United States Solid Waste and EPA530-R-99-029b
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS: PB99-156 069
Agency (5305W) June 1998
Petroleum Refining
Process Waste Listing
Determination Notice
of Availability (NODA)
Response to
Comments Document;
Part II
Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. Clarifications and Corrections II-1
A. Headworks Exemption II-1
B. Jurisdictional Explanation of Off-Specification Product and Fines from Thermal
Processes Used as Product II-11
1. EPA's jurisdiction over coke fines 11-24
2. EPA Invites Comment on the Potential Impact of Recycling Hazardous
Waste to the Coker 11-30
a. Favors Exclusion 11-30
b. Disagrees with Exclusion 11-36
c. Quench Coking 11-78
d. Supplemental comments on clarification 11-98
III. Land Disposal Restrictions - Revised Treatment Standards for Spent Catalysts from
Hydrotreating (K171) and Hydrorefming (K172) III-2
IV. Other Comments IV-1
A. Conditional Listings IV-1
B. Individual versus Population Risk IV-18
C. Waste Management Practices Assessed IV-26
D BIF Rule Exemption IV-34
E. Implications of Listing Catalysts IV-35
-------
II. Clarifications and Corrections
II.A. Headworks Exemption
Comment 1: EPA Has Correctly Expanded the Proposed Headworks Exemption to Cover
Water Associated with Catalyst Management.
The proposed exemptions are consistent with EPA's listing criteria in 40 CFR Section
261.1 l(a)(3). These criteria allow EPA to list only those wastes shown to pose substantial
hazards to human health or the environment and require EPA to consider the risk reducing effects
of other regulatory programs. EPA correctly points out that the exposure pathways from the
management of wastewaters associated with CSO sediment and hydroprocessing catalysts in the
refinery wastewater treatment system are sufficiently regulated under the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, and the existing RCRA hazardous waste listing for refinery wastewater treatment
sludges (K048, K051, F037, and F038). (NPRA, 00004, pg 5)
Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's support.
Comment 2: In 1995, EPA proposed to exempt from regulation CSO sludge (and crude oil tank
sludge if EPA listed the waste as hazardous) where the residuals are transported from the point of
generation in the refinery by any means and subsequently discharged into the refinery wastewater
treatment system.1 In the NODA, EPA proposes expanding the exemption to the two spent
catalysts the Agency intends to list as hazardous in this rulemaking, and solicits comment on risk
analyses associated with this practice EPA conducted for CSO sludge and the two spent
catalysts. (EOF, 00006)
Response: See following responses to Comments 2.a through 2.c.
Comment 2.a: Prior to addressing the new risk analyses, the most important aspect of the
proposed exemption is whether it is limited to dilute wastewaters resulting from the cleanout of
tanks or other units containing these wastes, or whether the proposed exemption applies to the
listed waste (sludge) itself. The proposed regulatory language would apply the exemption to
both the waste and cleanout wastewaters. In addition, the NODA risk assessment EPA
conducted for CSO sediment is based on disposal of the waste itself in the wastewater treatment
system.
Ironically, the one facility that reported disposing of CSO sludge in 1992 has indicated to the
Agency that the practice will not be repeated because of the expense associated with increased
1 60 FR 57781 (November 20, 1995).
June 29, 1998 II-1
-------
wastewater treatment sludge generation and subsequent disposal.2 Therefore, EPA conducted a
risk assessment and proposed an exemption from RCRA for CSO sludge, based upon the
Agency's consideration of a waste management practice at one facility covering 250 MT of waste
that the facility indicates will never be repeated. The Agency's willingness and ability to perform
a risk assessment in this context stands in stark contrast to the Agency's refusal to conduct risk
assessments and consider current and potential management practices for larger quantity of
wastes, as discussed in Section IV of these comments.
Further, while the NODA contains no new information with respect to crude oil tank sludge
potentially subject to the exemption, the CSO experience is instructive. Through the exemption
as proposed, by including the actual waste within the scope of the exemption, EPA would likely
be encouraging the generation of larger quantities of hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, a
result completely at odds with the waste minimization policy and objectives articulated by
Congress in Section 1003 of RCRA. Moreover, the experience demonstrates wastewater
treatment systems are optimally designed and operated to treat wastewaters. therefore the Agency
should not be creating RCRA exemptions that would encourage the suboptimal use of such
systems. These fundamental shortcomings in the exemption as proposed can be added to the
deficiencies discussed by EOF in its comments on the proposal, including the violation of the
dilution prohibition and minimized threat treatment requirements in the LDR program.3
Accordingly, while EOF welcomes the Agency's statement in the NODA preamble that it "was
not the Agency's intent to foster the discharge of all CSO sediments to wastewater treatment
systems",4 the lack of preamble discussion regarding crude oil tank sludge potentially covered by
the proposed exemption, the fact that EPA performed the NODA risk assessment on the CSO
sludge itself, and the failure by EPA to propose for public comment specific language to limit the
potential scope of the exemption, cause the scope issue to remain a matter of great concern.
Insofar as any wastewater treatment system-related exemption is appropriate in this rulemaking,
it should be limited to dilute wastewaters associated with specific allowable generation practices,
in much the same manner as 40 CFR 268.1(e)(4) is currently drafted.5 The express limitation to
wastewaters should incorporate the regulatory definition of wastewaters in Part 268. "Dilute"
should be expressed as a maximum concentration of contaminants allowed into the facility's
2 See NODA Background Document, Chapter 8, p. 2; Chapter 10, p. 1.
3 Indeed, EPA's CSO sludge risk assessment is largely a quantitative exercise in
confirming the effect of diluting 250 MT of waste with large quantities of wastewaters. See
NODA Background Document, Chapter 8, p. 4.
4 62 FR 16749.
5 See 62 FR 26019 (May 12, 1997).
June 29, 1998 II-2
-------
wastewater treatment system.6 And the generation practice should be limited to rinsate from the
cleaning of tanks or other units containing the specified waste, consistent with EPA's professed
intent. Significantly, these limitations should also apply to the existing K050 exemption.
because the existing exemption suffers from the same flaws as the proposal. (EOF, 00006)
Response: EPA reiterates its intent, as cited by the commenter, that the headworks exclusion is
not meant to serve as an incentive to discharge CSO sediment to the wastewater treatment plant.
EPA performed an analysis of this practice as described in the NODA Supplemental Listing
Background Document and as cited by the commenter.
The purpose of the NODA exercise was to develop a "what if scenario, representing the extreme
end of CSO washwater loading to wastewater treatment. Such a scenario was evaluated in favor
of a much more complex scenario, such as one limiting solids loadings or constituent
concentrations in washwaters. EPA concluded that because its "what if scenario showed
negligible risk, then no restrictions on washwater composition would be required. Finally, EPA
notes that refineries have no incentive to discharge solids to wastewater treatment since the solids
would end up as F037 hazardous waste, and one commenter provides information stating that the
quantity of such primary sludge would be much greater than the quantity of solids initially
dumped into the system (see comment F-95-PRLP-00014, Chevron Corporation).
EPA presented analysis in the NODA to support the headworks exemption for both wastewater
associated with CSO tank cleaning, and the expansion of the exemption to include water
discharges from the clean-out and turn around of hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalytic units.
After considering all comments on these analyses, EPA has decided to promulgate the expanded
headworks exemption. As noted in the proposal (see 60 FR at 57781), EPA intended to include
crude oil storage tank sediment in the exemption, if this waste was listed. Thus, EPA is also
promulgating the exemption for K169 as well. EPA notes that it completed a similar analysis for
crude oil storage tank sediment to respond to the commenter's concerns expressed about this
waste (see Additional Listing Support Analysis, \ 998 in the docket). EPA concluded from these
analyses that any impact on the downstream wastewater treatment sludge or wastewaters would
be negligible.
In amending the headworks exemptions under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C), the Agency intends
the exemption to apply to wastewaters from cleaning operations when these wastewaters reach
the headworks of the wastewater treatment system. As noted in the proposal, however, the
exemption is not intended to allow the discharge of the entire wastestream (i.e., tank sediments or
6 Table 2 of Chapter 8 provides estimated rinsate contaminant concentrations that EPA
believes overstate actual PAH levels found in tank rinsate. EPA should revise these estimates to
reduce inappropriate values, and then promulgate the concentrations as maximum levels allowed
in exempt rinsate.
June 29, 1998 II-3
-------
spent catalysts), but rather dilute waters generated during tank or unit clean-outs and dewatering
operations.
Finally, EPA notes that the existing exemption for heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge (K050)
was not explicitly reopened for comment, therefore the Agency is not considering any
modification of this exemption in this rulemaking.
Comment 2.b: By promulgating these limitations, EPA would address EDF's strongest
objections to the proposed exemption. However, a major deficiency in the NODA risk
assessments warrants comment. In the risk assessment, EPA entirely ignored the contaminants
in other wastes and wastewaters that are codisposed with the potentially exempt waste in the
wastewater treatment system. EPA simply and falsely assumed that the exempt wastes were
mixed with clean water. However, the reality is the exempt wastes are mixed with many
contaminants in the wastewaters, including the particular contaminants in the exempt wastes.
The result is a pollutant mixture that bears no relationship to the assessed scenario. Therefore,
EPA has not estimated the true risk posed by the exemption, when actual and potential co-
disposal is considered. (EOF, 00006)
Response: EPA notes that its analysis was an attempt to gauge the significance of a worst-case
discharge into the treatment system to determine if any significant incremental risks would result
from the practice. EPA found no such incremental risks and therefore concluded that the
exemption was appropriate. In fact, EPA found that risks due to the exempted wastes would be
extremely small. EPA disagrees with the commenter's proposed approach. Further discussion
of EPA's views on the commenter's co-disposal presumptions are presented elsewhere in this
response to comments.
Comment 2.c: Finally, if EPA does not limit the scope of the exemption to dilute rinsate, the
CSO risk assessment is flawed because it was based on the waste volumes and characteristics of
the one facility reporting waste discharge into a wastewater treatment system in 1992.7 Since
that facility no longer intends to employ the practice, and other facilities can avail themselves of
the exemption, a valid risk assessment must be based on the potential for any refinery generating
the waste to take advantage of the exemption, absent a technical or legal bar preventing a refinery
from doing so. Certainly, onsite wastewater treatment systems are potentially available for this
purpose throughout the refinery industry. (EDF, 00006, pg 67)
Response: As noted above in response to comment 2a in this section, EPA believes that there
are significant disincentives for refineries to discharge high solids content waste to their
wastewater treatment system. Certainly, on-site wastewater treatment systems are available for
this purpose throughout the refinery industry. EPA based its evaluations on the actual waste
7 Refinery wastewater treatment systems vary greatly in terms of size and quantity of
wastewater processed, from less than 0.01 to 14 MOD. See API 1994 Residual Report, p. 8.
June 29, 1998 II-4
-------
quantities used in this rarely practiced management scenario. EPA has no reason to believe, for
example, that a quantity of waste destined for land treatment would be managed in a wastewater
treatment system. EPA points our that a significant fraction of the wastes being listed must
already be handled as hazardous, because they exhibit the TC or other characteristics. Yet
despite this apparent incentive to avoid costly Subtitle C management, the disposal of tank
sediment directly into the wastewater treatment system was extremely rare (i.e., only once each
for CSO and crude oil storage tank sediments).
Comment 3: EPA's Expansion of the Proposed Headworks Exemption To Cover Water
Associated with Catalyst Management Is Appropriate
In response to comments, EPA proposes to expand the proposed headworks exemption to include
water associated with the management of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts 62 FR
16749 (April 8, 1997). EPA is correct that the same rationale applies to water associated with
catalyst management as applies to the original proposed exemption for waters associated with the
management of CSO sediment. See Id. In the absence of the proposed exemption, if CSO
sediment (or spent catalyst) are listed as hazardous waste, the entire volume of refinery
wastewater that comes into contact with water used to manage those residuals could potentially
be labeled "hazardous waste" under the "derived from" and mixture rules. This result could not
be justified on the basis of reducing any incremental risk to human health or the environment.
(API, 00009, pg 26)
Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's support. The results of EPA's analysis
show that little risk is likely to be incurred by this practice. The use of water during the catalyst
changeout process provides a number of benefits, including lowering emissions of volatile
organics, lowering the risks associated with the catalysts' potential self-heating nature, and
minimizing risk to workers entering the confined space of the catalytic reactors during
changeouts. EPA, therefore, has concluded that it is appropriate to include this low risk,
beneficial practice under the headworks exemption.
Comment 4: The Headworks Exemption Is Amply Supported by Regulatory Precedent, the
Listing Criteria, and the Case Law8
The concept of the headworks exemption is now very old and well-accepted. EPA introduced
the concept in 1981 in recognition that the mixture and derived-from rules, if applied literally and
without exception, could wreak havoc on wastewater treatment systems with no benefit to human
health and the environment. See 46 Fed. Reg. 56582 (Nov. 17, 1981). The Agency promulgated
several exemptions from the mixture rule for mixtures of listed hazardous wastes and wastewater
treated in a system subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, including mixtures of
8 The following discussion assumes the proposition that any of the residuals under
consideration warrant listing, a proposition that, as discussed above, API vigorously disputes.
June 29, 1998 II-5
-------
wastewater and heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge in the petroleum refining industry (K050).
See 40 CFR § 261.3(a)(2)(iv). The proposed exemptions in the present rulemaking are merely
logical extensions of those long-standing exceptions to the mixture rule.
Moreover, the proposed exemptions are consistent with EPA's listing criteria in 40 CFR §
261.1 l(a)(3). In particular, those criteria allow EPA to list only those wastes shown to pose
substantial hazards to human health or the environment, and require EPA to consider the risk-
reducing effects of other regulatory programs. 40 CFR § 261.1 l(a)(3) and (a)(3)(x). In
Dilhiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394 (1996), the D.C. Circuit made clear both that
EPA must give serious consideration to each of the factors enumerated in the listing criteria,
including the risk reducing effects of other regulatory programs, and that EPA must tailor its
listing descriptions to avoid regulating wastes or classes of wastes that do not pose substantial
risk.
Here, EPA correctly points out that exposure pathways from management of wastewaters
associated with CSO sediment and hydroprocessing catalysts in the refinery wastewater
treatment system are already regulated under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the
existing RCRA hazardous waste listings for refinery wastewater treatment sludges (K048, K051,
F037, and F038). Listing Support Analyses § 8, p. 1. Moreover, the Agency specifically
assessed the risks posed by management of those residuals in a worst case scenario and found
only insubstantial risks.9 Id. at §§ 8, 9.
EPA's risk assessment for the headworks exemption clearly indicates that disposal of water from
washing of storage tanks containing CSO sediment or hydrotreating or hydrorefining catalysts
does not result in significant risks to off-site receptors. In both cases, conservative assumptions
in the risk assessment indicate that EPA has not underestimated potential risks. For example, in
the case of CSO sediment, EPA evaluated risks assuming that CSO sediment, not just the water,
was discharged directly to the wastewater treatment facility. (See N.61 Supra) Even under these
extreme conditions, total risks from consumption of aggressive biological treatment (ABT)
effluent released directly into groundwater are less than 4 x 10"9 and total risks from exposure to
ABT sludge are expected to be 800 to 79,000 times less than the risks from landfilling of
untreated CSO sediment.
9 In assessing the risks associated with CSO sediment wastewaters, EPA assumed the
worst case scenario, reported to have occurred at one refinery in 1992, in which the entire
volume of the storage tank sediment is flushed to the wastewater treatment system. The
likelihood of this scenario occurring again at any refinery is remote, given the enormous expense
associated with managing the resulting increased volume of listed wastewater treatment sludge
(e.g., API separator sludge, primary sludge that would result from deposition of the sediment into
the wastewater treatment system. See N.8, infra.).
June 29, 1998 II-6
-------
Similarly, for hydroprocessing wastewaters, EPA conservatively used the maximum
concentration reported in drill waters, assumed that the dissolved concentration of inorganic
chemicals was equal to measured values, and evaluated direct exposure to wastewaters exiting
the treatment facility. Again, these conditions resulted in noncarcinogenic hazards from direct
consumption of wastewaters less than 0.1. In the case of exposure to ABT sludge, EPA has
correctly calculated that risks from landfilling would be 20,000 to 9 million times less than those
calculated for untreated waste.
Thus, the proposed headworks exemption is necessary to avoid unnecessary regulation of
demonstrably insubstantial risks. (API, 00009, pg 27)
Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's support.
Comment 5.a: EPA Should Clarify the Scope of the Exemption in the Final Rule
As EPA is aware, water is used in any number of different ways in the proper handling of CSO
sediment and spent hydroprocessing catalysts. For example, water can be used merely to flush
loose material, or (under high pressure) to drill out hardened material, or, in-situ, to steam strip or
water wash material to remove volatiles. In the NODA, EPA seems to suggest that the
exemption might be limited to waters used to "wash the tanks out to remove the last residues and
make the tanks suitable for inspection." 62 FR 16749 (April 8, 1997). Any such limitation
would render the exemption of little practical utility, given the many ways in which water
contacts the residuals during their management. Thus, EPA should clarify in the final rule that
the exemption extends to all wastewaters derived from the management of the residuals, as long
as the wastewaters are managed in a system subject to the Clean Water Act.
