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
------- |