vvEPA
               United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9441.29(35)
             of "Mixture" and "Derived From"
        to Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems


APPROVAL DATE:  8-23-35

EFFECTIVE DATE:  3-23-35

ORIGINATING OFFICE:  0«ice of Solid Waste

0 FINAL

D DRAFT

 STATUS:
          t
          {
          I
                             A- Pending OMB approval
                             B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
                             C- For review &/or comment
                             D- .In development or circulating

                                        headquarters
                REFERENCE (other documents):
  OSWER      OS WE ft       OSWER
(E    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE

-------
261  SUBPART A - GENERAL
                                                 DOC:   9441.29(85)
Key Words:     Mixture Rule, Surface Impoundments, Treatment,  Refinery Waste


Regulations:  40 CFR 261.32, 261.3(c)(2)(l), 261.3(a)(2)(iv)


Subject:      Applicability of "Mixture" and "Derived From" Rules  to
              Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems


Addressee:     Directors, Waste Management Division, Regions I-X


Originator:   John H. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste
                                                           X
Source Doc:

Date:

Suia.-ary:
#9441.29(85)

8-23-85
     The memorandum clarifies application of  the "mixture" and  "derived  from"
rules to petroleum refinery wastewater systems.

-------
                                                           9441.29 (85)
          UNITED ST  ,ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A(  tY

            «*».-""     r      -«•       »_       .
                            AUG 23 1985
a EMOKANDUM


 SUBJECT!  Applicability of  the  "Mixture"  and  "Derived. Protn"
          Rules  to  Petroleum  Refinery  Wastewater  Systems

 FROM:     John H. Skinner,  Director
          Office of Solid waste

 TO:       Director, Waste Management Division
          Regions I-X


     Over the past  year, we have  received several requests
 from Regions VI and VIII for  interpretations  relating  to  the
conditions under which sludges generated  in refinery  surface
 impoundments are hazardous.   Many of those questions  should
have been answered  by our December 1,  1984 memorandum  to  Robert
Duprey, a copy of which is  attached.   The Administrator has
recently received a petition  from the  Texas Mid-Continent
Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA) that raises the question  of
whether the "mixture" and "derived from"  rules provide a  basis
for the regulation  of these units.  We hope that  this  letter
provides sufficient guidance  on this issue to insure  the  proper
application of the  "mixture"  and  "derived from" rules  to  refinery
wastewater systems.

     Five waste streams generated by petroleum refineries are
currently listed in 40 CPR  261.32.  Based on  a review  of  the
American Petroleum  Institute's  1982 survey of refineries, we
expect that as many as 40%  of all refineries  are  performing
some treatment of these wastes  (primarily API Separator Sludge,
DA? Float, or Slop  Oil Baulsion Solids).   Generally,  the  treat-
ment involves sone  form of  dewatering  by  sedimentation, filtration
or centrifugation.  A literal reading  of  40 CFR 261. 3(c) ( 2) ( i) ,
the "derived fron"  rule, would suggest that the resultant
liquid streaa is a  hazardous  waste and remains one until  del is ted.
Since refiners generally return the aqueous stream to  the refinery
wastewater system,  the mixture rule (40 CFR 261. J(a) ( 2) ( iv) )
would then define the combined water stream and all subsequent
residuals as hazardous wastes.  (Note, however, that  the  effluent
at the point of discharge from the wastewater treatment system
would not be a solid waste  by virtue of the industrial wastewater


-------
      After careful consideration of  the characteristics of the
 currently listed refinery wastes/  the waste management practices,
 and  the disposition of the recycle streams, we have concluded that
 the  "derived  from" rule  is not uniformly applicable to the aqueous
 stream generated in a sludge dewatering process.  Our Interpre-
 tation is based on the presumption that properly conducted dewatering
 of a  wastewater treatment residual will insure that none of the
 listed waste  is returned to the system, while simultaneously
 reducing the  total amount of waste generated.  It is our opinion
 that  dewatering of the currently listed refinery wastes can be
 conducted in  a manner that insures the return of only the
 non-listed wastewater which came into contact with, but was
 not mixed with, the listed waste.  This interpretation leaves
 a burden of proof on the facility  to establish that they are
 •properly conducting" dewatering.

      We believe that the demonstration of properly conducted
dewatering can be Bade by the plant by conducting waste analysis.
Specifically, if the refinery can  show, to your satisfaction,
that  the return water stream is chemically equivalent to the
non-listed wastewater influent to  the wastewater treatment
device that originally generated the listed waste, then the
return water  stream is not "derived from" the hazardous waste.
 It should be  noted that this demonstration cannot be made if
the influent  to the waste treatment unit itself contained a
listed hazardous waste.  In this case, all waste derived from its
treatment would be hazardous since the original wastewater was
hazardous.

     As an example, consider a refinery that generates an API
separator sludge; suppose that the refinery pumps this listed
hazardous wastes to an impoundment for sludge dewatering,
after which the sludge is sent to a landfarm and the water
supernatant is sent to the influent to the API Separator.  If
the returned water stream is similar in coaposition of Appendix
Viii hazardous constituents and total suspended solids (TSS)
to the influent wastewater to the API Separator, then only the
non-listed wastewater is being returned and the return wastewater
is not a hazardous waste,  on the other hand, if the level of
some Appendix VIII constituent or  the TSS is significantly
higher than the level in the API separator influent,•then
hazardous waste is being returned  to the wastewater treatment
system and the*mixture rule is triggered for the entire wastewater
system.

     What constitutes a significantly higher constituent level
is obviously a case-by-case determination that is functionally
dependent upon the amount of sampling data available.  We will
be glad to provide an opinion for any specific case if you
forward the required information on the waste streams.  It

-------
 •hould  ba  noted,  in passing, that  the dewatering  impoundment
 is  a  regulated unit regardless of  the regulatory  status ot the
 water stream since this unit is being used  to treat and store a
 hazardous  waste.