Response: EPA is aware of the following uses of water associated with the generation of K170
to K172. In reference to K170, water is generated (1) from centrifuging sludge removed from
the tank, and (2) as a "final rise" as mentioned by the commenter. In reference to K171 and
K172, water is generated from (1) drilling the catalyst, (2) steam stripping or washing, (3) pad
drainage. In the April 8th notice, EPA proposed to expand the exclusion to include drill water.
EPA believes that the headworks exemption is appropriate for waters generated from all of these
practices, because these aqueous residuals would be dilute and contain low levels of the original
listed wastes. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the exemption for all the wastes that are being
listed: CSO sediment, crude oil sediment, spent hydrotreating catalysts and spent hydrorefming
catalysts. As noted in the proposal, however, the exemption is not intended to allow the
discharge of the entire wastestream (i.e., tank sediments or spent catalysts), but rather dilute
waters generated during tank or unit clean outs and dewatering.
Comment 5.b: On a related matter, API recognizes the concern of one commenter that in the
absence of expressly limiting the exemption to dilute wastewaters, it could be lawful to discharge
June 29, 1998 II-7
-------
the entire volume of a residual, such as CSO sediment, to the refinery sewer. See 62 FR 16749-
50 (April 8, 1997). Assuming such a practice were legal under the exemption, such wholesale
dumping is clearly not within the intent of the exemption and would be effectively precluded for
very practical reasons. There are major disincentives to such a practice, in particular the huge
expense that would be required to manage the increased volume of listed wastewater treatment
sludge.1" Similarly, such a practice would be directly contrary to the waste minimization
programs that have long since become institutionalized in the petroleum refining industry.
Moreover, EPA has determined that even in such a worst case scenario — one that occurred once
in 1992, but is highly unlikely to recur — the risks presented are insubstantial. This, coupled with
the impracticality of crafting a definition of "dilute wastewaters" that reasonably covers all
situations, militates against any express limitation on the headworks exemption.
Indeed, the Dithiocarhamate decision strongly suggests that where a management practice is
unlikely to be used in the future, even though it may have been used once or twice in the past, it
is improper to list a material based on the mere possibility that it could be used again.11 See 98
F.3d 1404. Based on that principle, and based on the absence of any substantial risk posed by
management of the residuals in the wastewater treatment system, the Agency should not further
limit or qualify the headworks exemption. (API, 00009, pg 28)
Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's support.
Comment 6: The proposed headworks exemption are necessary to avoid regulation of
demonstrably insubstantial risks. As EPA is aware, water is used in any number of different
ways in the proper handling of CSO sediment and spent hydroprocessing catalyst. For example,
water can be used merely to flush loose material, or (under high pressure) to drill out hardened
material, or, in situ, to steam strip or water wash material to insure safe removal. In the NODA,
EPA seems to suggest that the exemption might be limited to wastes used to "wash the tanks out
to remove the last residues and make the tanks suitable for inspection." 62 FR 16749 (April 8,
1997). Any such limitation would render the exemption of little practical utility, given the many
ways in which water contacts the residuals during their management. Thus, EPA should clarify
in the final rule that the exemption extends to all wastewaters derived from the management of
the residuals, as long as the wastewaters are managed in a system subject to the Clean Water Act.
10 As discussed in Chevron's comments on the NODA, it is not unusual for the addition
of one pound of residual to a wastewater treatment system to create as much as ten pounds of
additional wastewater treatment sludge. API incorporates Chevron's comments by reference.
11 API does not believe its members will use such a management practice in the future.
Rather, API supports the exemption as a practical accommodation for the wastewaters that are
inevitably produced in managing these residuals, as described above.
June 29, 1998 II-8
-------
Response: As noted in response to Comment 5.a, EPA believes that the headworks exemption is
appropriate for waters generated from all of these practices, because these aqueous residuals
would be dilute and contain low levels of the original listed wastes. However, the exemption is
not intended to allow the discharge of the entire wastestream (i.e., tank sediments or spent
catalysts), but rather dilute waters generated during tank or unit clean outs and dewatering.
Comment 7: EPA is Correct in Expanding the Headworks Exemption to Cover Water
Associated with Catalyst Management.
As EPA has stated, sufficient controls are in place within refineries to manage minor residuals
that are drained to the refinery sewer systems. These residuals will be removed in the system and
become listed hazardous wastes. Without these exemptions, refiners would be forced to either
use more costly or more dangerous methods in managing catalyst or be forced to collect and ship
these wash waters off-site. This off-site management method would not only be costly, but could
lead to some potential spill events during handling and transportation that could have an impact
on the environment. (Sun, 00008)
Response: See response to Comment 5.a.
Comment 8: EPA has appropriately noticed its intent to grant the headworks exemption for
water used to remove hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalyst from the reactor. We believe the
data previously submitted and EPA's analysis supports this conclusion and we strongly support
this action. The use of water reduces the potential rate of oxidation of the catalysts as it is
exposed to and during its removal and handling. Use of water facilitates the safe handling of
these materials and is an important part of our operations. If these catalysts were listed and these
waters considered derived from hazardous, the costs and risks associated with alternative
management methods would be significant and without environmental benefit.
The EPA asks how to ensure that the headworks exemption is not a loophole to dump catalyst or
CSO sludge in the sewer. Chevron does not believe a loophole exists for two important reasons.
First, there is a significant economic penalty for this action. Any solid material dumped in the
sewer will emerge again as hazardous waste as all wastewater treatment sludges upstream of
biological treatment are already listed as hazardous waste (F037, F038, K051 and K048). Solids
in these wastewaters would be settled out prior to biological treatment. These solids must then
be periodically removed from the system and managed as hazardous waste. The wastewater
sludge that these solids generate is likely to be many times the original weight of the solids in the
water (studies have shown that one pound of solids entering a sewer will generate as much as ten
pounds of sludge due to the oil water-bacteria emulsion that forms around these solids). In
addition to the increased costs associated with increased volumes, these sludges are particularly
difficult to manage due to these emulsions. Thus, there already is a severe economic penalty
June 29, 1998 II-9
-------
associated with allowing solids into a sewer. The refinery in EPA's case study confirms the
reality of this economic penalty.
Secondly, sewers are critical to a refinery's operation. Placement of waters with significant
solids content into a sewer runs the risk of plugging the sewer. Not only will the sludge still be
hazardous when removed, but the refinery operations run the risk of being interrupted with
astronomical costs. Even if the sewer is not plugged, a refinery's wastewater treatment system
could be adversely impacted if it were overlooked with solids, endangering CWA compliance.
Thus, there is no need or justification for EPA to further define allowable wastewater solids
content. To do so would create unneeded analytical, record keeping, and related compliance
burdens. It is not appropriate to penalize all refineries for this one refinery's "ill advised" act.
(Chevron, 00014)
Response: The Agency agrees with this commenter that there are financial disincentives to
discharging excess solids to the refinery wastewater treatment system. Furthermore, the Agency
observes that many refineries conduct deoiling of tank contents and sediments prior to disposal
and tank inspection. This practice reduces sediment quantities by an average of 40 percent, with
a substantial savings of raw materials (i.e., oil recycled back to the refining operations) and
disposal costs. Upon promulgation of today's listings and the exclusion for oil-bearing
hazardous residuals, EPA believes even greater amounts are likely to be subjected to oil recovery
and waste minimization. Any water in the tank clean out material will likely be separated as a
part of the deoiling process, and would be discharged to the wastewater treatment plant. Thus,
with respect to some commenters' concerns regarding impacts on the wastewater treatment
system, these recycling activities will likely increase and further reduce the load on the treatment
system.
Comment 9: Texaco supports the clarification that the headworks exemption proposed for
261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C) will also include wastewater containing the two spent catalyst wastes (K171
and K172), as well as the CSO sediment (K170). However, EPA placed this exclusion in 40
CFR Section 261.3 (a)(2)(iv)(C) as an extension of that exclusion. 40 CFR 261.3(a)(iv) exempts
wastewater, the discharge of which is subject to regulation under section 402 or section 307(b) of
the Clean Water Act, but this exemption does go on to exclude 'wastewater facilities which have
eliminated the discharge of wastewater1. Texaco requests EPA to clarify that the headworks
exemption does extend to zero discharge facilities which have Clean Water Act equivalent
wastewater treatment units as explicitly provided for in other RCRA rulemakings associated with
wastewater discharge exemptions for CWA or CWA-equivalent wastewater treatment system
discharges (e.g. 40 CFR 268.1( c )(4)( iii ) and 40 CFR 268.3 (b)). This clarification is justified
because the CWA-equivalent wastewater treatment systems meet a standard of treatment the
same as the CWA discharge systems, but simply are not explicitly included in the current
regulatory language of 40 CFR 261.3. (Texaco)
June 29, 1998 11-10
-------
Response: As the commenter noted, 40 CFR 261.3(a)(iv) specifically includes "wastewater
facilities which have eliminated the discharge of wastewater" in the exclusion. EPA clarifies that
this exemption will include zero discharge facilities which have Clean Water Act equivalent
wastewater treatment units.
II.B. Jurisdictional Explanation of Off-Specification Product and Fines from Thermal
Processes Used as Product (see also Section III.A below)
Comment 1: The NODA Provides Additional Support for the Prompt Promulgation of the
Exclusion for Oil-Bearing Residuals Inserted into the Refining Process
In the original proposal, EPA proposed to expand the recovered oil exclusion in 40 CFR
261.4(a)(12) to exclude from the definition of solid waste any oil-bearing residuals produced in
the petroleum industry (including petrochemical industry) and inserted into the petroleum
refining process, including the coking process. In the NODA, EPA responded to the concerns
raised by comments objecting to the proposed exclusion and therefore has a sounder basis for
finalizing the proposed exclusion. NPRA urges EPA to promulgate this exclusion without
further delay. (NPRA, 00004, pg 6)
Response: See response to comment 2 below.
Comment 2: EPA Should Promulgate the Exclusion as Soon as Possible
The promulgation of the expanded recovered oil exclusion is long overdue. The process of
reforming the definition of solid waste in the context of legitimate refinery production of fuels,
which began no less than nine years ago, has inappropriately become hostage to the delays in
finalizing the proposed listing determinations.12 Because of this, and because the record amply
supports the proposed exclusion, EPA should promulgate the exclusion without further delay.
(API, 00009, pg 26)
Response: In today's final rulemaking, EPA is promulgating an exclusion from the definition of
solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated within the petroleum refining sector
and returned to the refining process. As finalized, the exclusion from the definition of solid
waste for oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum refining sources is expanded to allow
the use or reuse of a broader array of residuals from petroleum refining operations by inserting
the materials into any part of the refinery process, including the coking process. The Agency
12 The resulting delays in promulgating the necessary amendments to the solid waste
definition are all the more frustrating since there is no substantive reason why the two
rulemakings should be linked together, and because, as API has repeatedly commented, none of
the refinery residuals at issue warrants listing under RCRA and EPA's regulations.
June 29, 1998 11-11
-------
notes that the exclusion is conditioned on there being no storage or placement of the secondary
materials on the land and no speculative accumulation. In addition, the recycling of oil-bearing
secondary materials can not result in coke products that exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
In addition, in the final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion for oil-bearing secondary materials
returned to the refining process only extends to the materials actually re-inserted into the refinery
process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed prior to re-insertion, any
residuals that may result from the reclamation process and that are not returned to the refinery
process retain the hazardous waste listing and must be managed as hazardous wastes. In the final
rule, the Agency modifies the proposed listing descriptions for listed refining wastes to include
any residuals from the processing of listed hazardous wastes.
Comment 3: Phillips must call to your attention several disturbing aspects of this particular
rulemaking. First is EPA's failure to promulgate the proposed exclusion from the definition of
solid waste [60 FR 57747, November 20, 1995] for oil-bearing residual from certain petroleum
sources that are reinserted into the petroleum refining process. This issue has been in front of
EPA since 1988 and unfortunately has been arbitrarily coupled to this rulemaking. As a result,
its promulgation is currently hostage to the series of delays that has extended this rulemaking
deadlines from October 1996 until May 1998. Phillips urges EPA to fast-track the promulgation
of the oil-bearing residual exclusion. Considering the previous record of negotiated delays
orchestrated by EPA and EOF, we have little confidence in even the current promulgation
schedule. If EPA is able to commit the resources to conduct additional studies in order to extend
deadlines for this and other "Mega-deadline" rulemakings (See EOF vs. Browner, Civ. No. 89-
0598 D.D.C), it is certainly has the ability to complete the work and promulgate a final rule
resolve this long-standing issue. (Phillips, 00014)
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns regarding the rulemaking schedule. In
today's final rule, the Agency is promulgating an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for
oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining section and returned to the
petroleum refining process by inserting the materials into any part of the refinery process,
including the coking process. The Agency notes that the exclusion is conditioned on there being
no storage or placement of the secondary materials on the land and no speculative accumulation.
In addition, the recycling of oil-bearing secondary materials can not result in coke products that
exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Comment 4: EPA Should Clarify the Scope of the Exclusion by Correcting Misleading and
Inadvertent Statements In The Background Document
In its Listing Support Analyses, EPA makes the following apparently inadvertent statement
which could be misinterpreted if not clarified properly:
June 29, 1998 11-12
-------
The scope of the proposed exemption is limited to the petroleum refining, such that the
oil-bearing materials to be considered would be raw material-like and not contaminated
prior to being recycled. Listing Support Analyses § 4, p. 1.
Mobil is concerned that this statement could be misinterpreted to limit the exclusion to
hydrocarbon-bearing materials generated at a refinery. While it is true that the proposed
exclusion is limited to "petroleum refining" from the standpoint that the hydrocarbon-bearing
residuals must be inserted into the petroleum refining process (including the coker), the
hydrocarbon-bearing materials being processed may be produced at facilities throughout the
petroleum industry, including co-located or commonly owned petrochemical operations. See 60
FR 57756, 57796 (Nov. 20, 1995). No information is presented in the NODA that suggests there
is any reason to limit the exclusion to hydrocarbon-bearing materials generated at the refinery
site. The final rule and any accompanying preamble should make clear that the exclusion
extends to hydrocarbon-bearing residuals produced throughout the petroleum industry that are
inserted into the refining process, including the coker.
In addition, to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation, the apparent inadvertent reference
to the hydrocarbon-bearing residuals not being "contaminated prior to being recycled" also needs
correction/clarification. Hydrocarbon-bearing residuals, such as tank sediments or sludges from
wastewater treatment, contain some contaminants and EPA is well aware of this fact. It is for
this reason that the current recovered oil exclusion includes the condition that the recovered oil
be inserted into the refining process at or before a point where some contaminants are removed.
40 CFR § 261.4(a)(12). When the exclusion is finalized, EPA should confirm that its statement
that the excluded materials are not contaminated was incorrect. (Mobil, 00002, pg 5)
Response: The Agency agrees that the statement from the Background Document cited by the
commenter is confusing. The preamble discussions included with today's final rule clarify the
scope of the final exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials
reused in the petroleum refining process. Generally, the Agency has decided to limited the
exclusion from the definition of solid waste to oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the
petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC code 2911) and inserted into any part of the petroleum
refining process, including the coker. Due to the limited amount of data available to the Agency,
EPA is not extending the exclusion to hazardous secondary materials generated at petrochemical
plants or other industry sectors outside of the petroleum refining sector.
The Agency clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste promulgated today for
oil-bearing secondary materials is limited to only those oil-bearing hazardous secondary
materials that are generated within the petroleum refining sector (SIC 2911). (However,
recovered oil from the broad petroleum industry, as well as recovered oil from certain
petrochemical facilities, is also excluded.) In the context of oil-bearing hazardous secondary
materials being used in the quenching process, this limitation to the exclusion is entirely
consistent with the information evaluated in making this determination (i.e., data representing
secondary materials currently used in the quenching process — F037, F038, and K048-K052).
June 29, 1998 11-13
-------
EPA made its determination to limit the exclusion for oil-bearing secondary materials based on a
review and analysis of information on the types of secondary materials used by the industry, their
constituent components and the fact that the coke product remains basically unchanged when
such secondary materials are used.
The fact that the Agency only evaluated oil-bearing secondary materials that were generated by
the refining sector in its determination is sufficient reason to limit the exclusion to only refinery-
generated secondary materials. However, a further reason relates to the concept that oil-bearing
secondary materials that are generated by the refining process and continue to be processed in the
coker (by use in the quenching process) is more akin to an on-going production process than
would be the case for secondary materials generated outside the refining sector. The Agency
maintains that the quenching process is an ancillary activity that is somewhat removed from the
overall production process; however, the fact that the secondary materials are generated and used
in another production process (i.e., the overall coking operation) within the same industry,
imparts a closer association with the concept of an on-going production process than would be
the case for secondary materials generated by a different industrial sector. The Agency has no
information on which to base a finding that the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum industry in the coke quenching process
would be anything other than the management of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from
that non-refinery 'sector.
In one sense, the exclusion for recovered oil (as opposed to "oil-bearing secondary materials"),
which spans the scope of the broad petroleum industry, reflects the Agency's assessment that
only those hazardous secondary materials that are comparable to normal feedstocks (i.e., oil)
used in typical production processes should be excluded from RCRA without attention to how
they are processed. Oil-bearing secondary materials (as opposed to "recovered oil") originating
from a non-refinery sector have the potential to be more waste-like and thus do not warrant an
exclusion, especially if their ultimate use is in the quenching process. Therefore, the Agency is
today promulgating an exclusion for secondary materials that are: 1) similar to normal refining
feedstocks, even if generated by a non-refinery petroleum industry sector (i.e., recovered oil) and
2) both generated and used in any refinery production process, including the coking operation
(i.e., refinery-generated oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials).
