standards range from $129
to $652. The transportation-related
generators that face the maximum, cost:
of $652 for management standards- ,"• •'•• ••-•'•
inclucie larger ^transgbrtatibn"; ;: ! :'. ''?l't':;':,
''
i
railroad ,faeiHtiea,4,h,at. mcu .
storage^ inspe'ctibh's,1 fecordkeeping, and ;
testing to allow disposal of some used .;-1
-------
48072
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 1991 /Proposed Rules
oil. These are large facilities that would
not be significantly affected by costs of
this magnitude.
All other affected generators (mostly
automotive services) incur management
standard costs of less than $500 per
facility per year, and over two-thirds of
these incur costs for storage inspections
and labeling only ($300 per year). Given
the diversity of the generator population,
it is difficult to assess the impact of a
$300 cost For transportation-related
generators such as an automobile
dealership or a fleet operator, the costs
would likely be insignificant. For a small
machine shop, however,; the costs could
be somewhat more important The
incidence of these impacts is very
infrequent, however, relative to the size ,
of the overall population.
TABLE X.D.2.—INDIVIDUAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE COST RAMSES PER FACILITY AND PER GALLON
Transportation ,,,,,„„,, ,,,,,,M ,,..
Industrial..................................... .
l(X)op.Cot!o<;l
facilities
28,400
59,700
383
70
112
4
1,121
Range of Annual Cost Per Affected Facility
Manage-
ment
standards
S129-S652
300-604
259
407-2,907
555-3,055
555-3,055
300
Ban land
disposal
$830
$550
0
0
0
0
0
List
process
residuals
NA
NA
$1.700
5.700
29,000
120,000
0
Regulate distillation
bottoms
Option A
NA
NA
NA
SO
0
1,700,000
0
Option B
NA
NA
NA
$0
0
8,000
0
Burning
residuals
, NA
NA
NA
$0
0
0
900
across all
affected >
facilities
$1!!9-$1,48b
800-1,150
1;960
6,100-8,600
29,600-
:|' 32,100
129,000-
1,820,000
300-1,200
Worst-
case cost
per
gallon
$0.630
0.737
0.007
0.009
0.006
0.087
?
Note*: . ... - - ' ' I • V . \ i
wFad8tk>* way be affected by one or more cost elements. . . ",' . ,"". •
1 Estimate* refer to mosMifcofy scenarios for listing and related options. n \ , •• - ,
•Manasamont standard range for processors and rerefiners assumes anmrafeed cost of permit modification of $2,500 tor 10 percent of these facilities.
* R«*iwwr estimates exckxjs Bresluba facility In Ontario. • ' < ;•'
Two categories of used oil generators
may also bear additional costs for
disposal with the imposition of a ban on
land disposal of used oil: Air/marine/
railroad facilities and industrial
facilities who test and dispose of the oil
due to non-recyclability. If a ban on land
disposal is included as a part of the final
rule, those air/marine/railroad facilities
testing and disposing the oil on land
would face additional costs of up to $830
per facility; industrial facilities testing
and disposing of the oil on land would
face additional costs of up to $550. Since
both of these facility types are
characteristically large facilities, the
additional cost is not expected to have a
significant Impact on operations.
For the independent collector/
transporters, fuel processors, rerefiners,
end burners, the incremental costs of the
management standards are very small
given the scale of the operations. The
most significant costs result from costs
to modify permits at 10 percent of the
processors and rerefinera that co-
monngc hazardous waste with used oil.
The other facilities all face very low
compliance costs for these management
requirements. The regulatory options to
list or regulate processing and re-refining
residuals may in certain instances have
larger Impacts, especially under the
listing option for distillation bottoms
(Option A). The annual facility costs
range from $1,700 for collectors (if
process residuals are listed] to $1.7
million per rerefiner if all residuals
including distillation bottoms are listed
as hazardous wastes.
In general, the impacts on most
individual used oil management
facilities are limited since they typically
handle between 300,000 gallons of used
oil per year (independent collectors] up
to a few million gallons (most fuel
processors]. The facility costs in the
Table imply costs of less than 0.1 cents
per gallon of used oil handled by
collectors and fuel processors. If
distillation bottoms are regulated as a
hazardous waste (Option A), rerefiriers
(which typically handle 10 to 40 million
gallons per year of used oil and produce
1 to 10 million gallons distillate bottoms)
could face a significant loss of revenue
from the sale of these materials (nearly
9 cents per gallon of used oil throughput,
worst case], (As noted above these lost
revenues largely represent private
transfer payments from rerefiner,s to
hazardous waste management facilities
rather than direct social costs of
compliance.) This increase would be
large enough to affect the rerefiners'
operating margins and their ability to
compete for used oil in the marketplace.
