NEIC
          SUMMARY OF WASTE OIL RECYCLING
          FACILITY INVESTIGATIONS

          REGIONS II AND V


          October 1983
         National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EJBD
ARCHIVE                            ^^^^Offrce of Enforcement
EPA
331-
R-
83-
001

-------
CJBO
 flr
 65-
 ooi
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                  OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND LEGAL COUNSEL
                  SUMMARY OF WASTE OIL RECYCLING
                  FACILITY INVESTIGATIONS

                  REGIONS II AND V


                  October 1983
                  James L.  Hatheway
                  Russell W.  Forba
                    Repository Material
                    'ermanent Collection
                  NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS  CENTER
                  Denver, Colorado

                                  US EPA
                     Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
                          EPA West Bldg Room 3340
                              Mailcode 3404T
                          1301 Constitution Ave NW
                           Washington DC 20004
                               202-566-0556

-------
                                 CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION 	     1

INSPECTION PROCEDURES  	     2

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 	     4

PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATIONS 	    10


TABLE

Analytical Results - Comparison of Waste Oil Constituents
New Jersey, New York, Ohio 	     6

FIGURE

Known Business Relationships Among New Jersey Waste Oil
Facilities Inspected 	     9

-------
            SUMMARY OF WASTE OIL RECYCLING FACILITY INVESTIGATIONS
                               REGIONS II AND V
INTRODUCTION

     On May  19,  1980  the Environmental Protection Agency, in promulgating
final and interim final  regulations implementing RCRA, included an exemption
(40  CFR  261.6)  for  certain hazardous  wastes  being beneficially  used,
reused, recycled, or reclaimed (hereinafter referred to as recycled).  This
exemption applies to  hazardous wastes that are  not  sludges,  that  exhibit
hazardous characteristics,  and that are not  listed  in 40 CFR 261.31  or
261.32.  Wastes  that  are listed or that are hazardous sludges are subject
to regulation  until  they are recycled.  Wastes  in  either of these cate-
gories are not subject to regulation during the actual process of recycl-
ing.  The Agency  considers the burning of  hazardous  wastes as fuels  to be
recycling and, therefore,  these wastes are exempted from regulation.  The
blending and burning  must be legitimate,  however, and not  in actuality,
sham recycling.  What  constitutes  the latter depends  on  a number  of fac-
tors.  Of primary  interest is the  fuel  value  of the  hazardous material
being blended  or burned with fuels. If  the hazardous  wastes  being burned
have low energy  content, the blending of these materials with other fuels
may  be considered  sham recycling because  the primary  purpose is to  avoid
the RCRA regulations and the associated disposal costs.

     Instances of the above-type sham recycling have occurred posing a high
potential  for  adverse  environmental impact and  health  effects.  Because of
the potential  serious  problems  from this means  of hazardous waste  disposal
and  the  apparent exemption  from RCRA regulations allowed to waste  oil
recycling operations,  the  Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and
the  Office  of Legal  and Enforcement Counsel (OLEC)  published the RCRA
enforcement guidance,  Burning  Low  Energy Hazardous Wastes Ostensibly  for
Energy Recovery Purposes, on January 18, 1983.
     OWPE  and  OLEC requested the NEIC  to conduct investigations of  the
waste oil recycling facilities and their operations.   The main objective of

-------
these  Investigations,  pursuant to the RCRA enforcement  guidance,  was to
determine if hazardous wastes were being deliberately mixed with waste oils
for the  express  purpose  of avoiding the RCRA regulations and to determine
the use  of  the resulting blend.  Three states,  New Jersey,  New York and
Ohio were selected for these investigations because of widespread waste oil
recycling operations.