The further Agency notes, however, that non-refinery generated oil-bearing secondary materials
that are used in the quenching process (i.e., hazardous wastes) may nevertheless be legitimately
recycled by use in the quenching process, depending on there being oil recovered during the
quenching process and no adverse impact on the coke product. The coke product produced from
such hazardous wastes, as well as the fuels produced from the oil recovered during the
quenching, would be subject to the exemptions found at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3).
The Agency clarifies that the phrase "and not contaminated prior to being recycled" should not
have been included in the cited statement from the background document. The Agency is
restricting the exclusion for oil-bearing materials to situations where the materials are not placed
June 29, 1998 11-14
-------
on the land prior to reuse and to situations where there is no speculative accumulation of the
materials. The Agency understands that oil-bearing secondary materials destined for reuse may
not be free of all contamination and that some level of contamination may be removed during the
refinery process.
In addition, the Agency is clarifying that the exclusion for oil-bearing secondary materials
returned to the refining process only extends to the materials actually re-inserted into the refinery
process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed prior to re-insertion, any
residuals that may result from the reclamation process that are not returned to the refinery
process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the original hazardous waste listing and must be
managed as hazardous wastes. In the final rule, the Agency modifies the proposed listing
descriptions for refining wastes to include any residuals from the processing of listed hazardous
wastes.
Comment 5: EPA Should Promulgate The Exclusion As Soon As Possible.
Finalization of the expanded recovered oil exclusion is long overdue. A process which began
over nine years ago to clarify the definition of solid waste within the context of refinery
production of fuels, from raw material and recycled hydrocarbons, is still being held hostage to
the proposed listing determinations. The expanded exclusion is long overdue and fully justified
by the record that EPA has established. EPA should promulgate the exclusion without any
further delay. (Mobil, 00002, pg 6)
Response: See response to Comment 2 (above).
Comment 6: EPA's proposed exemption from RCRA regulation for any "oil-bearing residuals"
inserted into the coking process suffers from a variety of serious shortcomings, including the lack
of storage standards prior to insertion, the lack of a definition of "oil-bearing residuals", and the
inadequacy of the toxicity characteristic as the sole check against toxics along for the ride.
In response to these concerns, the NODA materials contain what EPA claims is a "worst case"
assessment of petroleum coke content if all the refinery sludges currently listed as hazardous
were inserted into petroleum cokers throughout the United States. EPA claims the analysis
demonstrates the contaminant levels in the hypothetical coke product would not be significantly
different from the concentrations in actual coke product as reported in several literature sources.13
However, the NODA analysis is fundamentally flawed because:
• Wastes that may be listed as hazardous in the instant rulemaking, and characteristic refinery
wastes, were not reflected in the analysis, therefore the metal content of these wastes were not
considered;
13 NODA Background Document, Chapter 4.
June 29, 1998 11-15
-------
• EPA assumes all cokers uniformly receive an evenly allocated volume-weighted distribution
of wastes, thereby unrealistically spreading the metal contaminants throughout the industry;
• The mere dilution of the metals from the wastes in the larger quantities of coke does not
demonstrate the hazardous constituents in the waste contribute to the value of the product
(see discussion below); and
• The nickel content in EPA's hypothetical coke product is almost three times lower than the
Mobil coke (without waste added) included in EPA's data, indicating that the baseline level of
contaminants used by the Agency is not truly indicative of product coke.14
The nickel content of petroleum coke produced from waste is particularly important since the
toxicity characteristic does not include nickel, therefore EPA's proposed exemption provides no
protection against the handling of nickel as a toxic along for the ride. Table A.3 of the NODA
Groundwater Risk Assessment provides the nickel concentration for some of the refinery wastes
in this rulemaking. As this table and the 1995 Listing Background Document indicate, the nickel
content of refinery waste often exceeds several hundred parts per million, and can reach almost
5,000 ppm in unleaded storage tank sludge, 25,000 ppm in hydrotreating catalyst, and 14,000
ppm in hydrorefming catalyst.15 Given the open-ended nature of the term "oil-bearing residuals"
in the proposed exemption, any of these wastes may be inserted into the coking process
regardless of the resulting nickel content of the coke, as long as there is a scintilla of oil in the
waste. (EOF, 00006, pg 63)
Response: The Agency is finalizing the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste
for oil-bearing secondary materials generated by petroleum refineries and returned to the refinery
process with several conditions:
• The secondary materials may not be stored or placed on the land prior to being re-inserted
into the refinery process.
• The secondary materials may not be accumulated speculatively.
14 See NODA Background Document, Chapter 4, Table 2. See also Chapter 5, Table 2,
indicating the nickel content of petroleum coke ranges up to 580 ppm. In contrast, the proposed
non-wastewater exit level for nickel in the recent HWIR rulemaking was 110 ppm. See 60 FR
66448 (December 21, 1995). It is also important to note that EPA has never verified the metal
contaminant levels in petroleum coke (produced with or without waste) reported by the industry.
15 1995 Listing Background Document, Tables 3.3.7, 3.3.14.
June 29, 1998 11-16
-------
• Use of the secondary materials in the refinery process must not result in the coke product
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
The Agency clarifies that the exclusion, as promulgated, is limited to oil-bearing secondary
materials generated within the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911) and inserted into the
petroleum refining process
The Agency notes that the main purpose of the petroleum coking unit is to recover hydrocarbons
from the oil contained in the feedstocks for further refining. Similarly, the main purpose of using
the secondary materials in the coke quenching process is the energy-efficient recovery of
hydrocarbon from the residual oil in the oil-bearing secondary materials. The Agency also notes
that coke product produced using hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is
basically similar to coke produced without using secondary materials in the quenching process.
Further, EPA notes that the making of anode-grade coke, the most high-valued coke with the
most stringent product specifications, is likewise able to meet the product specifications while
using these secondary materials in the quenching process.
In considering whether the fact that the coke product produced using secondary materials in the
quenching process continues to meet the product specifications (and, in fact, demonstrates little
change in the levels of contaminants compared with coke produced without hazardous secondary
materials) is simply a result of dilution, the Agency acknowledges that such dilution does occur.
However, there are several other considerations. For example, the primary product of the
petroleum coking process is the hydrocarbon fraction recovered for use as feedstock in the
production of high-value fuel products, with the coke product being a co-product of the coking
process. The Agency is convinced that such recovery occurs when oil-bearing secondary
materials are used in the quenching process. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the
primary product of using the secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that
the coke product (i.e., the co-product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and
shows no appreciable increase in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. In other
words, demonstrating hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in determining whether the hazardous
secondary materials actually serve a useful role in the overall coking operation, rather than
demonstrating a net contribution to the coke (as opposed to no degradation of the coke).
Acknowledging that there is a potential for some degradation of the coke product, depending on
the constituent make-up of the particular secondary materials used in the quenching process, the
Agency believes that economic forces, driven by product specifications and competition for
markets, will serve to ensure that the quenching process is not simply a means of
indiscriminately disposing of hazardous wastes. However, in cases where there is sufficient
degradation of the product (or co-product) such that it no longer meets product specifications or
otherwise becomes unmarketable, the Agency would question the legitimacy of using the
secondary materials in the quenching process. Similarly, if there were no hydrocarbon recovery
stemming from the use of the hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process, the
Agency would question the legitimacy of the activity. (The Agency knows of no such cases.)
June 29, 1998 11-17
-------
With regard to the commenter's concern regarding the potential for metals contained in
hazardous secondary materials to be "toxics-along-for-the-ride," the hazardous metals found in
the hazardous secondary materials generally can be traced back to the metals found in the
original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through means
other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks. EPA's traditional concern
regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and ending up in a product is
mitigated in this case because the Agency views this activity as the continual processing of a raw
material that contains the hazardous constituents, with concentrations of constituents found in the
feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in the overall production process. In the
context of a multi-step production process, there is much less of an element of discard of the
hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material than there would be had these
secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the hazardous constituents not
been inherent to the original raw material.
Comment 7: EPA Should Correct Certain Inadvertent Statements in the Background Document
About the Scope of the Exclusion
In the Listing Support Analyses, EPA makes the following apparently inadvertent statement:
"The scope of the proposed exemption is limited to the petroleum refining, such that the oil-
bearing materials to be considered would be raw material-like and not contaminated prior to
being recycled."
Listing Support Analyses § 4, p. 1. It is true that the proposed exclusion is limited to "petroleum
refining" in the sense that the oil-bearing residuals must be inserted into the petroleum refining
process (including a petroleum coker). However, the oil-bearing materials may be produced at
facilities throughout the petroleum industry. See 60 Fed. Reg. 57796 (Nov. 20, 1995). This is
consistent with the existing recovered oil rule in 40 CFR § 261.4(a)(12), and no information
presented in the NODA suggests that there is any reason to limit the exclusion to oil-bearing
materials generated on the refinery site. The final rule and any accompanying preamble should
make clear that the exclusion extends to oil-bearing residuals produced throughout the petroleum
industry that are inserted into the refining process.
EPA's reference to the oil-bearing residuals' not being "contaminated prior to being recycled"
also appears to have been inadvertent. EPA is well aware that the oil-bearing residuals, such as
wastewater sludges, contain some contaminants. In fact, it is for this reason that the current
recovered oil exclusion includes the condition that the recovered oil be inserted into the refining
process at or before a point where some contaminants are removed. 40 CFR § 261.4(a)(12). It
may be that EPA meant to say that the oil-bearing materials would be "raw material-like and not
discarded prior to being recycled," which clearly would be more accurate. In any event, EPA
should confirm that its statement that the excluded materials are not contaminated was incorrect.
(API, 00009, pg 26)
June 29, 1998 11-18
-------
Response: See response to Comment 4 (above).
Comment 8: On page 4-1 of the Listing Support Analyses, it says that:
"1. The scope of the proposed exemption is limited to the petroleum refining, such that the
oil-bearing materials to be considered would be raw material-like and not contaminated prior
to being recycled."
We believe that this statement was unintentional since the wording of the proposed exclusion
clearly includes materials generated by facilities in a number of SIC codes representing
operations throughout the petroleum industry (60 FR 57796). The preamble language indicates
(60 FR 57753) that the exclusion covers "...oil-bearing secondary materials that are generated on-
site at refineries, transported intracompany from off-site, or received from any off-site facilities
(intercompany transfers) in the following SIC codes:..." The current recovered oil rule in 40
CFR 261.4(a)(12) includes non-refinery materials, and the preamble language to this rule (59 FR
38536, July 28, 1994) is clear that non-refinery materials are included in the scope of the
exclusion. The Agency should retain the proposed wording for the new oil-bearing residuals
exclusion and again clarify that it extends to oil-bearing residuals produced throughout the
petroleum industry which are inserted into the refining process. This will eliminate continuing
and unnecessary uncertainty on the scope of the exclusion.
We also believe that the reference in the statement to oil-bearing residuals not being
"contaminated" prior to being recycled is inadvertent. Oil-bearing residuals, such as refinery
wastewater sludges (K/F wastes), do contain contaminants. As EPA has concluded in the Listing
Support Analyses, however, product coke composition is not substantively affected, even under a
worst-case calculation, by the presence of these contaminants in residuals being inserted into the
refining process. (BP, 00011)
Response: See response to Comment 4 (above).
Comment 9: The commenter disagrees with EPA's proposal to allow reinsertion of "any" oily
waste material into any part of the refining process, likening the proposal to a "Bevill II"
exemption for refineries. The commenter points out that allowing insertion of wastes into the
coker, without regard to oil content, will assure that the coker becomes a limitless "black hole"
for refinery waste. The commenter contends that the exclusion will: (1) establish a regulatory
override to the Sham Recycling Criteria where coking is involved; (2) foster the production of
more of the world's dirtiest fuel by allowing yet additional toxic metals, PNAs, and other toxics
to be deposited onto the coke without treatment; and (3) deal a deadly blow to true recycling
technologies such as thermal desorption, flexi-coking, and gasification, which produce clean
products for direct reuse or reuse within the refinery, rather than create a product with not real
market value. (SEA, L0006, LOO 10)
June 29, 1998 11-19
-------
Response: The Agency is finalizing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-
bearing secondary materials generated by petroleum refineries and returned to the refinery
process with several conditions:
• The secondary materials may not be stored or placed on the land prior to being re-inserted
into the refinery process.
• The secondary materials may not be accumulated speculatively.
• Use of the secondary materials in the refinery process must not result in the coke product
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
The Agency clarifies that the exclusion, as promulgated, is limited to oil-bearing secondary
materials generated within the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911) and inserted into the
petroleum refining process.
The Agency notes that the main purpose of the petroleum coking unit is to recover hydrocarbons
from the oil contained in the feedstocks for further refining. Similarly, the main purpose of using
the secondary materials in the coke quenching process is the energy-efficient recovery of
hydrocarbon from the residual oil in the oil-bearing secondary materials. The Agency also notes
that coke product produced using hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is
basically similar to coke produced without using secondary materials in the quenching process.
Further, EPA notes that the making of anode-grade coke, the most high-valued coke with the
most stringent product specifications, is likewise able to meet the product specifications while
using these secondary materials in the quenching process.
In considering whether the fact that the coke product produced using secondary materials in the
quenching process continues to meet the product specifications (and, in fact, demonstrates little
change in the levels of contaminants compared with coke produced without hazardous secondary
materials) is simply a result of dilution, the Agency acknowledges that such dilution does occur.
However, there are several other considerations. For example, the primary product of the
petroleum coking process is the hydrocarbon fraction recovered for use as feedstock in the
production of high-value fuel products, with the coke product being a co-product of the coking
process. The Agency is convinced that such recovery occurs when oil-bearing secondary
materials are used in the quenching process. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the
primary product of using the secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that
the coke product (i.e., the co-product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and
shows no appreciable increase in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. In other
words, demonstrating hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in determining whether the hazardous
secondary materials actually serve a useful role in the overall coking operation, rather than
demonstrating a net contribution to the coke (as opposed to no degradation of the coke).
Acknowledging that there is a potential for some degradation of the coke product, depending on
the constituent make-up of the particular secondary materials used in the quenching process, the
June 29, 1998 11-20
-------
Agency believes that economic forces, driven by product specifications and competition for
markets, will serve to ensure that the quenching process is not simply a means of
indiscriminately disposing of hazardous wastes. However, in cases where there is sufficient
degradation of the product (or co-product) such that it no longer meets product specifications or
otherwise becomes unmarketable, the Agency would question the legitimacy of using the
secondary materials in the quenching process. Similarly, if there were no hydrocarbon recovery
stemming from the use of the hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process, the
Agency would question the legitimacy of the activity. (The Agency knows of no such cases.)
The Agency considered, as suggested in several comments, setting a minimum oil content to
define the scope of "oil-bearing secondary materials" that are excluded when used in the
quenching process, or to require a demonstration of hydrocarbons actually being recovered from
the excluded secondary materials that is comparable to oil recovery in the conventional coking
process. The Agency rejected limiting the exclusion based on a set minimum oil content or a
recovery efficiency requirement for several reasons.
As the petroleum industry stated in their comments, the quenching process represents the last
possible process in which to recover hydrocarbon from the original crude oil feedstock. The
refinery processes and operating procedures are designed to separate and process into products as
much hydrocarbon as possible from the crude oil feedstock, in other words, to prevent as much
oil from making its way into these secondary materials as possible. The oil that does make its
way into these secondary materials is generally considered unavoidable and inevitable, or in
some cases, too much oil in these secondary materials is evidence of a problem with some aspect
of the overall refining process (which goes towards explaining the wide range of oil contents in
these materials). Thus, it would be counter to the overall efficiency of the petroleum refining
process to require a minimum oil content in the secondary materials. Conversely, the Agency
believes it is fundamental to this exclusion that there actually be oil recovered for further refining
when these oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials are used in the quenching process.
Also, the Agency believes that, in this case, a minimum oil content condition would do little to
ensure that only those secondary materials from which oil can actually be recovered would be
excluded, or in other words, the Agency does not believe that setting a minimum oil content
would ensure that secondary materials are legitimately being used in the quenching process.
Since most of the secondary materials in question result from wastewater treatment, a minimum
oil content requirement would only serve to encourage a refinery to operate the refinery process
less efficiency to ensure that there these secondary materials contain the minimum oil content
and thus avail themselves of an exclusion.
With regard to the commenter's concern regarding the potential for metals contained in
hazardous secondary materials to be "toxics-along-for-the-ride," the hazardous metals found in
the hazardous secondary materials generally can be traced back to the metals found in the
original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through means
other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks. EPA's traditional concern
June 29, 1998 11-21
-------
regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and ending up in a product is
mitigated in this case because the Agency views this activity as the continual processing of a raw
material that contains the hazardous constituents, with concentrations of constituents found in the
feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in the overall production process. In the
context of a multi-step production process, there is much less of an element of discard of the
hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material than there would be had these
secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the hazardous constituents not
been inherent to the original raw material.
Comment 10: The commenter questions EPA's reliance on industry assurances regarding the
protectiveness of the coking process as a recycling operation. The commenter contends that the
extent of the Agency's health and environmental assessment consists of the following statement:
Coke is subject to .... certain limited industry product specifications ...Coke is also
subject to product standards established by the ASTMfor volatile matters and ash
content. Taken together, these controls help to insure the coke product does not
contain unsafe levels of toxic contaminants. (60 FR 5 "755, Emphasis added)
The commenter notes that ASTM is a test methods group, not a health standard setting agency.