Burners of off-specification fuel also
handle large quantities of used oil. A
typical asphalt plant burning oil might
use 150,000 gallons of used oil as fuel
each year, so an incremental fuel cost of t
up to $1,200 would be insignificant
compared to the total fuel bill. The
$1,200 cost would be leas than $0,01 per
gallon of used oil purchased. Given that
the used oil is.blended with other fuels,
the cost per gallon of fuel would be still
lower. ' '!;'
Even though direct social costs may
be somewhat overstated in Table X.D.2,
these transfer payments and other costs
imposed on used oil recyclers and end
users may have indirect effects on the .
markets for used oil. In the case of
rerefiners in particular, the cost of
compliance with the Option A listing
scenario for distillation bottoms could
adversely affect the rerefining sector
compared to other end-use markets (e.g.,
burning). Any requirements which
increase operating.costs for used oil
recycling facilities, whether they are
collectors, processors, burners, or
rerefiners, have the potential to raise the
price that generators miist pay to have
their used oil collected. ",
Therefore/this proposal has the
potential to alter the mix of end-use
markets to which used oil flows by
affecting rerefiners more than
processors. It may also ohange the
quantity of oil that is recycled, by
raising prices paid by generators for •
collection. As shown in. Table X.D.2,
however, .the overall costs are quite low
for most facilities so the effect on the
overall market for used oil is expected
to be minimal. .?\
-------
:;?XI;,Regulatbry flexibility Analysiss
' ^f i^Fhe;liegulatory ^lexibjlfty Act ifRFA}
; of 1980 |]PubJ]L 96-^45), which amends
fhe^Adminfsfrative PrpcedJures Act,
/ requires federal agenciiBs to consider
; '•'snialfintMies" throughout ihe
:- • regulatory prqceiiS,, TheRFA:rfeqiires, in
;>-Sectlori 603; an iMiarsGreening analysis
to be performed to determine whether a
substantial number of small entities will
be significantly affected by the .,' ;,"
regulation. If so, regulatory alternatives
which eliminate or, mitigate the? impacts
must be considered. ,; .'..'
Base4 on employment or sales, the
.vast majority of all used oil generators,
• collectorSj and' processors, are small;
.. businesses; ferefiners and burners are .
rather less likely to be small businesses.
. Dverair, the economic analysis iiidicates
fhat impacts are not significant for;well
over 90 percent of the generators and all
of the other facility types, affected1, with
thepossible exception of rerefmers" •
under certain options.
lAsmall fraction of the smalJ business
used oil generators may face
incremental costs up to $477;;per year for
; storage and recprdkeeping, •.--...-. • ". •
preparedness and prevention. We '.•
believe this.is not an unreasonable cost
burden borne only by a very small
fraction of affected small businesses.
The siriall quantity generator exemption
would virtually eliminate significant
impacts for any small business sectors.
Other generators may incur higher costs
if they dispose of their used oil and that
• practice is banned. While we generally
expect these facilities to be large, we
., have no basis for characterizing the. .
types of facilities that dispose of their
_" Oil., '•' .' '• > 'I'-: ' : • ;,'- ••"..-••;. .. '•'- >,..",,. ..;
Most rerefiners, who stand to face the
greatest impacts under the distillation
bottom listing option^ are not small
businesses and if the full listing option is
.not chosen, any potential for significant
impacts disappears.
In general, given the. large population
of small businesses subject to various
provisions of: this proposal, only a very
. small fraction of these business will
incur any compliance costs and those
that do will typically face relatively"
small costs. Therefore the Agency
certifies that the supplemental propbsal
, will not have, significant economic :
impacts on substantial numbers of small
businesses or entities.
XII.; Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection. •
requirements in this proposed rule have
-• beeji submitted for approval to the •
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under' the Paper Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 -e/ seg: An information
Collection Request document-h^s-beeh' ':>
.prepared by EPA (IGRNb4l286):anda
Copy may be obtained, from Sandy •: .