     NEIC conducted  34 waste oil  facility  inspections  including  11 facili-
ties in New Jersey, 9 in New York (New York City only) and 14 in Ohio.  The
results of  the New Jersey, New York and Ohio investigations are contained
in three progress  reports  dated April, July and September 1983.   In addi-
tion,   technical  assistance was provided  to  the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (ONR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control agency on waste
oil facility  inspection  procedures  and  sampling methods.   NEIC worked
directly with  these  two  agencies  in conducting a total of 13 inspections.
The states  of  Indiana  and  Michigan have also requested similar assistance
as they develop their programs in this area.

INSPECTION PROCEDURES

     The waste oil  recycling  inspections  were directed primarily at those
facilities  known to  collect and/or treat waste  oil  for  resale.  Meetings
were held between  NEIC  and State officials to  determine which facilities
were to  be  inspected.   State personnel accompanied the NEIC inspectors on
the waste oil  inspections.

     The New Jersey  waste  oil  facilities were inspected  under authority of
New Jersey  State law.  The  New York  and Ohio facilities were entered  under
RCRA which authorizes such inspections to gather information for regulation
development  purposes.   Company officials  were   informed,  however,  that
enforcement action would be taken if violations of other Federal or State
regulations (i.e., PCB regulations)  were determined during the inspection.

-------
     Information gathered  during these  inspections  included:  volumes,
types and origins of waste oil handled to identify potential sources of any
hazardous wastes contained  in the oil; data pertaining to  the commercial
distribution of processed  oils  to determine the  final use  of waste oils;
waste oil treatment  processes,  to determine whether or not hazardous con-
stituents were being removed from waste oil; sludge and wastewater disposal
practices to determine  if  these  materials, which  usually contained hazard-
ous wastes,  were being disposed  of  properly;  and whether  any hazardous
wastes were knowingly handled at a facility.

     All samples were  collected  using ASTM methods* and were analyzed for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),  chlorinated organics (solvents and chlori-
nated paraffins), numerous  elemental  constituents including heavy metals,
chlorine and  sulfur, Btu  value  (New  York  and New  Jersey  only), and
flashpoint.

     These parameters were selected for the reasons discussed below:

          Chlorinated solvents and heavy metals** are designated as hazard-
          ous waste constituents under RCRA.

          Chlorinated solvents also have very low fuel  value*** and are not
          typically  found  in  waste  oils but must be added  as a separate
          hazardous waste stream.

          Chlorine content, chlorinated paraffin, level as  well as chlori-
          nated solvent  levels,  are  important  because of the  potential  for
          formation  of  hydrochloric  acid  (HC1) and other chlorinated con-
          taminants during combustion of these materials.
  *  American Society for Testing Materials,  Standard '2546 - Standard
     Method of Sampling Petroleum and Petroleum Products - 1976
 **  According to published literature, the chlorinated paraffins, metals,
     and other elemental constituents are typically found in waste oils.
     The chlorinated solvents are not naturally in waste oils but could
     enter waste oil streams from degreasing operations at service
     stations, automotive shops,  metal processing facilities, etc.
***  RCRA Enforcement Guidance - F.R. Vol. 49,  No. 52, March 16, 1983

-------
          The flashpoint  value  showed whether or not a  material  is con-
          sidered ignitable  (<60°  C.) under RCRA.  The  PCB results indi-
          cated whether or'not  the TSCA  regulations were violated (maximum
          50 ppm in oils distributed in commerce).*

          Btu values  were calculated to determine  if  the  waste oil had
          reasonable heat content for use as .fuels (>5,000 Btu/lb).
                            /
          Sulfur concentration  indicated whether or not burning this  fuel
          violated State sulfur limitations for fuels.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Hazardous Constituents in Waste Oil

     The NEIC  investigation showed  that waste oils contained  hazardous
wastes.  Some of  these constituents, such  as  lead, result from lubricant
additives,  wear components,  and combustion products.   Other contaminants,
such as  chlorinated solvents and  polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are •
added, either purposely or  inadvertently,  to the  waste oil.  The officials
of several  facilities in Ohio admitted to mixing solvents,  including chlori-
nated  solvents, with  the  waste  oil which  is then sold as fuel.  The NEIC
sampling data  reflected these  mixing practices.   Facility operators in
both New Jersey  and Ohio did not  admit  to knowingly mixing chlorinated
solvents to  their waste  oil,  but significant  levels of these solvents
(>0.5%) were found in their oils.