Further, combustibility criteria do not substitute for a health assessment. The commenter cites
petroleum industry personnel who state that contaminants are deposited on coke sludge and sent
out with the product.
The Agency must consider the affects of the proposed recycling exemption, including movement
of pollutants from one medium to another and the making toxics in wastes more available to the
environment. The commenter contends that the only environmental justification for exempting
hazardous waste recycling from RCRA's preventative management standards occurs when the
recycling practice itself is inherently protective (i.e., conducted in an enclosed system or without
releases) and when toxics are not merely shifted from one medium to the next (i.e., from land,
back to the air.) (SEA, LOO 10)
Response: Due to the fact that 1) the recovery efficiency of hydrocarbons from oil contained in
the secondary materials used in the quenching process is comparable to the recovery efficiency
of the conventional coking process, 2) the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
(including RCRA listed hazardous wastes) in the quenching process is consistent with the overall
goal of the petroleum refining industry, namely to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon values
from the original crude oil feedstocks, and 3) the coke product continues to meet product
specifications and indicates no increase in risk, the Agency concludes that the use of oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials generated by the refinery can legitimately be used in the coke
quenching process, dependent upon whether there is both hydrocarbon recovery and no adverse
effect on the coke product.
June 29, 1998 11-22
-------
Having determined that certain oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials can be legitimately
used in the quenching process, the question then becomes whether this activity constitutes on-
going production and hence is excludable, or legitimate hazardous waste recycling -- potentially
subject to regulation as a form of hazardous waste treatment. There are several aspects that
would point to either outcome. Industry has documented that there is recovery of hydrocarbon
values from the oil-bearing secondary materials, short- and middle-chain fractions are condensed
and sent to refining processes to produce high-value fuel products (consistent with the overall
coking operation). In addition, there is some beneficial contribution to the coke product in the
form of carbon and higher energy values (even though this may not be reflected by an actual
increase in market value), and the Agency also notes that the coke product continues to meet the
market-driven specifications for the product, even for high-value anode grade coke. And, as with
other side streams generated by one process and used as feedstocks to other production
processes, this activity constitutes a link in the multi-step chain of processing steps designed to
recover as much of the hydrocarbon value from the original crude oil feedstock as possible.
Thus, there are arguably aspects of this activity that lead one to conclude that the oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials used in the quenching process can be considered, for regulatory
purposes, as part of an on-going production process and hence classified as an activity not
subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
The Agency is assured that use of hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is a
legitimate activity warranting an exclusion from the definition of solid waste. The primary
purpose of the activity is the recovery of the remaining hydrocarbon values in the oil-bearing
secondary materials (with the addition of carbon and energy value to the co-product coke), using
the existing heat energy contained in the coke product after the conventional coking process.
In general, the hazardous metals found in the hazardous secondary materials can be traced back
to the metals found in the original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants
introduced through means other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks.
EPA's traditional concern regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and
ending up in a product is mitigated in this case because the Agency views this activity as the
continual processing of a raw material that contains the hazardous constituents, with
concentrations of constituents found in the feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in
the overall production process. In the context of a multi-step production process, there is much
less of an element of discard of the hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material
than there would be had these secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the
hazardous constituents not been inherent to the original raw material.
Finally, EPA believes that the recovery of hydrocarbon from the oil-bearing secondary materials
in the quenching process is consistent with the overall petroleum refining process, and the coking
operation in particular, i.e., the recovery of hydrocarbons for the production of high-value fuel
products. Therefore, the Agency is providing a conditional exclusion for oil-bearing hazardous
secondary materials that are inserted into the coker, based on the assumption that, whether
June 29, 1998 11-23
-------
inserted along with normal feedstock (i.e., resids) or used in the quenching process,
hydrocarbons are recovered for further refining and there is no degradation of the coke product.
II.B.l. EPA's jurisdiction over coke fines
Comment 1: Off-Specification Coke And Fines That Are Sold As Product Are Not Wastes.
Mobil concurs in EPA's conclusion that off-specification coke and fines that are sold as product
are not wastes. The NODA offers EPA's explanation as to why off-specification coke and fines
that are sold as product are beyond EPA's jurisdiction under RCRA as well as why EPA found it
unnecessary to assess risks from land-based storage of such products. 62 Fed. Reg. 16750 (April
8, 1997). Off-specification products that are sold for their intended purpose are products and not
wastes. See 40 CFR § 261.2(c)(2)(ii).
However, EPA states that "In the case of waste-derived fines, so long as the fines are legitimate
coke product, they are exempt from RCRA regulation unless the material exhibits a
characteristic, 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(v)." 62 Fed. Reg. 16750 (April 8, 1997). If "waste-derived"
fines is meant to refer to coke fines from coking where hydrocarbon-bearing residuals are
reprocessed, Mobil maintains that neither the hydrocarbon-bearing residuals nor the coke fines
are solid wastes under existing case law. Moreover, upon finalization of the proposed expanded
recovered oil exclusion, EPA's regulations will confirm that coke and fines derived from
reprocessing hydrocarbon-bearing residuals are not wastes. (Mobil, 00002, pg 5)
Response: EPA maintains that coke fines managed and sold with coke as product are not solid
wastes, as long as the coke product (and fines) do not exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
Comment 2: EPA Has Correctly Addressed the Risks Associated with the Sale of
Off-specification Coke and Fines.
Because off-specification coke and fines are sold as a product and are not wastes, they are
beyond EPA's RCRA jurisdiction. Therefore, NPRA agrees with EPA's proposal not to list the
residual. (NPRA, 00004, pg4)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for stating its support of the Agency's proposal.
Comment 3: Off-Specification Coke and Fines that Are Sold as Product Are Not Wastes
In the NODA, EPA explains further why off-specification coke and fines that are sold as product
are beyond EPA's jurisdiction under RCRA (and therefore, why EPA found it unnecessary to
assess risks from land-based storage of such products). 62 Fed. Reg. 16750 (April 8, 1997).
First, EPA states correctly that off-specification coke and fines that are produced without using
wastes are not wastes. This is simply an application of the self-evident principle, codified in the
June 29, 1998 11-24
-------
existing regulations, that off-specification products that are sold for their intended purpose are
products and not wastes. See 40 CFR § 261.2(c)(2)(ii).
Second, EPA states that "In the case of waste-derived fines, so long as the fines are legitimate
coke product, they are exempt from RCRA regulation unless the material exhibits a
characteristic, 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(v)." 62 Fed. Reg. 16750 (April 8, 1997). This statement is
also true, as far as it goes. However, to the extent "waste-derived" fines is meant to refer to coke
fines from coking where oil-bearing residuals are used in the process, API maintains that neither
the oil-bearing residuals nor the coke fines are even "solid waste" under existing case law.
Moreover, upon finalization of the revised recovered oil exclusion, the non-waste status of the
residual-derived coke and fines will be codified in EPA's regulations. For all of these reasons,
EPA is fully justified in its proposal not to list off-specification coke and fines as hazardous
waste. (API, 00009, pg 25)
Response: EPA maintains that coke fines managed and sold with coke as product are not solid
wastes, as long as the coke product (and fines) do not exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
Comment 4: EPA has Correctly Characterized the Handling and Risks Associated with
Off-specification Coke and Fines.
As EPA states, essentially all of this material is managed as a product and not wastes and
therefore any listing decision is unjustified and beyond EPA's jurisdiction. (Sun, 00008)
Response: EPA maintains that coke fines managed and sold with coke as product are not solid
wastes, as long as the coke product (and fines) do not exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
Comment 5: In the case of off-spec products and fines, the NODA materials contain two
relevant categories of information. For the first time, EPA offers its rationale for why off-spec
products and fines are co-products when placed on petroleum coke piles for storage and
subsequent reuse, and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of this listing determination when
managed in this manner. In brief, EPA bases the co-product determination on the physical and
chemical similarity to petroleum coke.16 In addition, for the first time, EPA evaluated the non-
groundwater risks posed by the management of off-spec products and fines in LTUs, both as an
individual waste and in the co-disposal scenario discussed above.
Insofar as EPA's co-product determination is based upon the similarity of off-spec products and
fines to petroleum coke, EOF questions whether EPA can demonstrate either material has current
economic value independent of avoided disposal costs. In response to an EOF FOIA request
16 See NODA Background Document, Chapter 5.
June 29, 1998 11-25
-------
submitted earlier this year, EPA provided a memorandum from Dave Gustafson, DPRA to Max
Diaz, EPA dated March 18, 1997, attached as Exhibit 1 to these comments. In that
memorandum, DPRA quotes petroleum coke price ranges from $0-$80/ton, the highest price
presumably for rarely produced anode production grade coke. In the Rocky Mountain region,
generators pay to dispose of the coke, therefore it can hardly be considered a product in that
region. Elsewhere, a typical export price is merely $7.50 per short ton, while use within a
company may be valued at $12.50 per short ton. Significantly, most petroleum coke produced
domestically is now exported, because the coke is too dirty to burn under U.S. air standards.17
DPRA's findings that petroleum coke is of little or no economic value are confirmed by other
sources. The Oil and Gas Journal published a recent article in which the author states:
Conventional heavy-resid conversion processes for high-metals stocks, such as coking
processes, are no longer the final solution they once were. High-sulfur, high-metals
coke can no longer be directly fired in boilers in many parts of the world. Firing in
fluid-bed combustors often is not permitted because of limited sulfur recovery and
disposal problems with the heavy metals in the spent bed.
The market for high-sulfur, high-metals coke has constricted to the point where some
U.S. refiners are faced with negative netbacks on their coke production.18
In response to the same FOIA request, EPA also provided information on the economic value of
off-spec products and fines. According to EPA, survey respondents reported receiving payment
for 24 of the residual streams sent off-site. Since 38 streams were reported as transported offsite
with petroleum coke in 1992, 14 of the 38 survey respondents did not indicate they received any
payment for the offsite transfer.19 The payments received by the remaining respondents
generally fell within $10-20 per metric ton.20 Since the data is from 1992 when DPRA found
petroleum coke had a similar value, it is reasonable to assume these small payments have
declined since then in the same manner as the value of coke. Therefore, EPA's economic data
demonstrate both petroleum coke and off-spec products and fines have very little or no current
17 As reported by DOE and provided by EPA in its response to EDF's FOIA request,
about 15 million of 25 million metric tons of petroleum coke produced domestically in 1994 was
exported.
18 Heaven, "Gasification Converts a Variety of Problem Feedstocks and Wastes", Oil and
Gas Journal. May 27, 1996, pp. 49-50.
19
1995 Listing Background Document, Table 3.7.1.
20 See Letter from David Bussard, EPA to Karen Florini, dated March 25, 1997 (answer
to question 3).
June 29, 1998 11-26
-------
economic value independent of avoided disposal costs. Accordingly, off-spec products and fines
are not properly characterized as co-products.
In addition, assuming arguendo the off-spec products and fines are co-products when stored with
petroleum coke, EPA must still render a listing determination for this residual when stored on
piles. Pursuant to 40 CFR 261.33, EPA lists a variety of products, including off-specification
products, when discarded or intended to be discarded. Therefore, if the off-spec products and
fines are not actually reused when placed on the pile, because the residual blows off the pile or
migrates via runoff, such off-spec products and fines would be regulated as hazardous wastes.
Indeed, by listing off-spec products and fines as hazardous under 40 CFR 261.33, regulatory
officials would be empowered to respond to such discard by placing appropriate controls on the
pile to prevent it from becoming an unauthorized disposal unit.
The importance of rendering a 40 CFR 261.33 listing determination in this context is dramatized
by the limited risk assessment EPA conducted as part of the 1995 proposal. The cancer risks
associated with landfill air releases (where no daily cover was assumed as would be the case for
the storage pile) for off-spec thermal products and fines exceeded 1 X 10~3 for home gardeners,
subsistence farmers, and subsistence fishers; and a high cancer risk to subsistence fishers from
mercury exposure was also predicted.21 Significantly, EPA regarded these risk estimates as
"comparable to the potential risks associated with onsite storage prior to final management" due
in large part to the small particle size associated with off-spec products and fines.22
The NODA LTU risk modeling for off-spec products and fines is not a meaningful surrogate for
evaluating the risks posed by pile storage, and therefore does not contradict the 1995 findings. In
the NODA LTU modeling, the annual onsite LTU modeled volumes were one ton (median) and
34 tons (high-end). For offsite LTUs, both the median and high-end volume values were 21
tons.23 In the onsite co-disposal LTU modeling, the off-spec products and fines volume was set
at 34 tons, while in the offsite scenario, the volume was 21.2 tons.24 In contrast, the annual
median and high-end volumes for pile storage are 4,447 and 17,000 tons respectively.25 In short,
21 See EPA 1995 Non-Groundwater Risk Assessment, Appendix Q, Table 3a.
22 1995 Listing Background Document at 142.
23 NODA LTU Risk Assessment, Table 2.1.
24 Id., Tables 7.1,7.2.
25 See 1995 Listing Background Document, Table 3.7.1. ("transfer with coke product").
June 29, 1998 11-27
-------
the NODA onsite LTU modeling considered median volumes approximately 0.022%, and high-
end volumes approximately 0.20% of the relevant pile volume.26
Pursuant to the Consent Decree in EOF v Browner. EPA is required to issue a listing
determination for off-spec products and fines. Given that an estimated 169,986 MT of the total
194,262 MT (87%) off-spec products and fines generated in 1992 was placed in piles and subject
to discard,27 and that such discard presents a substantial risk to human health and the
environment based upon the assessments conducted to date, the required listing determination
must include a decision as to whether off-spec products and fines warrants listing pursuant to 40
CFR 261.33. EPA must either list the residual as hazardous based upon its 1995 risk findings, or
perform an appropriate risk assessment evaluating the present and potential risks to human health
and the environment posed by the storage of large quantities of off-spec products and fines on
piles. (EOF, 00006, L0009)
Response: The Agency is not listing coke fines as a hazardous waste because coke fines are the
same as coke and are, for the most part, managed in the same manner as product coke. The
Agency's risk analysis for coke that is disposed in landfills and land treatment units resulted in
low risk estimates. The issues raised on the risks posed by this waste are discussed in the
response to Comment 4 in Section I. A. 5 of this document.
Furthermore, EPA made follow up calls to the 6 facilities which have cokers out of the 20
refineries in which site visits were conducted and found most of the facilities employed some
kind of dust suppression to the coke product piles. The phone log is below.
Phone Log - Documentation of Release Controls for Coke Product Piles
Facility
Number
Process Unit
Type
Dust Suppression
Run-off Controls
093
Fluid Coking - Coke
pile is owned by the
neighboring co-
generation plant but
leases the land from
the refinery
As part of the lease, the
cogcneration plant must use a dust
suppressant and crusting agent on
the pile to control dusting.
The area is sloped and storrmvater
drains into the stormwater collection
ditch and which is sent to the
wastewater treatment plant. The
product pile is walled in with
wooden walls.
26 Since the 1995 landfill risk estimates cited above were based upon volumes 1/7 of the
pile high-end volumes, even those landfill risk estimates may substantially underestimate the
potential risks posed by airborne off-spec products and fines.
27 1995 Listing Background Document, Table 3.7.1.
June 29, 1998 11-28
-------
Facility
Number
Process Unit
Type
Dust Suppression
Run-off Controls
155
Delayed Coker-
processcs F&K wastes
Coke is \vet w hen placed on the
piles from the drilling water. Dust
suppression system continuously
sprays the piles with water. Trucks
carrying product covered and arc
sprayed before leaving the unit to
remove coke from tires.
The coking unit and product pile is
enclosed with sheet metal w alls.
Unit area is sloped so drilling water
and stormwater collects in the
cutting water system where the water
is reused for cutting and the fines are
placed back on the product piles.
171
Delayed coker w ith
calciner
The "green coke" is loaded from
the unit onto a covered conveyor
with a gantry crane and bucket and
taken to the "'coke barns" (an
enclosed storage warehouse). From
the barns, it travels to the calciner
on another covered conveyor. The
calcined coke storage and loading
areas all have dust suppression
equipment.
Drilling water may drain from the
conveyor or loading area and it
drains back into the coker drilling
water maze. Drilling water drainage
("black water") from the barns
collects in a sump and is routed back
to the coker maze. The maze water
is recycled to the "jet tank" for
drilling.
063
Delayed coker making
anode-grade coke
Coke is wet when placed on the
piles from the drilling water. Dust
suppression system continuously
sprays the piles with water. From
the piles it travels via covered
conveyor to the loading barge.
The product pile is enclosed with
walls. Unit area is sloped so drilling
water and stormwater collects and it
is sent to a clarifier where the water
is reused for cutting and the fines are
placed back on the product piles.
076
Delayed coker sent to
an offsite calciner
No sprinkler system; Louisiana is a
rainy area and helps keep dust
down. Looked into a polymer dust
suppression but didn't go with it
due to cost and decrease in coke
purity. Coke pile can't be sprayed
with water because the coke must
have a minimum moisture content
for the calciner. Use a truck washer
to minimize fines carried off by
trucks.
The coke unit and product piles are
enclosed by concrete walls. Drilling
water and stormwater drain into the
"fines pit" (a sloped drainage area)
were the water is reused for drilling
and the fines are recovered and place
on the product pile.