Farmer; Information Policy Branch, EPA,
401M Street, S;W. - ; - <
Public repbrting burden for this-
. colteetion of information averages frdm •
8 to 54 hoursi-annu|iHy per iresporident, "•
includi.iigtime;fprTeviewing /^ "•",
,: instructions, searching existing data -.'..
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and •'-.';;.
reviewing the collection of mfprmatiph.
Send .comments regarding the burden
/estimate or any bflier aspect of this - ;
collection of irifprmatibn, ineluding "
suggestions for reducing this burden^ to
Chief, Tnfonnatibn Policy Branch, PM-
223Y, U,S. Envirpmnental Prptectipn -
Agency, 401M Street,: SW., Washington,
DC 20460; and to the Office of •"•'
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
pfflee of Management and Budget, -. .
Washington,-DC 20503,'marked
"Attentionr Desk Officer for EPA." The
final rule will respond to any OMB or
publie comments .on the information ;
collection requirements contained in this
proposal;, ' • --.'-'•'-•. ..-••:;.-•••'.•.• •"."i
Dated: September 3,1991. ; -.
VyilUamK. Reilly, : ' /
Administrator. . '.'.'. ...... ,. ' ,
Appendix A-^Status of Proposed
Provisions ; ! ':-:-•--
.Note: Federal Register citation^ refer to the •
November 29, was piojjqsed R?iler unless •:<
.otherwise indicated.:Se'ctionicitations refer to
today's notice. •-'";: . . .
Proposed
provisions
General:
Recycling
Presurhp-;
-'tion, '
..Controls on
Used Oil
Disposal.
Amendment
, to Current,
Exemption
for ...
. Character-
istic .
Recycled
Oil.
Application of
the 1,000 •
ppm
Halogen
R'ebuttable
Presumpr
tion to All
Used Oils.
Ban on Road
•Oiling. ' --•
Conditional ^
.. Exernpjtipn'.
• for" Primary
' Oil Refiners.
Statuses of
, today's notice
New....
New.....,;.,...;...
Modified.:?......
Citations
Section VIII.D.
Section VIILE.^;
Section Vlir.Fvi;.
As Proposed
in 1985.
As Proposed
New,.
Section VIJI.F.2;
(50 FR'
492i7).: -., >,
Section Vlil.F.4
"•'(SO FR •- • *<'
-49239).:
Seption yul.F.5.
-"Pfopjbsea ?
provisions^
; Regulation of
,.' Used Oil
Stored in.
ground
.Mfertjjrestqf,
- Used'Oir.
-'-'' and . ' -.
Absorbent
' Materiars.
Management
ofCFC-
'-. contaminaf
Oils; .
Regulation of
Oil/Water
-'_• Mixtures.
-.Regulation, of
. UsedOif
"... Filters.;
Used oil usec
•-' -as, fuel in.
", , incinerators
-,•;,. and ':'
1 combuslors
Generators:
, EPAI& .:
Numbers.'
Storage
-•.Provisions,
(tank and
container
standards).
.Corrective
.-•Action.
Preparedness
'.' and •'•-."'
Prevention.
. Shipments
., Qff:site
', '''.(tracking).--..
. Recordkeep;-
"ing. ""•'.' :
-Reporting
T Used Oil ;
Disposal.
. .Exemption
. r.-'frpn)'., :-.••;-'
CERCLA '-.;.
Liability.
Transporters: ,
Storage ........'...
Closure....™..
'. Permitting..™.
t Discharge
".: Cleanup.
Tracking ........ ,
Recordkeep-
'.'; 'irtg. '•__"•
.JException
reports,
EPA. ID'
'Numbers.
Recyclers:
EPA ID.
Number.
. ~and .,
General
Facility" "
;, .Standards;
,
Require^
merits. ' '
' Statos'asof
today's notice
New..
New..
Modified..;.....!..
Modified.........
Modified....
Modified......;..
As Proposed
in 1985;'
Modified
Modified ..;.....;.
Modified .'..,
As Proposed
in 1985.
As Proposed
in 1985.
Modified
Modified ...........
Modified..;.
lew;,.
s Proposed
in 1985.
te Proposed
in 1985.
odified..
'Citations'
Sectfort RCAJ2.
Section. IX.A.3.
Section JXA4.
Section IX.A.5.
Section IX.A.6."
Section IX.B.3.
Sectiori IX.B.1.
SecBon IX.B.2! .
(50 f/9 49253)*
Section IX.B.4.
Sicjiion JX.&S.9. -'-.