      Application  of the above rules has major implications tor
 refineries that are returning haiardous waste to  their wastewater
 treatment  system.  At these facilities, all downstream units
 are hazardous waste management units.  Beyond that, all
 residuals  generated downstream are hazardous wastes, unless an
 upstream or influent wastewater mixture, or the residual
 itself, has been  delisted by the Agency.  We are  concerned
 that  the net effect of these rules, when coupled  with the
 closeness  of the  Part B submission deadline, nay  cause major
 problems for refiners who were practicing the desirable
 activity of waste minimization, but were not operating in a
 systematic fashion.  We cannot, however, justify  a blanket
 exemption  from the mixture rule for all of  the recycled liquid
 streams.

     Our hesitation to grant a blanket exemption  is based on
 the fact-that the limited data wnich we have available at
 this  time  (data supplied by the American petroleum institute)
 suggest that the  liquid streams can contain appreciable amounts
of Appendix VIII  hazardous constituents from the  hazardous •
waste.  Calculations performed by my staff  further suggest
 that major portions of the constituents found in  downstream
wastewaters can result from the introduction of the recycle
 stream.

     Nevertheless, we do believe there are  cases  where a rigid
application of the two rules results in a less .desirable out-
come,  unfortunately, our procedural options are  rather limited.
The rules have been final for several years and revision at this
point would require issuing a proposal, along with providing an
opportunity for public comment,  we could not justify starting
such an effort until we receive meaningful  data from TMOGA
or other petitioners.  In the interim, the  sole available
mechanism  for regulatory relief is through  the delisting
process.

      Fortunately, some refineries have correctly  interpreted.
the subject rules and are working to submit their Part B's in
November, as required.  We believe, however, that a much larger
contingent of refineries may not be exerting any  effort, due to
 a misinterpretation of the rules or the hope that EPA will
 ignore the rules.  Since those facilities would lose their
 interim status for the affected units, it is imperative that
your staff notify them of their responsibilities  at the
earliest possible date.  Facilities which fail the test on
 the return water  stream will need to submit a dolisting
Petition if they  hope to receive an exclusion for their
 recycled liquid streams.

-------
      Sine*  there  is potential  for significant economic  Impact,
we will perform an expedited review of all complete petitions
that  are  received.  The  1984 amendments, however, do not leave
us the option to  grant a temporary exclusion under 40 CFR
261.22(m).  See also  50  PR 29, 737, July IS, 1985.  Specific
information that  is required of a delisting petitioner  is
described in the  guidance manual for delisting petitions;
petitioners should take  extra  care to insure that Appenaix
VIII  characterixations are provided for all wastes that are
being treated, the recycled liquid streams, the wastewaters
receiving the recycled streams, and the non-recycled residuals
of treatment.  It is  also important that all analyses be
representative of the long term variations in the quality of
the recycled stream and  factors that contribute to that variation.
Complete volumetric and  phase  characterixations for all streams
and data defining their variability are also essential.  Due
to the tight tine constraints  involved, petitioners may want
to contact Jim poppiti of my staff, at (202) 475-8551,  before
making their submissions.

      In the way of guidance to your staffs, it is also
essential that they understand and consistently apply the
definitions of the wastes to insure that facilities are
not erroneously categorized.   Clearly, recycled streams
are not regulated if  the hazardous waste has not been
generated.  It may be useful to clarify the point of waste
generation and associated applicability of the rules.   They
are as follows:

     K048 (DAfr Float) - Generated at the moment they are
     formed in the top of the  unit.  Any liquid stream  deriving
     from the concentration of R048 could be derived from
     a hazardous waste.

     K049 (Slop Oil Emulsion Solids) - This waste, sometimes
     referred to as middle layer 'emulsion, is generated at
     the first instance where  the emulsion layer is allowed
     to form.   The layer will  form in the first vessel  to
     which slop oils are pumped from the wastewater system.
     with one exception, the wastewater from this first tank
     need not t>e evaluated for the 'derived from" test.  The
     case where it would require testing is where a hazardous
     waste,  such as OAF  Float, was introduced into the  emulsion
     breaking tank.  Hater phase derived from any subsequent
     emulsion breaking or emulsion storage is subject to the
     •derived from •  test.

     K050 (Bundle Cleaning Sludge) - Mixtures containing this
     hazardous waste which are part or the refinery wastewater
     system are exempted from  the mixture rule (40 CFR  261.3(a)

-------
     KOS1   (API Separator Sludge) - Generated at the moment
     of deposition  in the API •eparator.  Note that deposition
     is defined as  a condition where there has been at
     least  a temporary cessation of lateral particle
     movement.  Liquids derived froa the management of API
     Separator Sludge after its removal froa the separator (e.g.,
     centrifaging) must be evaluated to establish whether, or
     not, they are  'derived from' the hazardous waste.

     K052 (Leaded Tank Bottoms) - Generated at the moment of
     deposition in  the gasoline storage tank.  Section 261.4(c)
     excludes the tank from regulatory requirements.  Any
     portion returned to the wastewater systems must be
     tested under the "derived from' rule.

     This memorandum should clarify (when applied in concert
witn our previous guidance on scouring, slop oil systens, and
waste reactivity) the regulatory status of most refinery
wastewater  impoundments.  Do not hesitate to contact Ben Smith
of ay staff (FTS: 382-4791), if you have any additional questions
on this or other refinery related matters.  We will keep you
apprised of our progress with the TMOGA petition and our waste
listing efforts.

Attachment

ccs  John Quarles
WH-562B/BSMITH/pes/475-8551/8-20-85/Disk BS0825

-------