170
Delayed coker making
anode-grade coke
Majority' of the coke is stored in
storage buildings. Water sprinkler
systems control coke that is stored
outside. Truck are w ashed and
tarped before leaving the process
area.
Runoff water from drilling and dust
suppression is drained into
"sediment traps." Water is then
recycled for cutting. A small portion
of the water may go to WWT. Fines
collected in the "traps" are placed
back on the product pile and sold.
June 29, 1998
11-29
-------
II.b.2. EPA Invites Comment on the Potential Impact of Recycling Hazardous Waste to
the Coker.
II.B.2.a. Favors Exclusion
Comment 1: The NODA Provides Additional Strong Support For the a Prompt and Early
Finalization of the Long Overdue Exclusion For Hydrocarbon-Bearing Residuals Inserted In The
Coking Process
In its November 20, 1995 proposal, EPA proposed to expand the recovered oil rule exclusion in
40 CFR § 261.4(a)(12) to exclude from the definition of solid waste hydrocarbon-bearing
residuals produced in the petroleum industry (including the petrochemical industry) and inserted
into the petroleum refining process, including the coking process. Based on existing case law
and the record already developed in this rulemaking, Mobil believes EPA had a sound basis to
finalize the proposed exclusion long ago. The data and analysis presented in the NODA provide
yet more support for this long overdue exclusion, and Mobil strongly urges EPA to promulgate
the exclusion in final form as soon as possible.
The NODA provides a very persuasive response to the concerns of some who have commented
that the proposed exclusion could allow some toxic constituents to be passed through to the
product coke at elevated levels, sometimes referred to as "toxics along for the ride." Data
provided by Mobil and others demonstrate that the use of hydrocarbon-bearing residuals in the
coking process does not materially impact toxic metals levels in product coke. USEPA,
Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination: Supplemental Background Document:
Listing Support Analyses ("Listing Support Analyses") § 4 (1997).
EPA's effort in the NODA to address the theoretical possibility that in the future there could be a
dramatic increase in the reprocessing of residuals on the coker for the recovery of hydrocarbons
and the production of valuable transportation and other fuels, including coke production, is very
informative. EPA calculated the predicted impact on coke product quality if all refinery F/K
wastes produced during 1992 were reprocessed on cokers to produce the total quantity of coke
produced in 1992. Even under this "worst case" scenario, EPA calculates such reprocessing
would have minimal impact on metals levels in coke. Id.
Any concerns about "toxics along for the ride" should be finally and completely resolved based
on l)the data presented or derived by EPA analysis, 2)the operational imperative to avoid using
incompatible materials in the economically critical coking process, 3)the existence of coke
product specifications28, and 4)the requirement that the coke product not exhibit a hazardous
28 Such specifications apply regardless of the reprocessing method used to recover
hydrocarbon for the production of valuable transportation and other fuel products and to
incorporate hydrocarbon-bearing secondary materials into the product coke, whether the method
involves processing the secondary materials along with normal coker feed or injecting the
June 29, 1998 11-30
-------
waste characteristic. EPA should finalize the proposed exclusion as soon as possible and without
further delay. (Mobil, 00002, pg 4)
Response: In today's final rulemaking, the Agency is promulgating an exclusion from the
definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining
sector (i.e., SIC 2911) and returned to the refinery process, with the following conditions:
• The secondary materials may not be stored or placed on the land prior to being re-inserted
into the refinery process (including prior to insertion into the coker, either as part of the
conventional coking process or prior to insertion with the quench).
• The secondary materials may not be accumulated speculatively.
• Use of the secondary materials in the refinery process must not result in the coke product
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
The Agency is convinced, after a review of data provided by commenters, that the hazardous
metals found in the hazardous secondary materials can be traced back to the metals found in the
original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through means
other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks. EPA's traditional concern
regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and ending up in a product is thus
mitigated in this case because the Agency views coking as a continuation of the refining process
to recover hydrocarbons from crude oil. Hazardous constituents (with the exception of lead and
chromium) originate with the initial raw material, i.e., the crude oil.
Concentrations of hazardous constituents found in the feedstock streams vary depending on the
point in the overall production process. In the context of this multi-step production process,
there is thus much less of an element of discard of the hazardous constituents because they come
from the raw material. The situation would be different had these secondary materials been
generated by another industry or had the hazardous constituents not been inherent to the original
raw material. (In addition, the preamble notes that lead and chromium are being phased out of
refining operations and record information documents the decline of these constituents in
petroleum industry secondary materials and petroleum coke.)
EPA notes that the Agency is limiting the exclusion to oil-bearing secondary materials generated
by the petroleum refining sector only (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency is limiting the scope of the
exclusion in this way to ensure that secondary materials containing hazardous constituents not
present in crude oil feedstocks and/or hazardous constituents that cannot contribute to the
production process are not discarded in the coking process or incorporated into the coke product
without benefit to the product. In addition, the scope of the exclusion is limited to those
secondary materials during the quench cycle of the coking process.
June 29, 1998 11-31
-------
secondary materials generated within the petroleum refining industry sector that result in a coke
product that does not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. The Agency has no
information on which to base a finding that the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum industry in the coke quenching process
would be anything other than the management of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from
that non-refinery sector.
Comment 2: The NODA Provides Additional Support for the Prompt Promulgation of the Long
Overdue Exclusion for Oil-Bearing Residuals Employed in the Coking Process
In the original proposal, EPA proposed to expand the recovered oil rule exclusion in 40 CFR §
261.4(a)(12) so as to exclude from the definition of solid waste any oil-bearing residuals
produced in the petroleum industry (including the petrochemical industry) and inserted into the
petroleum refining process, including the coking process. API believes that based on existing
case law and the record already developed in this rulemaking, EPA had a sound basis to finalize
the proposed exclusion long ago. The data presented in the NODA provides yet more support for
this long overdue exclusion, and API urges EPA to promulgate the exclusion in final form as
soon as possible.
In particular, the NODA responds very persuasively to the concerns of some commenters that the
proposed exclusion would permit toxic constituents to be passed through to the coke product at
elevated levels, i.e., that it would permit "toxics along for the ride." The data presented from
industry and updated literature sources demonstrate that use of oil-bearing residuals in the coking
process does not measurably affect the levels of toxic metals in product coke. USEPA,
Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination: Supplemental Background
Document: Listing Support Analyses ("Listing Support Analyses") § 4 (1997).
Moreover, to address the theoretical possibility that in the future there would be a dramatic
increase in the use of residuals in coke production, EPA calculated the predicted effects on coke
product if 100 percent of the volume of refinery F and K sludges produced during 1992 were
used in production of the total quantity of coke produced in 1992. Even under such a theoretical
"worst case" scenario, EPA projects minimal impact on levels of metals in coke. Id.
The data presented, together with the operational imperative to avoid using incompatible
materials in the coking process, the existence of product specifications for coke,29 and the
proposed condition that the coke product not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic, should lay
29 Such specifications apply regardless of the reprocessing method used to recover oil for
the production of valuable transportation and other fuel products and to incorporate oil bearing
residuals into the product coke, i.e., regardless of whether the method involves processing the
residuals along with other coker feed or injecting the residuals during the quench cycle of the
coking process.
June 29, 1998 11-32
-------
to rest once and for all any concerns about "toxics along for the ride." EPA should promulgate
the proposed exclusion without further delay. (API, 00009, pg 24)
Response: The Agency is finalizing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-
bearing secondary materials generated by petroleum refineries and returned to the refinery
process with several conditions:
• The secondary materials may not be stored or placed on the land prior to being re-inserted
into the refinery process.
• The secondary materials may not be accumulated speculatively.
• Use of the secondary materials in the refinery process must not result in the coke product
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
Further discussion is found in the previous response.
EPA also clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The
Agency is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of
solid waste on the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical
and toxic content of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a
finding that the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery
sector of the petroleum refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the
management of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector. Oil-
bearing secondary materials originating from the non-refinery sector have the potential to include
toxic constituents that are not present in crude oil feedstocks and that may not contribute to the
refinery process. It is the Agency's intent not to exclude from the definition of solid waste those
secondary materials with significant concentrations of hazardous constituents which are only
being discarded by destruction or by incorporation into the coke or other refining product without
benefit to the product. See U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F. 3d at 1365-66 (5th Cir. 1996).
Further, information is thus needed so that EPA could evaluate this consideration as well as other
factors bearing on whether such processes could be viewed as a type of on-going industrial
process without significant elements of discard.
The Agency also is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's rule be
returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are recycled on
site, EPA has concerns about situations where these materials are generated at one refinery for
insertion into another, but are instead managed at intermediate non-refinery facilities prior to
insertion into a petroleum refinery process. This is consistent with the argument that the
exclusion is provided on the basis that secondary materials are being used within the realm of on-
going production in the petroleum refining sector. EPA is indicating in the regulatory text of the
June 29, 1998 11-33
-------
exclusion that oil-bearing materials may be inserted into the same refinery where they are
generated, or sent directly to another refinery, and still be excluded.
Comment 3: In response to concerns raised by some commenters on the original proposal, EPA
has reconfirmed its determination that the use of oil-bearing residuals in the coking process does
not measurably affect the levels of toxic materials in product coke (Petroleum Refining Process
Waste Listing Determination, Supplemental Background Document, Listing Support Analyses,
Section 4, March 1997). This is consistent with the argument that the exclusion is provided on
the basis that the secondary materials are being used within the realm of on-going production in
the petroleum refining sector. BP Oil submitted comments dated March 19, 1996 on the
proposed rule (Docket No. F-95-PRLP-FFFFF) which contained data demonstrating no
substantive difference in product coke quality when secondary materials are inserted into the
refining process (coker) compared to when they are not. A trial was conducted at one of our
refineries during which an oil/water/solids slurry of secondary materials (K/F wastes) was
injected into the coke to evaluate a variety of operating conditions and secondary material
loadings, including loadings that were considerably higher than those anticipated during normal
operations. Analytical results obtained during the trial included that slurry injection had no
substantive impact on iron, nickel, vanadium, sulfur or volatile combustible matter (VCM) levels
in the coke product. TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic) levels in the product coke were well below
regulatory levels and indicated no significant difference from levels in product coke produced
with no slurry injection.
• The exclusion should extend to oil-bearing residuals produced throughout the petroleum
industry which are inserted into the refining process. (BP, 00011)
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for submitting data to the Agency to assist in analyzing
the potential consequences of the proposed exclusion. The Agency is finalizing an exclusion
from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated by petroleum
refineries and returned to the refinery process with several conditions:
• The secondary materials may not be stored or placed on the land prior to being re-inserted
into the refinery process.
• The secondary materials may not be accumulated speculatively.
• Use of the secondary materials in the refinery process must not result in the coke product
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
The Agency is convinced, after a review of data provided by commenters, that the hazardous
metals found in the hazardous secondary materials can be traced back to the metals found in the
original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through means
other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks. As shown in the preamble
and elsewhere in the record, lead and chromium, which are non-indigenous constituents (i.e.
June 29, 1998 11-34
-------
hazardous constituents not originating primarily in the initial crude oil) are being phased out of
refining and so would not significantly contaminate coke products.) EPA's traditional concern
regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and ending up in a product is
mitigated in this case because the Agency views coking as the continual processing of a raw
material that contains the hazardous constituents, with concentrations of constituents found in the
feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in the overall production process. In the
context of a multi-step production process, there is much less of an element of discard of the
hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material than there would be had these
secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the hazardous constituents not
been inherent to the original raw material.
EPA also clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The
Agency is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of
solid waste on the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical
and toxic content of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a
finding that the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery
sector of the petroleum refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the
management of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector. Oil-
bearing secondary materials originating from the non-refinery sector have the potential to include
toxic constituents that are not present in crude oil feedstocks and that may not contribute to the
refinery process. It is the Agency's intent not to exclude from the definition of solid waste those
secondary materials with significant concentrations of hazardous constituents which are only
being discarded by destruction or by incorporation into the coke or other refining product without
benefit to the product. See U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F. 3d at 1365-66 (5th Cir. 1996).
Further, information is thus needed so that EPA could evaluate this consideration as well as other
factors bearing on whether such processes could be viewed as a type of on-going industrial
process without significant elements of discard.
Comment 4: Sun Continues to Support EPA's addition for Hazardous Oil-Bearing Residuals
Returned to the Refining Processes to the Exclusions under the Definition of Solid Waste and
Requests an Immediate Promulgation of this Rule.
The proposed change to 40 CFR 261.4 to add a new section (12) will be beneficial to Sun and to
the environment. The petroleum refining industry has a long history of refining as much oil as
possible, including recovered oils. A refinery is the best place for oil-bearing materials to be
managed. The recommended change will encourage refineries to investigate and develop even
more methods to manage these oily residuals within the refinery without having to use off-site
waste management facilities. (Sun, 00008)
Response: See response to Comment 3 (above).
June 29, 1998 11-35
-------
1
II.B.2.b. Disagrees with Exclusion
Comment 1: It should also be noted that toxics along for the ride is only one criterion for
determining the legitimacy of recycling activities. In the instant rulemaking, EPA is proposing
to reach a legitimacy determination for any oil-bearing residual inserted into the coker without
making the requisite findings in accordance with applicable law and policies. For example, EPA
presented 11 criteria in the Government's brief challenging the legitimacy of Marine Shale
Processors' recycling activities, including whether the residual to be recycled is effective for its
intended use, whether the residual is as effective as the material it is replacing, whether the
specifications for the waste are selected to meet a recycling purpose, whether the hazardous
waste contributes properties of value to the product, and whether the alleged recycling activity is
replacing raw material of low value.30
The infamous Lowrance Memorandum of April 26, 1989 adds several additional and important
criteria, including the economics of the recycling process and whether the economic incentive is
derived from avoided disposal costs or the value of the product, whether adequate records
regarding the recycling transactions are kept, and whether the toxic constituents are "actually
necessary" to the recycling process.
To date, EPA has not even addressed most of these legitimate recycling criteria, including but
not limited to when the residual is used for quenching purposes. For example, EPA does not
address the economics of the recycling process, and whether the principal reason for this so-
called recycling is avoided disposal costs, particularly for residuals with limited oil content. As
discussed above in Section IV, available information (including EPA data) indicate the market
value of petroleum coke is declining, it has little or no market value currently, yet increasing
quantities of hazardous waste are managed in this manner.31 These circumstances strongly
suggest avoided disposal costs are driving the economics of this practice.
In addition, EPA does not address whether adequate records are kept of the recycling practices.
According to EPA's contractor, "there are no paper trails" for domestic coke sales because
resellers will not volunteer crucial recycling information. See Exhibit 1 to these comments.
30
EPA Response to MSP before ERB, pp. 121-129.
31 The quantity of residuals inserted into the coker has increased from 144,840 tons in
1987 to 472,700 tons in 1995, while the corresponding quantity of residuals reused in the crude
unit has declined from 68,160 tons to 16,300 tons over the same time period, according to API
data. See Petroleum Industry Environmental Performance (5th Annual Report), API, May 1997,
p. 25. Interestingly, API does not indicate how much of this increased use of residuals in the
coker is for quenching purposes, as opposed to feedstock introduction.
June 29, 1998 11-36
-------
Furthermore, EPA has not addressed whether the hazardous waste contributes to the value of the
coke. In a paper on the insertion of waste in cokers presented at the 1995 NPRA annual meeting,
representatives of Scaltech Inc. noted the introduction of waste actually poses problems for the
coking operation.
The downside, especially of direct injection of raw sludge, is that introduction of waste in the
coking cycle interferes with the process itself. Therefore, it is important that water be removed
before the sludge is injected. But no matter which method of coking cycle injection of waste is
used, the introduction of waste with the feed reduces the overall capacity of the coker. exposes
process equipment to abrasive solids and increases the fouling of tubes and furnaces.32
Consequently, refinery wastes are often not introduced into the coker with the feedstock, but are
instead used in place of a portion of the quench water. Even this practice poses potential
problems if "too much sludge" is applied incorrectly.33
Indeed, the practice of using waste in the quench cycle as opposed to inserting the waste with the
feedstock completely belies one of EPA's rationales for the proposal. Based upon a minuscule
amount of unverified data provided by the industry, EPA contends all oil-bearing sludges that
could be inserted into the coker are substantially similar to coker feedstock.3'1 If this were true,
why isn't the waste always inserted with the feedstock? Moreover, the proposal would exempt
any oil-bearing residual, not just sludges, therefore EPA's bald assertion does not extend to the
myriad of wastes potentially caught by the exemption.
Use of waste in the quenching process also belies industry assertions (and EPA's belief) that it is
"highly unlikely" refinery owners/operators would allow the insertion of inappropriate materials
into the coker, given the importance of the unit.35 By using waste in the quenching process
instead of the coking cycle, there is a reduced threat to the coker from the introduction of
inappropriate wastes. In fact, "the introduction of sludge in the quench cycle is limited only by
the amount of ash and metals allowable by coke specifications."36 EPA would require the coke
to contain metal contaminants below the toxicity characteristic because such metal specifications
32 Scalliet & Carter, "Recycling Refinery Waste in a Delayed Coker, presented at the
1995 NPRA Meeting, p. 3 (emphasis added).
33 Id.. Such problems include coke containing excess volatiles that is sticky and contains
"foul odors". In addition, the solid particles in the sludge may plug the coke pores, thereby
slowing the quenching process and creating hot spots.
3-* See 60 FR 57754 (November 20, 1995).
35 60 FR 57754 (November 20, 1995).