     The highest average  concentration of  .chlorinated solvents** (nearly
0.5%) was found  in  Ohio.   One oil sample  contained over 4% and a sludge
sample contained over 11% (110,000 mg/kg) chlorinated solvents.  Every Ohio
facility inspected  had  at least one raw waste  oil  or  product oil  with a
chlorinated solvent concentration of greater than 0.5%.   The New Jersey and
New York City area  waste  oil contained an  average of about .27% and .01%,
 *  Oil containing PCBs are not allowed to be used for road oiling.
**  Primarily 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene

-------
respectively [Table 1].  The chlorinated solvent levels varied considerably
between states, between facilities and between individual samples collected
at  facilities.   Because the  facilities  are  not required  to  test  the  incom-
ing waste  oil,  there  are usually no  records  that  the facility knowingly
handles chlorinated solvents.   PCBs  were found in waste oils from one New
Jersey facility  and  six  Ohio facilities.   A  maximum  PCB concentration  of
500 ppm was  found  in  an Ohio waste oil  sludge sample.  The  lead  concentra-
tion for the three states investigated averaged 520 mg/kg.*

     The sulfur content of 70% of the New York waste oil  samples and 85% of
the New Jersey  product waste oil samples exceeded the respective New York
City and metropolitan northern New Jersey sulfur limits for fuels (0.37 and
0.3%, respectively).   The Ohio  samples  had  a  higher average sulfur content
(0.5%) than  either New York (0.37%) or New  Jersey (0.39%).  The more
liberal  Ohio sulfur limit (2.0%), however, was never exceeded.

Waste Oil  Uses

     Waste oil  uses  in the New York City/New Jersey region were different
than  in  Ohio and  these  differences  in  use cause  varying environmental
hazards.   The waste oil facility personnel  reported that much of the waste
oil handled  in  the New York City/New Jersey  area  is  burned in lieu  of  #4
fuel oil  in  large  residential  and commercial buildings.  These  buildings
are usually  located in highly  populated areas;  hence, large numbers of
people may be  exposed to  contaminants caused by burning waste oils.   Most
waste oils used  for  fuel  in Ohio" are burned in industrial  facilities such
as steel mills  and asphalt plants.   These facilities are normally located
in areas which  are not as heavily populated as the commercial and residen-
tial areas of New  York City/New Jersey;  hence, the'populations exposed  are
smaller.   Ohio  does,  however,  allow road oiling with  waste oil  and  waste
oil treatment sludge,  a  practice prohibited  in New York and New Jersey.
Road oiling  exposes a large  population directly to any contaminants which
may  be  present .in waste oils  or  sludges.   Other  uses   of waste
   520 mg/kg lead concentration is over 100 times the maximum RCRA EP toxic
   lead concentration (5 mg/kg).

-------
               Table 1

         ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARISON OF WASTE OIL CONSTITUENTS
     NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK,  OHIO
New Jersey
(84 samples)
Parameters
Chlorine
Iron
Lead
Sulfur
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Total chlorinated solvents
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Chlorinated paraffins
Average Maximum
(mg/kg)
2858
1843
621
3868
1500
349
884
2732
2
15
12095
35500
1794
lOlO'O
15000
15000
8800
19200
56
2200
New York
(27 samples)
Average Maximum
(mg/kg)
1408
1066
764
3644
104
0
20
124
0.1
13
7180
9580
2210
6630
620
0
330
620
2
100
Ohio
(150 samples)
Average Maximum
(mg/kg)
6650
1105
417
5035
2342
904
1629
4875
3.5
819
47200
21100
3250
16800
36000
26000
32000
41600
83
8800

-------
oil  in the three states  included  re-refining  into  lubricating oils and fuel
for  drying quarry materials.