Section IX.B.5.D."
- . '•• -•- ' . ; '
Secti
Section IX.C.1
(50 FR .-
49254). «
50 FR 49254).
50 FR 49254).
Section IX.C.2.
Section IX.C;3.
Section IX.C.4,
Section IX.C.4.
5Q FH 49254). '
Section IX.D.6,
(50 "FR
49255). •'*-.-'
-------
48074
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 184 ,/ Monday, September^ 23, 1991; / RroposedRijle?
Proposed
* provisions
Written
, Analysis
Plan.
Ptepn/odnoss
end
Provontfon.
Tracking .....~~.
Recordkoop-
tog/
Reporting.
Storage in
Containers.
Storage ki
Above-
ground
Tanks,
Storage In
Under-
ground
Tanks.
Storaooin
StHtaco
tmpoonj-
roont*.
Corrective
Action.
Ctosofo/Post-
closure.
FJnancta)
Rosponsi-
hStu
Status as of
today's notice'
As Proposed
In 1935.
As Proposed
in 1385.
Modified ...........
Modified ....
!
Modified.^ —
Modified™ — —
^
'
Modified ...„.....'...
Modified—...,-..
Modified for
underground
tanks. .
As Proposed
in 1985.
Deferred—-.,
. atationa ,
(50 FR 49255).
(500749255)
Section IX.D.2. ,
Section IX.D.5.
Section IX.D.1.8.
t ' " ' • JT
Section IX.p.1.b.;
Section IX.D.1.C,
*. :
Section IX.D.1.d.
Section IX.D.3.
(50 FR 49256).
Section IX.D.4.
. Proposed
.;• ^-provisions '•_
Permitting
Marketers:
Fieplacemerit
pf266,
, . , Subpart E
with
Section .
, : 3014 V
..-.•• Generator
'and
Transporter i
Standards.
Burners:
Storage in
Tanks and
Containers.
EPAJD
Number.
Analysis
Requirer
ments.
Space Heater
Require-
, ments. L
, Corrective
Action.
Status .as of.
today's npfics
As Proposed
In 1935. .
As Proposed
in 1985.
, .
'. , ' i'; •-, .'.
Modified ..-.......>..,
As Proposed
in.1985. •..
Modified.........;...
•. -'
As Proposed
in 1985.
.i
.Modified for
UST&
: ; 'Citatiohs ;
Section IX.D.7;
(50F/7
49256-58).
(50 FR 49239).
, Section IX.6.1. ;
(50 FR 49255). <
Section IX.G.2.
(50 FR 49205;
final burning
& blending
rule). ,
Section IX.G.4;
(50 FR
49256).
.proposed
, provisions '
, Permitting..;.:.'..1.
Tracking-..
Closure....:..—
Recbrdkeep-
ing/ •
• • Reporting. ,
Hazardous
.Waste .. ..'-.
., Mixtures. '
Road Oilers :—;..:
Disposal \
Facilities: . ;
Ustedbr' ••'"•
' • characteris-
-,- Soused oil.
Nonhazar-
dousused
oil and
'disposal '
guidelines.
.Status as of
'today's hodce
As Proposeid
in 1985. .
i '' • -' : "' '!'
Modified .. .....—
Modified..!..........
Modified.'..-!......
•; ! • '•','-'''':
'•• , "i''.l •
As Rroposod
in 1985. | ".
V '' ." .•!'°.'|.
Modified -it.-— .
' '• .";••- .i'vl" ••;.
As propbstxi in
1985. • ' '•!•'
- ', - .' ••' * "
(>lew —..-.••,„:---
j '
: • i:;!" i
';.';""'
,; natations' »-
Section ix.G.4;
(50 Fft ' ;
49256).
Section IX.G.2.
Section IX.G.2.
Section (X.G.2.
'"•;"'• ' • ' v ;
(50 FR 49205;,,-
. finaj burning
' "& blending
• Ma)'. • I, •''-
Section iX.H;;
; Section ".' " '"
;;V!I(I,F.4. ; . ;
• '"• • " i '-- ' '• :•
,_'-_•): -„_ v,
(50 FR 49239).'
% ;••! |i" •'.';-.
;. \.
Section IX.I;
Section VIII.E.
'•' ' '-" : '
"..] ]]'',. .
[FR Doc. 91-22482 Filed'9r2Q-91; 8:45 ainj
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M . , ' .
1
------- |