36 Scalliet & Carter, supra, p. 3.
June 29, 1998 11-37
-------
are inadequate.37 However, as discussed above, the characteristic does not cover nickel, and the
characteristic concentration thresholds are based upon leachate concentrations largely irrelevant
to the subsequent use of coke as a fuel. Therefore, neither the purported incentive to protect the
coker or the application of the toxicity characteristic would protect against the introduction of
inappropriate wastes.
Ironically, new technologies encourage the use of listed refinery sludges (and presumably other
wastes) in the quenching process through prior reclamation techniques which, in part, remove the
free oil so that there is "practically no oil" in the waste used for quenching.3" Yet under 40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(v), the sludges still apparently qualify as a "hazardous waste containing oil", and
therefore the similar handling of other wastes would presumably still meet the "oil-bearing
residuals" definition in the proposed exemption. As noted above, EPA has yet to address how
the remaining hazardous constituents in the deoiled waste contributes to the production of coke
or the economics of the process. These technologies are justified economically solely
on the basis of avoided disposal costs.39 (EOF, 00006, L0009)
Response: EPA agrees that the so called sham criteria, use of which were upheld emphatically
by the Fifth Circuit in the Marine Shale litigation, are also relevant here to ascertain whether the
quench coking process is sham recycling or a potentially excludable intra-industry recovery
process. However, EPA disagrees with the commenter's main premise that quench coking
produces only coke as an output. Data provided to the Agency from industry sources indicate
that hydrocarbons are recovered as a light fraction (i.e. as refinery feedstock, not as petroleum
coke) from oil-bearing secondary materials when these materials are fed to the coker, including
when these materials are fed into the coker with the quench cycle.
The efficiency of this recovery is comparable to the recovery of light ends during the
conventional coking process.40 41 In addition, industry data indicate that there are always
recoverable levels of oil in sludges generated by petroleum refineries and typically fed into the
coker with the quench.
Based on a considered evaluation of conflicting comments received by the Agency regarding the
constituent content of sludges fed to the coke and the degree of oil recovery when secondary
37 Fuel grade coke used as cement fuel or fuel in steel plants has no metal specifications,
according to Table 3 of Attachment 3 provided by EPA in response to the EDF FOIA request.
38 Scalliet & Carter, supra, p. 4.
39 id. at 9.
4(1 January 23, 1998 letter from Paul Bailey to Michael Shapiro.
41 60 FR 57754.
June 29, 1998 11-38
-------
materials are fed into the coker with the quench, and using engineering and technical judgement
in ascertaining the extent of recovery of hydrocarbon values from the secondary materials used in
the quenching process, the Agency believes that oil (i.e., hydrocarbon value) is recovered during
the quenching process and that the efficiency of this recovery is comparable to the recovery of
light-ends during the conventional coking process. This belief is based largely on the Agency's
best professional judgement upon review of the typical range of boiling points in the
hydrocarbons present in the secondary materials, in concert with the temperatures these
secondary materials experience in the coke drum for the duration of the quench cycle; because of
the presence of water during the quench cycle, the additional effect that water volatilization is
predicted to have on the removal of volatile constituents (i.e., an effect analogous to "steam
stripping") also serves, in the Agency's best professional judgement, to facilitate the removal and
transport of volatilized hydrocarbons up and out of the coke drum to be recovered. In applying
it's best professional judgement to the technical information (e.g., boiling point ranges, coke
drum temperatures, effect of water vapor, etc.) provided by commenters on both sides of the
issue, the Agency relied heavily on it's own familiarity with the industry, informed by numerous
site visits to refineries and experience with the secondary materials at issue. The Agency also
was persuaded by certain specific simulations of boiling point ranges provided by oil industry
representatives. (The Agency also notes that in the worst case scenario provided by one
commenter opposed to the exclusion, which assumed 80% of the oil in the secondary material
was too heavy to significantly volatilize at the temperatures encountered during the quenching
process, there was recovery of hydrocarbon, even from the heavy oil fraction.42)
The Agency notes that the metals levels of sludges generated by petroleum refineries and
typically fed into the coker (e.g., sludges bearing hazardous waste codes K048-K052) are, for the
most part, comparable to the concentration of metals in normal refinery feedstocks. Although
levels of lead and chromium may be higher than normal petroleum feedstocks, the concentrations
of these two metals in petroleum sludges are expected to decrease due to changes in the
petroleum production process. The NESHAP and MACT standards promulgated under the
Clean Air Act will result in chromium no longer being used in cooling towers (see 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart Q). Therefore, the principal source of chromium contaminants in the production
process will be ending. Lead levels in petroleum sludges will continue to decline due to the
phasing out of leaded gasoline as a product line.
The Agency is convinced, after a review of data provided by commenters, that the other
hazardous metals found in the hazardous secondary materials can be traced back to the metals
found in the original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through
means other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks. EPA's traditional
concern regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and ending up in a
product is mitigated in this case because the Agency views coking as the continual processing of
a raw material that contains the hazardous constituents, with concentrations of constituents found
42 See the January 9, 1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Michael Shapiro.
June 29, 1998 11-39
-------
in the feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in the overall production process. In the
context of a multi-step production process, there is much less of an element of discard of the
hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material than there would be had these
secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the hazardous constituents not
been inherent to the original raw material.
Concerning the issue of net contribution of the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials to the
coke product (i.e., added energy value vs. added ash content), the petroleum industry maintains
that the additional ash content is insignificant and points to the amount of coke product produced
per cycle (ranging from about 400 to 800 tons) that would be endangered if the ash content (as
well as the VCM level) contributed during the quenching process was sufficient to lower the
value or marketability of the coke product. Further, EPA notes that anode-grade coke, the most
high-valued coke with the most stringent product specifications, can and is produced from
quench coking and is likewise able to meet the product specifications while using oil-bearing
secondary materials in the quenching process. Most important, as noted, the quenching process
recovers petroleum as a light fraction; it does not just generate coke. Thus, evaluation of
contribution or non-contribution to the coke product is not the sole relevant inquiry, or even the
principal one.
The assertion by the commenter that it is questionable that the component in the secondary
material that fulfills its primary purpose (i.e., oil) could also be a limitation on the use of the
secondary material (i.e., that too much oil would degrade the coke product itself) is not
compelling. It is not uncommon that industrial processes have specifications on a feedstock
material that requires a minimum of a certain component while at the same time requiring that a
maximum level for the same component not be exceeded because it would degrade the quality of
the product.
In the case of oil-bearing secondary materials generated by petroleum refineries, the Agency
disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the principal reason for using these secondary
materials in the coking process is the avoidance of disposal costs. The Agency is convinced that
there is some beneficial contribution to the coke product in the form of carbon and some energy
values. Simply put, any hydrocarbon not recovered as light ends as described above must, by a
straightforward mass balance assumption, remain in the coke product that is itself almost entirely
made of carbon and is marketed for its carbon content (i.e., as a fuel). In addition, as noted
above, EPA does not accept the commenter's premise that this process simply incorporates
materials into the coke. A light petroleum fraction is recovered via desorption for return to the
refining process. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the primary product of using the
secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that the coke product (i.e., the co-
product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and shows no appreciable
increase in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. In other words, demonstrating
hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in determining whether the hazardous secondary materials
actually serve a useful role in the overall coking operation, rather than demonstrating a net
contribution to the coke (as opposed to no degradation of the coke). EPA is convinced that this
June 29, 1998 11-40
-------
oil cannot be recovered by other means (i.e. is not amenable to direct refining or conventional
coking), so that the quench coking process can be viewed as the final step in a hydrocarbon
recovery chain. Finally, the Agency believes that economic forces, driven by product
specifications and competition for markets, will serve to ensure that the quenching process is not
simply a means of indiscriminately disposing of hazardous wastes.
The Agency has determined that, as with other side streams generated by one process and used as
feedstocks to other production processes, this activity constitutes a link in the multi-step chain of
processing steps designed to recover as much of the hydrocarbon value from the original crude
oil feedstock as possible. Thus, there are arguably aspects of this activity that lead one to
conclude that the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials used in the quenching process can be
considered, for regulatory purposes, as part of an on-going hydrocarbon recovery and utilization
production process and hence classified (as an act of interpretive discretion) as an activity not
subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
EPA also has no evidence that the quenching process could be viewed as part of the waste
management problem, part of the jurisdictional tests articulated in AMC I and U As discussed
earlier, there is no significant evidence of degradation of coke product quality, and indeed, coke
products produced with and without using secondary materials in the quenching process are
largely indistinguishable from the standpoint of concentrations of hazardous constituents.43 And
finally, again, EPA believes that the recovery of hydrocarbon from the oil-bearing secondary
materials in the quenching process is consistent with the overall petroleum refining process, and
the coking operation in particular, i.e., the recovery of hydrocarbons for the production of high-
value fuel products. This goal, in turn, is consistent with the RCRA objective to encourage safe
types of recycling. (See RCRA section 1003(a)(6)).
Taken all together, the fact that 1) the recovery efficiency of hydrocarbons from oil contained in
the secondary materials used in the quenching process is comparable to the recovery efficiency
of the conventional coking process, 2) the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
(including RCRA listed hazardous wastes) in the quenching process is consistent with the overall
goal of the petroleum refining industry, namely to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon values
from the original crude oil feedstocks, and 3) the coke product continues to meet product
specifications and indicates no increase in risk (and so can be viewed as not being part of the
waste disposal problem, in the language of the D.C. Circuit), the Agency concludes that the use
of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials generated by the refinery can legitimately be used
in the coke quenching process.
EPA believes that these factors outweigh any inferences that could be drawn from the fact that
some refineries may be paid to process other refineries' second materials in coking processes.
(See 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8, 1988) noting that the so-called sham recycling criteria are to be
43 See the January 23, 1998 letter from Paul Bailey to Michael Shapiro.
June 29, 1998 11-41
-------
considered on a case-by-case basis with the weight given any particular factor varying as
appropriate under the circumstances; the same language appears in the Lowrance Guidance
Memorandum referred to by the commenter.)
The Agency considered, as suggested in several comments, setting a minimum oil content to
define the scope of "oil-bearing secondary materials" that are excluded when used in the
quenching process, or to require a demonstration of hydrocarbons actually being recovered from
the excluded secondary materials that is comparable to oil recovery in the conventional coking
process. The Agency rejected limiting the exclusion based on a set minimum oil content or a
recovery efficiency requirement for several reasons.
As the petroleum industry stated in their comments, the quenching process represents the last
possible process in which to recover hydrocarbon from the original crude oil feedstock. The
refinery processes and operating procedures are designed to separate and process into products as
much hydrocarbon as possible from the crude oil feedstock, in other words, to prevent as much
oil from making its way into these secondary materials as possible. The oil that does make its
way into these secondary materials is generally considered unavoidable and inevitable, or in
some cases, too much oil in these secondary materials is evidence of a problem with some aspect
of the overall refining process or of the wastewater treatment system. (These same factors also
explain to some degree the variability in the oil content of secondary materials used for quench
coking: the same materials are used but the oil content varies depending on the daily efficiencies
of the refining process and wastewater treatment system). Thus, it would be counter to the
overall efficiency of the petroleum refining to require a minimum oil content in the secondary
materials, since higher oil levels would tend to indicate that the same hydrocarbons are escaping
recovery elsewhere in the system.
Also, the Agency believes that, in this case, a minimum oil content condition would do little to
ensure that only those secondary materials from which oil can actually be recovered would be
excluded; or in other words, the Agency does not believe that setting a minimum oil content
would ensure that secondary materials are legitimately being used in the quenching process.
Since most of the secondary materials in question result from wastewater treatment, a minimum
oil content requirement would only serve to encourage a refinery to operate the refinery process
less efficiently to ensure that these secondary materials contain the minimum oil content and thus
avail themselves of an exclusion.
As for requiring a demonstration of oil recovery efficiency comparable to the conventional
coking process, the Agency is assured that the normal operating practices and conditions
described above (e.g., typical hydrocarbon boiling point ranges in secondary materials, coke
drum temperatures at the end of each cycle, presence of water vapor) inherent to the quenching
process will result in a comparable oil recovery efficiency. While there may be fluctuations in
the actual volume of oil recovered (due to the fluctuations in the oil content of the secondary
materials as well as the ratio of heavy-to-light oil in the secondary materials), the quenching
process per se is such that there will be oil recovered from oil-bearing hazardous secondary
June 29, 1998 11-42
-------
materials based on the Agency's best professional judgement as described earlier.44 Therefore,
requiring an actual demonstration of recovery efficiency would be unnecessarily burdensome
unless there is a question regarding a site-specific coke quenching process or the hazardous
secondary materials being used. The exclusion for oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
generated by the petroleum refining sector that are being legitimately used in the quenching
process is conditioned therefore, only on these materials being managed such that there is no land
placement and no speculative accumulation, and that the coke product produced not exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste.
However, the Agency believes it is fundamental to this exclusion that there actually be oil
recovered for further refining when these oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials are used in
the quenching process. After all, the exclusion is only for secondary materials returned to a
refining process for oil recovery, so that legitimate recovery must be occurring. Therefore, the
Agency recognizes that the possibility exists in any particular case that quench coking may
represent a means for disposing of hazardous wastes, and not represent a means of legitimately
reusing secondary materials in an ongoing production process. Factors that would have to be
considered by the Agency in making this determination, applicable in each case, are the
percentage of oil in the secondary material, whether light hydrocarbons are recovered and the
efficiency of the recovery, the effect the hazardous constituents have on the coke product,
whether the refinery is paid to take the secondary materials, and whether there are high
concentrations of non-indigenous toxics (toxics not originating in the crude oil feedstocks) which
do not benefit the coke product.
In addition, the fact that petroleum industry representatives have referred repeatedly to quench
coking as a means of getting rid of hazardous wastes means that this operation needs to be
scrutinized with some care to assure that these statements do not become reality.
EPA also clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The
Agency is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of
solid waste on the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical
and toxic content of the materials. Thus, the possibility exists that other types of secondary
materials, generated outside the petroleum refining sector, may contain toxic that are non-
indigenous to petroleum feedstocks, and that the possibility exists that the coking process could
be used to get rid of these toxics. The fact that representatives from the petroleum refining
industry have referred to quench coking as a means of waste disposal necessarily means that EPA
should be cautious as to the scope of an exclusion involving these operations. In fact, the
Agency has no information on which to base a finding that the use of oil-bearing hazardous
secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum refining industry in the
coking process would be anything other than the management of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste
44 February 2, 1998 Letter from John Medley to Max Diaz, EPA.
June 29, 1998 11-43
-------
recycling) from that non-refinery sector. The Agency has no information on which to base a
finding that the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery
sector of the petroleum industry in the coke quenching process would be anything other than the
management of wastes (eg., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector.
The Agency also is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's rule be
returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are recycled on
site, EPA has concerns about situations where these materials are generated at one refinery for
insertion into another, but are instead managed at intermediate non-refinery facilities prior to
insertion into a refinery process. This is consistent with the argument that the exclusion is
provided on the basis that secondary materials are being used within the realm of on-going
production in petroleum refining sector.
Analyses conducted by EPA confirm that the final coke product is basically unchanged by the
use of hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. The final exclusion from
the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated at petroleum refineries
and returned to the refinery process is conditioned on there being no speculative accumulation of
the materials, on the materials not being placed on the land prior to reuse and stored in a manner
to minimize loss. Finally, the reuse of the secondary materials in the refinery process must not
result in the coke product exhibiting any of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Comment 2a: Recycling: Gaps Between Perception And Reality
Recycling of hazardous wastes in all its forms has always been regarded as a preferred form of
environmental management due to the special promise that recycling holds: reclamation of a
resource, and protection of the environment. Indeed, many forms of current-day recycling truly
fulfill this promise. However, just as there is a major difference between Mother Theresa and
Ma Barker, so too merely attaching the "recycling" label to a practice does not guarantee the
implied protection. In fact, a rapidly growing number of recycling practices, particularly in the
petroleum industry, not only fail to fulfill this promise, but are making an outright mockery of it.
Recycling: A Reality Check reveals how hazardous waste recycling has become the "Wild West"
of hazardous waste management. In the process, the failure to control petroleum waste recycling
is: lowering the overall standards for the industry, punishing good recyclers, discouraging new
technologies, making a mockery of the Clean Air Act and historical Land Disposal Restriction
controls under RCRA, causing the export of toxics to developing countries in the form of
petroleum coke, effectively deregulating the oil industry's hazardous waste practices, and
resulting in increased pollution through unregulated recycling practices. (See Chapter 7.)
The gap between the public's perception of recycling's benefits and the reality of the
environmental damages that recycling has caused is significant. (See Chapter 1.) Moreover, this
current gap between perception and reality is being both exploited and exacerbated: exploited by
a growing number of refineries and other firms that seek to expand unregulated operation based
on historical loopholes (See Chapters 2-3); exacerbated by lax State and Federal enforcement
June 29, 1998 11-44
-------
policies (See Chapter 4, 6); and, will be accelerated by four pending policy initiatives of the
Administration that would effectively deregulate the entirety of the petroleum industry's
hazardous waste management practices. (See Chapter 5.)