      In  most instances,  the specific establishments  using the waste  oil  as
heating  fuel  could  not be determined.   The waste oil  recyclers  either kept
this  information  confidential  or  wholesaled their waste oil  to  retail  dis-
tributors who were not inspected.

State' Regulations

      The State  regulations varied among the  five  states where  inspections
were  conducted.  Only New York and New Jersey have laws granting  represen-
tatives of the State authority  to enter, inspect and sample waste oil faci-
lities for enforcement purposes in regulating toxic and/or hazardous wastes
other than PCBs.   RCRA allows  entry into waste oil facilities  for regula-
tion  development purposes but not enforcement purposes.  The lack of Fed-
eral  or  State  law regulating waste oil  precluded NEIC  access to some faci-
lities and generally  hampered the ability  to obtain pertinent  information
at those facilities inspected.

      The State  regulations varied among the  five  states  visited.  In New
Jersey, waste  oil is  a hazardous  waste  and  must  be manifested until  treat-
ment* at which  time  it becomes a  "product".  After treatment,  New Jersey
allows the product  oil  to flow through  commerce  unrestricted if  it  meets
the  sulfur  limits.   The  ultimate use  of the waste oil  is  difficult to
ascertain because product distribution records are not required and many of
the facility operators consider this information to be confidential.   Waste-
water and sludges removed during  treatment  processes must be manifested  to
   Treatment, in the context used by the TSD facilities, can .be just simple
   screening of the incoming waste loads for large particle removal or it
   may include more sophisticated processes such as heating to enhance the
   separation of the oil, water and solids phases and the addition of coagu-
   lants to aid in settling.  The type of treatment observed and described
   by facility officials will not remove contaminants such as heavy metals
   or chlorinated solvents.  The important point is that once the waste oil
   has gone through any or all of these processes,  it is no longer regulated
   except as noted above.

-------
a  disposal  facility.   Most incoming waste  oil  to or wastewaters/sludges
from waste oil facilities are manifested as "Waste Oil N.O.S."* and, there-
fore, the  facility  owners  consider  these materials  to be exempt by  defini-
tion from RCRA regardless of the hazardous constituent the oil may contain.

     The New  York facilities are permitted under State  industrial  waste
regulations.  Some  permits  require  manifesting incoming waste oil and all
permits require  that  an inventory be kept  of  both  source  and  quantity of
waste oil as well as waste oil customers.

     In both  New York and New Jersey,  it  is difficult to  determine where
the waste  oil  is finally burned or where wastewaters/sludges are disposed
of because  there are  no regulations (State or Federal) covering transport
across State  boundaries.   The tracking problem is  complicated further by
the number of times the waste oil and sludges change hands before final use
or, in the case of sludges, disposal [Figure 1].

     Both New York and New Jersey are developing  regulations to control the
use of waste oil and hazardous constituents in waste oil.   The final promul-
gation date of  these  regulations  is not known.  Ohio, Wisconsin and Minne-
sota have  no  State  regulations controlling waste  oil use  and  no  plans to
develop regulations controlling  the use of waste  oil.  Facilities  in  the
states have no  requirements  for maintaining  inventories  on waste oil
sources or  customers.   As  a  result,  many facilities either have no  records
or the operators maintain  that these records are  confidential.  Facilities
in these three  states also consider the sludges  generated from waste  oil
treatment  to  be  exempt from RCRA; and  no records of sludge disposal** are
usually  kept.   The most common  records available  are financial  records
which keep  track of payments to customers, payments from companies buying
waste oil,  etc.   Facility  operators usually consider these records to be
confidential business information.
 *  N.O.S. - not otherwise specified
**  West of the sludge generated from waste oil treatment in Ohio is put on
    roads for dust control or placed in municipal landfills.