Current Regulations: Sanctioning Pollution in The Name of Recycling
Under current RCRA regulations and enforcement policies petroleum refineries are: 1) packing
petroleum coke with toxic metals and carcinogens in the quench cycle under the guise of
"recycling" — apparently a direct violation of the Agency's "sham recycling" prohibition; 2)
operating unpermitted, covert commercial recycling facilities on their properties under a claim of
"exempt recycling;" 3) land disposing of refinery wastes that contain percentage-levels of
carcinogenic compounds often into unlined landfills; and, 4) "Blending-up" low-Btu refinery
wastes/dirt into heavy-metal containing hazardous waste fuels. (See Chapters 2-4.)
Clean recycling alternatives to coking and fuel blending not only exist (i.e., gasification,
desorption,) but have been developed by our own petroleum industry in many cases. It is ironic,
if not shocking, that the use of these U.S.-developed technologies (i.e., particularly gasification)
is being planned in Europe and Asia, but not the U.S. In short, as Italy is installing non-polluting
petroleum recycling technology, in the name of "encouraging recycling" our refineries are
increasing production of the world's dirtiest fuel, petroleum coke. This increase is directly
attributable to the current and planned regulatory subsidiaries that the EPA has and continues to
lavish on the refining industry. EPA regulations are encouraging refineries to use petroleum
coke as a pollution sink and thereby evade the very public health and environmental protections
required of all other forms of hazardous waste management.
Pending Policies: Going From Bad To Worse
Moreover, this Report demonstrates the compounding and adverse environmental implications of
four pending recycling initiatives in the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) (See Chapter 5) and two
glaring lapses in enforcement of current regulations (See Chapter 4):
1) the proposal to grant a total exemption to on-site recycling at petroleum refineries including
expansion of the coking exemption (62 FR 16747; 4-8-97);
2) the failure to list additional petroleum refinery wastes as hazardous under RCRA (62 FR
16747; 4-8-97);
3) several aspects of the pending amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste, which would
exempt all on-site hazardous waste recycling practices from RCRA permitting and preventive
controls (61 FR55718; 10-28-96);
4) exempting all refinery waste cleanups from land disposal pre-treatment requirements (61
FR 55721; 10-28-96); and,
June 29, 1998 11-45
-------
5) the failure to investigate and enforce against violations of EPA's Sham recycling policies
by allowing untreated hazardous wastes to merely be disposed of onto the coke pile as
"quench" without recycling or reclamation, and by failing to enforce its own policies that
prohibit blending up of low-Btu wastes to produce hazardous waste fuels. (See Chapter 4.)
Of all the aforementioned actions, the first one is the most disturbing. The Agency is on the verge
of sacrificing its hard-fought policies to prevent sham recycling by allowing indiscriminate
reinsertion of wastes back into the coking process in its pending rulemaking (62 FR 16747; 4-8-
97.) This proposed new exemption is so broad as to effectively codify a special regulatory
exemption from the "sham recycle" policy for refinery coking operations (See p. 37.) Why is the
Agency going out of its way to encourage production of a waste material that has a $0 market
value, that is already serving as a pollution sink, and which will only make the world's dirtiest
fuel even dirtier?
Is This "Reinventing Government?"
The Administration has undertaken numerous programs to respond to purported claims of over-
regulation by manufacturing industries: the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), and Project XL to
name two. Moreover, the current Solid Waste Definition proposal (See Chapter 5) represents yet
another carte blanche surrender of jurisdiction with no legal impetus or environmental
justification. This effort again emphasizes purported claims of regulatory excess with relatively
little or no attention to recycling's dark side; the uncontrolled release of toxic constituents in the
pursuit of marginal or non-existent resource values (i.e., coke, with a current market value of $0.)
To date, these type of "exemption expansion" activities have almost exclusively characterized
your Administration's "reinvention" efforts in the hazardous waste area. This Administration has
a fundamental decision to make: will it continue the transition toward treatment and technology,
or will it reverse the unprecedented progress of the last decade and allow "recycling", of all
things, to become the new means to shift pollutants from one media to the next? Is it going to
allow "reinventing government" to translate into a dismantling of national controls, in lieu of a
patchwork quilt system of State controls that gave rise to current problems, or will "reinventing
government" mean rectifying the loopholes that are making "recycling" the most reckless area of
hazardous waste management? If ever there were an area that cried out for federal leadership, or
"reinvention" this is it. However, "reinvention" must mean more than simply throwing
exemptions at the petroleum industry and other hazardous waste generators and allowing them to
attach a "recycling" label to anything and everything that they so desire, irrespective of where the
toxic constituents from the recycled wastes are deposited in the environment.
Is This Encouraging New Technology?
When our refining industry develops advanced technology such as gasification for use everywhere
in the world but in the U.S., and when an ever increasing volume of dirtier coke is produced in the
U.S. in direct response to RCRA recycling exemptions, this nation's approach to hazardous waste
June 29, 1998 11-46
-------
recycling needs to be quickly "reinvented." Instead it is being further undermined by blithely
catering to an industry already engorged with exemptions. If the petroleum industry can produce
non-polluting recycling technology for use in Italy, it can certainly begin to use it in this country
as well. (See Chapter 7.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The principle focus of this Report is on petroleum wastes. However, many of the examples cited
herein have equal applicability to other forms of organic waste reclamation as well as to recycling
operations involving metal-bearing and other inorganic wastes. Moreover, this Report focuses
primarily on legitimate recycling that is being done badly (i.e., where toxic pollutants are merely
shifted from one media to the next due to inadequate regulation), as well as "sham" recycling
situations (i.e., operations producing bogus recycled products for the purpose of evading
hazardous waste regulation). The following are the major findings of our 12-month investigative
effort as presented in Chapters 1-8 of the Report.
CHAPTER 1: PAST AND PRESENT RECYCLING PROBLEMS
• "Recycling" in all its forms is the most rapidly growing hazardous waste management
practice. Every facility is trying to configure themselves as some type of recycler;
• Unfortunately, recycling is also becoming the new haven for polluters and exemption seekers
that desire self-regulation without accountability or governmental oversight;
• Although approximately 20% of the Superfund NPL is due in whole or in part to recycling
practices (See Chapter 1), environmental insults from recycling are not due to historical
mismanagement alone, but continue to occur today;
• Moreover, the pollution caused by recycling is not solely due to "sham recyclers" that produce
bogus products nobody buys—such as Marine Shale Processors; but is increasingly due to
legitimate recycling that is being done badly—i.e., facilities that make bonafide products, but
do so in a way that is virtually without regard to the fate of toxic and carcinogenic constituents
contained in the waste being recycled;
• For example, EPA went so far as to name high-temperature metals recovery (HTMR) as the
best technology for recycling of steel industry air emission control dusts due to the high level
of zinc recovery that HTMR yields. Nevertheless, due to the Agency's failure to control waste
storage, containment, waste transfer, air emissions and land disposal of various slags and
residues (i.e., which contained high levels of lead and cadmium) under these or other RCRA
regulations, the Agency was forced to engage in a multi-year prosecution and impose a multi-
million dollar fine and 300+ page Consent Decree governing every aspect of recycling
operations at the nation's leading HTMR facility in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, this
rectifying action occurred only after the surrounding community had become contaminated
June 29, 1998 11-47
-------
with lead and cadmium dusts from the current recycling operation, which is now being
addressed under the Superfund Removal Program;
• Rather than learning from its decade-long prosecution of MSP (a sham recycler) or its
resource-draining Consent Decree action with the Pennsylvania HTMR facility (a legitimate
but sloppy recycler), the Office of Solid Waste continues to approach and "regulate" recycling
as if it were some universally benign activity, mollified by the mere mention of the
"recycling" mantra, and seemingly unconcerned with the fate of toxic constituents until
environmental damage occurs;
• In short, doing one thing right should not become a license to do everything else wrong.
Simply because something of value is recovered from a waste should not be an explicit, or
tacit license to merely shift the toxic constituents contained in the recycled waste back into the
air, or to other media. Nor should such recovery operations be allowed to sidestep the
preventive controls that apply to all other treatment and disposal facilities such as secondary
containment, air emission controls, flood controls, waste testing, residue analysis, record
keeping, and proper residue management.
Response: Although the Agency agrees with the commenter's contention that "simply because
something of value is recovered from a waste should not be an explicit, or tacit, license to merely
shift the toxic constituents contained in the recycled waste back into the air or to other media,"
EPA does not believe that this occurs with regard to the exclusions promulgated in the final rule.
With regard to use of secondary materials in the quench coking process, the commenter's
principal concern, after evaluating information and data made available to the Agency regarding
the reuse of oil-bearing secondary materials in the quench coking process, the Agency has
concluded that the reuse of oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining
sector by inserting these materials into the refinery process, including inserting these materials
into the coker quench cycle can be excluded as part of the on-going production process which is
not part of the waste disposal problem.
Furthermore, the Agency does not see any adverse effect on the coke product, nor (given the
benzene NESHAP and the MACT standards for the petroleum refining industry) impermissible
cross-media transfer of hazardous constituents.
Data available to the Agency indicate that hydrocarbons are recovered from oil-bearing secondary
materials when these materials are fed to the coker, including when these materials are fed into
the coker with the quench cycle. The efficiency of this recovery is comparable to the recovery of
light ends during the conventional coking process. In addition, data indicate that there are
recoverable levels of oil in sludges generated by petroleum refineries and typically fed into the
coker.45 The metals levels in sludges typically fed into the coker (e.g., sludges bearing hazardous
45 January 9, 1998 letter from John Medley to Max Diaz, EPA.
June 29, 1998 11-48
-------
waste codes K048-K052) are, for the most part, comparable to the concentration of metals in
normal refinery feedstocks. Although the levels of lead and chromium in these sludges may be
higher than normal petroleum feedstocks, the concentrations of these two metals in petroleum
sludges are expected to decrease due to changes in the petroleum production process. The
MACT standards promulgated under the Clean Air Act will result in chromium no longer being
used in cooling towers. Therefore, the principal source of chromium contaminants in the
production process will be deleted. Lead levels in petroleum sludges will continue to decline due
to the phasing out of leaded gasoline as a product line. Other toxics originate with crude oil and
their presence is thus not inconsistent with viewing the quench coking process as a final step in
the refining of crude oil -- the last means of recovering available hydrocarbon fractions.
EPA repeats that the Agency is convinced, after a review of data provided by commenters, that
the hazardous metals found in the hazardous secondary materials can be traced back to the metals
found in the original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through
means other than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks. EPA's traditional
concern regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and ending up in a product
is mitigated in this case because the Agency views coking as the end of the process of refining
crude oil that contains the hazardous constituents, with concentrations of constituents found in the
feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in the overall production process. In the
context of a multi-step production process, there is much less of an element of discard of the
hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material than there would be had these
secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the hazardous constituents not
been inherent to the original raw material.
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency
is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of solid waste
on the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic
content of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a finding that
the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the
petroleum refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the management
of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector. Oil-bearing secondary
materials originating from the non-refinery sector have the potential to include toxic constituents
that are not present in crude oil feedstocks and that may not contribute to the refinery process. It
is the Agency's intent not to exclude from the definition of solid waste those secondary materials
whose hazardous constituents are only being discarded, or incorporated into the coke product
without benefit to the product. The Agency has no information on which to base a finding that the
use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the
petroleum industry in the coke quenching process would be anything other than the management
of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector.
The Agency also is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's rule be
returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are recycled on
June 29, 1998 11-49
-------
site, EPA has concerns about situations where these materials are generated at one refinery for
insertion into another, but are processed at an intermediate, non-refinery facility. In cases where
materials generated at one petroleum refinery are to be recycled at another refinery, to meet the
conditions of the exclusion the materials must be located either at the generating refinery, at the
receiving refinery, or must otherwise be in transit between the two facilities. This is consistent
with the argument that the exclusion is provided on the basis that the secondary materials are
being used within the realm of on-going production in the petroleum refining sector.
In response to the commenter's claims that coke has a zero market value and that coke is being
exported to developing countries, the Agency reviewed available information regarding the
market value of coke and obtained information from the Department of Energy (DOE) on coke
exports. According to the article "U.S. Petroleum Coke Production Expected to Increase," by
Edward J. Swain in the November 10, 1997 issue of Oil & Gas Journal, fuel-grade coke is a low-
cost energy source for some utilities and industries. The article provides information on the
market price of petroleum coke. During the period from 1992 through 1996, the price for short
ton of petroleum coke ranged between $15 and $21 and the price was increasing at the end of
1996. This information as well as industry data does not support the claim that coke has no
market value. The article provides an overview of petroleum coke exports. Although a major
portion of the petroleum coke produced by U.S. refineries was exported in 1996, the large
majority of coke was not exported to third world countries. In fact, 68 percent of petroleum coke
exports in 1996 were to Japan, Spain, Italy, Belgium/Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Canada, and
Turkey.
In any case, EPA remains convinced that the chief purpose of quench coking is to recover a light
hydrocarbon fraction for return to refining. The coke is a byproduct of that recovery process. To
the extent that actual oil recovery is not occurring in a particular instance, the Agency would
undoubtedly regard the practice as sham recycling.
In response to the commenter's claim that gasification may be a preferable means of recovering
hydrocarbons from petroleum industry secondary materials, EPA recently published a Notice of
Data Availability seeking comment on this precise issue. A result of analysis of the comments
could lead EPA to also exclude secondary materials from refineries which are gasified. EPA is
not making a final determination on this issue in this rulemaking, and so is leaving the matter
open for final action at a later time.
The commenter's other points regarding recycling practices that are not the subject of this
rulemaking are beyond the scope of this proceeding and so do not require response in this forum.
Comment 2b: CHAPTERS 2-4: DEREGULATING THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
Deregulating the Petroleum Industry
June 29, 1998 11-50
-------
• This repackaging of petroleum pollutants in the name of "recycling" is being accomplished
through four basic means: coking (Chapter 2), "covert" commercial facilities (Chapter 3),
failure to enforce (Chapter 4), and failure to regulate as "hazardous" other refining wastes
(Chapter 5). The following pending Agency policies will make each of these worse;
• If approved, pending regulatory proposals regarding coking and often "recycling" practices
would effectively deregulate the petroleum industry, and put all of their recycling practices on
the honor system. The proposed expansion of the coking exemption is so broad that it would
even sanction "sham recycling" activities such as using coke as disposal medium. (See
Chapters 2; Chapter 5, p. 75);
• If approved, pending proposals would also grant carte blanche to the petroleum industry to
operate un-permitted, commercial hazardous waste recycling units at their refineries as well.
(See Chapters 3; Chapter 5, p. 73);
• Pending regulatory measures also fail to list over 200,000 tons per year of heavily
contaminated petroleum wastes, which are subsequently disposed of as "non-hazardous"
wastes into unlined pits and landfills or burned in substandard facilities (See Chapter 5, p. 81);
• The Agency has suspended without public notice or rulemaking the applicability of the Land
Disposal Restriction Standards to all petroleum waste cleanups (See Chapter 5, p. 85);
• When the petroleum refining industry says it "recycles" its waste, what does that really mean9
Based on the most recent survey of its own members, the American Petroleum Institute's own
data reveals that only 40% of the volume claimed as "recycled" actually qualify as traditional
or controlled activities such as reclamation, regeneration or re-feed to the crude unit. Table
ES-1 reveals the type and prevalence of recycling methods used.46 The Report fails to specify
what "Other Recycle" means, but may include uses such as fill material, dyking, composting
or other land placement practices;
• The most recently released API data from 1995 reveals that the level of coking continues to
increase (i.e., to 29%, double the figures API reported in 1993), and the amount of refeed to
the crude unit (i.e., the form of recycling most equate with the term "recycling") is almost
non-existent at 1% (See ( ) in Table ES-1).47 These trends are not only ironic, but directly
refutes the Agency's principle rationale for proposing an expanded series of recycling
46 "Trends in Petroleum Refining." El Digest. October, 1996. "Management of Residual
Materials: 1994," American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., September 1996, pp. 15, 18,
22 ("API Report, 1996").
47 Fifth Annual Report, Petroleum Industry Environmental Performance, American
Petroleum Institute, May, 1997, p. 25 ("API Report, 1997").
June 29, 1998 11-51
-------
exemptions for the petroleum industry — that its waste materials are "feedstock-like." See p.
85 for detailed discussion.
• Ironically, in the 1996 API Survey actually reported that "coking" was their leading "pollution
prevention" technique for 6 of the 12 wastestreams addressed by the Survey.48
See also Section III (p. 15) for more complete discussion of the industry's current exemptions
and its environmental problems.
TABLE ES-1: REFINERY RECYCLING METHODS
Method
"Other" Recycling
Cokcr
Reclamation
Regeneration
Refeed to Crude Unit
Catalytic Cracker
% of Total Recycling
34%
26% (29%)
17%
8%
10% (1%)
6%
Response: API supplied the Agency with detailed information regarding the coking operation,
presenting a description of the physical processes involved in the coking process and the
economic value of the overall coking operation to the refinery, as well as the feedstocks used and
products produced. The Agency is convinced that the use of oil-bearing secondary materials as
feedstock for conventional coking represents legitimate reuse of these materials in an ongoing
production process whose main purpose is to thermally convert the heaviest crude oil fractions
into light-end hydrocarbons (typically about 70 % of the feedstock is recovered as lighter oil
fractions) used as feedstocks for refinery processes that produce high-value fuel products. In
many cases, the coking operation is essential to the profitable production of petroleum products
from heavier crude oil feedstocks. The coke product itself may best be characterized as a co-
product of the coking operation, while the principal products are the light-ends that are returned to
the refining process. Thus, the Agency is affirming that the coking operation, including the
quench cycle, is integral to the ongoing petroleum production process, resids are normal
feedstocks to this process and petroleum coke is a legitimate fuel product (noting that high-grade
petroleum coke -- which can result from quench coking ~ is used for producing anodes for use in
electric furnaces, such as for steel and aluminum manufacturing).