-------
                                                                                                       Foci I It ict
                                                                                                       inspected  '
                                                                                                       dor ing Ml 1C
                                                                                                       Survey
                                                                                                       F.icilil ic*
                                                                                                       nut inspcclril
                                                                                                       durln., lit 1C
                                                                                                       survey
Figure I - KNOUH BUSIHESS  RELATIONSHIPS AIIOIIG HIV JERSEY WASTE OIL  FACILITIES INSPECTED
           January 20 -  February  I,  198)
                                                                                                                                     UD

-------
                                                                      10
Waste Oil Treatment/Disposal Practices

     The waste  oil  treatment processes  inspected  are  primarily  designed  to
remove  bottom  sediment and water (BS&W).  Any hazardous constituents con-
tained  in  the  waste oil are not removed to any great extent.  The analyt-
ical  data from  these  investigations showed  no  significant  difference
between  levels  of  hazardous  constituents in  the incoming  raw waste oil and
treated  product  oil.   Treatment processes usually  included  screening and
gravity  separation  with some  facilities providing additional  treatment
including centrifugation,  secondary  filtering,  coagulant addition, and/or
heating  for  further separation  or dehydration.  Only  two  of  the facilities
inspected (one  in Wisconsin  and one  in  Minnesota)  re-refine* waste oil for
subsequent use  as  lube stock.   Sludge  generated  from waste  oil  treatment
processes is considered  a  hazardous  waste  in  both  New York and  New Jersey.
These sludges are  usually  EP toxic  (contain  5 rag/kg  or more extractable
lead) because of the high  lead concentrations (average 520  mg/kg).  How-
ever, the sludges  generally  are not handled  as hazardous wastes but are
disposed of in municipal landfills or spread on roads.

PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATIONS

     The NEIC investigations showed  that waste oils contain  many hazardous
constituents and Federal regulations will  be necessary to control its use
to avoid adverse health and environmental effects.

The EPA  Office  of  Solid Waste (OSW) has drafted regulations covering many
of the  problems  identified during the  investigation.   For  example,   the
proposed manifesting and inventory  requirements  solve the waste oil  and
sludge disposal  tracking difficulties NEIC encountered.   The proposed regu-
lations  will  also  guarantee EPA representatives  the  right  of entry for
enforcement purposes and will require the owners to keep  records of perti-
nent information concerning  the handling of waste  oil.  Several  issues not
currently addressed by the  proposed regulations include:
   Re-refining methods  observed included acid/clay and distillation pro-
   cesses to produce lubricants.

-------
                                                            11
No contaminant  level  has  been  specified  to  differentiate between
"off specification" waste oil and "hazardous-waste-derived fuel".
This difference  is  important because "off  spec" waste oil will
have  requirements  less  stringent than  the "hazardous-waste-
derived fuel".   Because  the regulations  are less  stringent  for
"off spec" waste oil, many waste oil facilities will automatic-
ally designate all  waste oil "off spec" regardless of contaminant
levels.

There  is  no  definition of an industrial  boiler  and minimum capa-
city ratings  for such boilers  have not been established.   Waste
oil users will try to designate all boilers as "industrial" if no
such guidelines are provided.  ^

Waste oil space heaters are exempted from the regulations.   Space
heaters,  which  are not usually  vented to the atmosphere, may
create a  health  hazard  and should not be  allowed  to burn "off
spec" waste oil.

Use of waste oils for road oiling should be prohibited by Federal
regulation unless  the waste oil  meets  strict  standards  con-
trolling  lead and other hazardous constituents.

Sludge generated from waste oil  treatment  processes should  be
designated and  controlled as  a  hazardous  waste.   This  would
eliminate the use  of  these sludges for  dust control  and ensure
proper disposal.

The waste oil facilities should be required to test their product
waste oils for  contaminants.   Placing  maximum contaminant  limits
on waste oil  without requiring testing places a much greater moni-
toring burden on the regulatory agencies.

-------