48 API Report, 1996. p. 11. See note 1.
June 29, 1998 11-52
-------
In the specific case of oil-bearing secondary materials added to the coke quenching cycle, the
Agency has determined that the quench cycle represents continual production in that oil contained
in the secondary materials is either volatilized and condensed for further refining into high-value
fuels, or is incorporated into the coke product, adding to the coke's carbon content and hence
contributing some energy value. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the primary product of
using the secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that the coke product (i.e.,
the co-product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and shows no appreciable
increase in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. In other words, demonstrating
hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in determining whether the hazardous secondary materials
actually serve a useful role in the overall coking operation, rather than demonstrating a net
contribution to the coke (as opposed to no degradation of the coke). The Agency understands the
commenter's concern that since it is obvious that these secondary materials would otherwise be
hazardous wastes that would be treated and disposed of if not used in the quenching process, it
would seem to be a simple matter, as the commenter suggests, to ascribe a simple waste disposal
motive to this activity and nothing more.49 However, the Agency is compelled to go further and
determine whether the oil-bearing secondary materials actually contribute to the product and/or
process, or otherwise determine whether there is a production-related value to this activity.
The Agency solicited further information from industry to demonstrate the recovery efficiency of
the oil contained in the hazardous secondary materials used in the quenching process. EPA
believes that a comparison of the recovery efficiency of the quenching process to the recovery
efficiency of the conventional coking process (of the resids) would provide some indication of
how "production-related" the use of the hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is
(i.e., the more similar the quenching process is to the conventional coking process in the recovery
of hydrocarbon values, the more it may be considered analogous to, or a component of, the coking
process). The data supplied indicate that the recovery efficiency of oil contained in the secondary
materials during the quenching process is comparable to the recovery efficiency from the
feedstock side of the coking operation — i.e. from conventional coking.50 Thus, although the oil
content in the hazardous secondary materials is markedly less, at the very least, there is
demonstrated hydrocarbon recovery as a light fraction from the secondary materials used in the
quenching process.
49 Indeed, internal industry literature, as well as public statements made by industry
representatives, relevant to the use of hazardous secondary materials in the quenching operation
would lead one to believe that the principal purpose of this activity is to dispose of hazardous
waste sludges; however, the Agency does not, as a rule, take such statements at face value and
evaluates the activity independent of how the process may have been characterized in other
contexts. The Agency would do the same in situations where all such industry statements would
indicate that a particular process is legitimate production, i.e., evaluate the merits of the activity
independent of statements from interested parties.
50 See January 23, 1998 letter from Paul Bailey to Michael Shapiro
June 29, 1998 11-53
-------
With regard to the commenter's assertion that the level of coking is increasing, data available to
the Agency indicate that there may be several reasons for this occurrence. The use of coking may
be increasing due to changes in the characteristics of available crude and the fact that more
refineries have cokers. As more refineries add cokers to the refining process, the production of
coke and the levels of coking are expected to increase. In addition, in 1994, the exclusion from
the definition of solid waste for petroleum coke produced from refinery hazardous wastes
containing oil (40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(v)) was expanded to include coke produced using hazardous
wastes generated by the same "person," rather than merely generated at the same "site."
According to information published by API, 406 thousand wet tons of primary sludge was
managed by refineries in 1994. This represents the largest quantity of primary sludge generation
ever reported (288 thousand wet tons were generated in 1993). API's information indicates that it
is likely that this reflects the refineries' efforts to meet statutory deadlines to retrofit or close
primary sludge or TC surface impoundments in 1994. Thus, just as increases in waste generation
noted by API between 1991 and 1993 were related to regulatory actions, the closure of certain
land-based units resulted in peaked generation of primary sludge in 1994.51 API questioned the
refineries regarding the increase in sludge generation and they stated it was an "abnormal or one-
time event." The primary management for this added quantity was "recycle to the coker."
In contrast, API reported a decrease of greater than 60 percent in primary sludge management in
1995. API members reported managing only 128 thousand tons of primary sludge in 1995. This
is the lowest quantity managed since 1991, and possibly provides an explanation regarding the
fluctuation in the amount of secondary materials managed in cokers.52 In the final analysis, as
petroleum coking is part of legitimate production, increased petroleum coking would indicate
increased materials recovery. In addition, as discussed above the Agency is investigating
gasification as another means of recovery for these types of secondary materials.
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency
is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of solid waste
on the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic
content of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a finding that
the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the
petroleum refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the management
of wastes (e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector. Oil-bearing secondary
materials originating from non-refinery sectors have the potential to be more waste-like and thus
do not warrant an exclusion, especially if their ultimate use is in the quenching process.
51 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1994. September 1996.
52 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1995. June 1997.
June 29, 1998 11-54
-------
EPA further clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing
secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-
inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed
prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the
refinery process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the original hazardous waste listing. The
Agency modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result
from the processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to
include this clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure
that there is a requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary
materials as hazardous wastes.
Responses to other points noted by the commenter in the above list are provided below.
Comment 2c: Encouraging Production of Dirty Fuels — Petroleum Coke
• Present and pending Agency policies actively encourage the petroleum industry to produce
more of the world's dirtiest fuel, petroleum coke, which is a major source of pollution:
burning of coke is a concentrated medium of metals, sulfur and toxics. Rather than removing
ash and heavy metal toxics from an oily waste stream, coking merely repackages and
concentrates them. (See Chapters 2, 5);
• Moreover, listed hazardous wastes are being disposed of without treatment under the guise of
serving as "quench" at the end of the coking process. This practice serves no "recycling"
purpose, rather it appears to be mere disposal of untreated hazardous waste onto the coke pile
(See Chapter 2, p. 37);
• Table ES-2 reveals that currently petroleum coke has $0 market value. There is virtually no
domestic market for coke as a fuel. It's only value is that of an unregulated "pollution sink"
for refinery wastes to avoid regulation, and otherwise applicable treatment requirements. (See
Chapter 2, p 34);
• The petroleum industry is increasing its use of petroleum coke as a "pollution sink" for toxics
from hazardous wastes despite the fact that petroleum coke as $0 market value as a fuel (See
Chapter 2, pp 30-36);
• Coking is increasingly becoming the disposal method of choice for a wide variety of RCRA
listed hazardous waste. As Table ES-3 reveals, coking has assumed the lead role in disposal
of virtually all listed petroleum wastes. Five (5) times more primary sludge (i.e., listed wastes
June 29, 1998 11-55
-------
F037-38) was being coked in 1994 than in 1992 according to the petroleum industries own
data." (See Chapter 2, p. 36);
TABLE ES-2: Market Price of Petroleum Coke (per ton), 1993-1996
1993
1995
1996
$2051
$15"
<$()'6
TABLE ES-3: TRENDS IN REFINERY COKING
RCRA Waste Code
H)37(38)--Primary Sludge
K051 —Separator Sludge
K048--DAF Float
Volume Coked (tons)
1992
20.500
23.900
48.600
1993
30300
22.800
43.300
1994
112,700
44,340
170,200
Coking Popularity*
1992
3
2
2
1993
2
1
2
1994
1
1
1
* "Popularity" indicates rank of coking for the given waste stream among all recycling, treatment disposal activities
including: coker. crude unit, catalytic cracker, other in-process recycle, cement kiln or industrial furnace fuel or
feedstock, reclamation, regeneration, "other recycle", incineration, physical/chemical treatment, impoundments, land
treatment, landfilling and "other" disposal.
Response: In evaluating whether the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the quenching
process provides a beneficial contribution to the coke product or process, the Agency notes that
the main purpose of the petroleum coking unit is to recover hydrocarbons from the oil contained
in the feedstocks for further refining. Similarly, the main purpose of using the secondary
materials in the quenching process is the energy-efficient recovery of hydrocarbon from the
residual oil in the oil-bearing secondary materials. Concerning the issue of net contribution to the
5.3
Management of Refinery Residuals, 1994. American Petroleum Institute, October,
1996.
54 Falsetti, James J. "Petroleum Coke Utilization with the Texaco Gasification Process,
"Presentation at the National Petroleum Refiners Association Annual Meeting, March 21, 1993,
p.l. See Attachment B.
55 Scalliet, Robert M., "Recycling Refinery Waste NDA Coker." Presentation at 1995
National Petroleum Refiners Assoc. Annual Meeting March 19-21, 1995." p. 3. Attachment C.
56 Heaven, David L., "Gasification Converts a Variety of Problem Feed Stocks and
Waste." Oil and Gas Journal. May 27, 1996. p. 48. See Attachment D.
June 29, 1998
11-56
-------
coke product (i.e., added energy value v. added ash content), the petroleum industry maintains
that the additional ash content is insignificant and points to the amount of coke product produced
per cycle (ranging from about 400 to 800 tons) that would be endangered if the ash content (as
well as the VCM level) contributed during the quenching process was sufficient to lower the value
or marketability of the coke product. Based upon data provided to the Agency by the petroleum
refining industry, the Agency notes that coke product produced using hazardous secondary
materials in the quenching process is basically similar to coke produced without using secondary
materials in the quenching process. Further, EPA notes that anode-grade coke, the most high-
valued coke with the most stringent product specifications, can be produced using these secondary
materials in the quenching process. The quench cycle represents continual production in that oil
contained in the secondary materials is either volatilized and condensed for further refining into
high-value fuels or is incorporated into the coke product, adding (perhaps marginally) to its
carbon content and hence its energy value. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the primary
product of using the secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that the coke
product (i.e., the co-product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and shows no
appreciable increase in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. In other words,
demonstrating hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in determining whether the hazardous
secondary materials actually serve a useful role in the overall coking operation, rather than
demonstrating a net contribution to the coke (as opposed to no degradation of the coke).
EPA's traditional concern regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being processed and
ending up in a product is mitigated in this case because the Agency views this activity as the
continual processing of a raw material that contains the hazardous constituents, with
concentrations of constituents found in the feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in
the overall production process. In the context of a multi-step production process, there is much
less of an element of discard of the hazardous constituents inherent in the original raw material
than there would be had these secondary materials been generated by another industry or had the
hazardous constituents not been inherent to the original raw material. In general, the hazardous
metals found in the hazardous secondary materials can be traced back to the metals found in the
original crude oil feedstock and so do not represent contaminants introduced through means other
than the continued processing of the raw material feedstocks.
Finally, EPA believes that the recovery of hydrocarbon from the oil-bearing secondary materials
in the quenching process is consistent with the overall petroleum refining process, and the coking
operation in particular, i.e., the recovery of hydrocarbons for the production of high-value fuel
products. Therefore, the Agency is providing a conditional exclusion for oil-bearing hazardous
secondary materials that are inserted into the coker, based on the assumption that, whether
inserted along with normal feedstock (i.e., resids) or used in the quenching process, hydrocarbons
are recovered for further refining and there is no degradation of the coke product.
In response to the commenter's claims that coke has a zero market value and that coke is being
exported to developing countries, the Agency reviewed available information regarding the
market value of coke and obtained information from the Department of Energy (DOE) on coke
June 29, 1998 11-57
-------
exports. According to the article "U.S. Petroleum Coke Production Expected to Increase," by
Edward J. Swain in the November 10, 1997 issue of Oil & Gas Journal, fuel-grade coke is a low-
cost energy source for some utilities and industries. The article provides information on the
market price of petroleum coke. During the period from 1992 through 1996, the price for short
ton of petroleum coke ranged between $15 and $21 and the price was increasing at the end of
1996. This information as well as industry data does not support the claim that coke has no
market value.
Likewise, the light hydrocarbon fraction which is recovered through desorbtion in the quenching
process has positive market value.
EPA cannot directly respond to the commenter's concerns regarding the increased levels of
coking. Data available to the Agency indicate that there may be several reasons for this
occurrence. The use of coking may be increasing due to changes in the characteristics of available
crude and the fact that more refineries have cokers. As more refineries add cokers to the refining
process, the production of coke and the levels of coking are expected to increase. In addition, in
1994, the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for petroleum coke produced from refinery
hazardous wastes containing oil (40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(v)) was expanded to include coke produced
using hazardous wastes generated by the same "person," rather than merely generated at the same
"site.'' In addition, API claims that increased reliance on offshore heavier crudes has led to the
addition of coker capacity, creating some increased opportunity for this process. Aside from the
obvious incentive to recover hydrocarbons, another potentially significant factor could be the
expiration of Mobil's patent in 1995, such that any refiner could begin using this technology
without first licensing it from Mobil and paying a royalty fee.
According to information published by API, 406 thousand wet tons of primary sludge was
managed by refineries in 1994. This represents the largest quantity of primary sludge generation
ever reported (288 thousand wet tons were generated in 1993). API's information indicates that it
is likely that this reflects the refineries' efforts to meet statutory deadlines to retrofit or close
primary sludge or TC surface impoundments in 1994. Thus, just as increases in waste generation
noted by API between 1991 and 1993 were related to regulatory actions, the closure of certain
land-based units resulted in peaked generation of primary sludge in 1994.57 API questioned the
refineries regarding the increase in sludge generation and they stated it was an "abnormal or one-
time event." The primary management for this added quantity was "recycle to the coker."
In contrast, API reported a decrease of greater than 60 percent in primary sludge management in
1995. API members reported managing only 128 thousand tons of primary sludge in 1995. This
is the lowest quantity managed since 1991, and possibly provides an explanation regarding the
57 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1994. September 1996.
June 29, 1998 11-58
-------
fluctuation in the amount of secondary materials managed in cokers.5X In the final analysis, as
petroleum coking is part of legitimate production, increased petroleum coking would indicate
increased materials recovery. In addition, as discussed above the Agency is investigating
gasification as another means of recovery for these types of secondary materials.
Comment 2d: Toxic Waste Export
• RCRA's policies of encouraging the production of the world's dirtiest fuel, petroleum coke, are
having significant international implications in that 70% of coke "fuel" is exported to
developing countries, because it cannot be burned in this country. In fact, petroleum coke is
quietly serving as a conduit for illegal waste export in the name of "product export." (See
Chapters 2, p. 37; Chapter 7.)
• This trend is confirmed by other industry experts as well:
Although some high sulfur residual fuel oil and fuel coke have been able
to find markets in countries that are environmentally loose, the sales
prices are crumbling and the markets disappearing.59 (emphasis added)
Response: Although a major portion of the petroleum coke produced by U.S. refineries was
exported in 1996, the large majority of coke was not exported to third world countries. In fact, 68
percent of petroleum coke exports in 1996 were to Japan, Spain, Italy, Belgium/Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Canada, and Turkey. Data available to the Agency indicates that petroleum coke has
a positive market value of at least $20 per short ton. It thus is a legitimate product. In addition, as
noted above, the critical fact in evaluating quench coking is that the main object of the process is
recovery of oil as a light fraction for return to the refining process, and that this recovery occurs at
the same efficiency as in conventional coking. The coke itself is a byproduct of that recovery step.
Comment 2e: Covert Commercial Facilities
• Louisiana is allowing the Shell Norco, LA refinery to operate an unpermitted commercial
recycling facility on their property. Louisiana's "pen pal" authorization for this process
unlawfully and incorrectly cites Federal authority for this exemption, and fails to address many
of the preventive measures that are necessary for a commercial hazardous waste facility: waste
analysis, air emission controls, containment, storage, waste compatibility, record keeping and
residue analysis and management. (See Chapter 3, p. 49);
58 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1995. June 1997.
59 Aalund, L.R., "Italian Refinery Gasification Project to Make Electricity, Steam, and H2
from Tar." Oil & Gas Journal. October 21. 1996. p. 33-35. See Attachment E
June 29, 1998 11-59
-------
• Four other states are allowing Kipin Industries to engage in unpermitted commercial recycling
operations at four separate refineries under an unspecified series of recycling exemptions. (See
Chapters, p. 51.)
Response: The Agency cannot document the commenter's claims. Information made available to
the Agency by API and Shell Norco indicate that facility does have a RCRA permit. EPA believes
that the Shell Norco and Kipin Industries recycling process has been scrutinized by state
authorities and determined to meet the substantive criteria for an exemption for hazardous waste
recycling. In addition, the facility is subject to air emissions standards under the CAA. In
addition, the issue regarding the permitting status of one (or a few) facilities is beyond the scope of
today's rulemaking.
Comment 2f: Exempting Oily Waste Cleanups From Treatment Requirements
• The Agency has not only exempted 500,000 tons of oily hazardous wastes from RCRA land
disposal ban controls at the CITGO refinery but it has institutionalized this policy for all such
similar cleanup. This pusillanimous surrender of jurisdiction will now allow remedial oily
wastes to be land disposed without treatment despite readily available technology to meet the
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) standards. Once again the Agency has carved out an
unjustified environmental exemption for big oil. (See Chapter 5, p. 86.)
Response: EPA has not provided a blanket exemption from RCRA requirements for all petroleum
cleanups. However, any facility conducting a remediation may apply for a case-by-case
treatability variance from the LDR treatment standards. This issue is outside the scope of today's
rulemaking (although EPA notes that ultimately, a treatment variance was not granted to Citgo
because the company decided to attempt to close the impoundment with waste in place, the result
being no treatment of the sludge, rather than the partial treatment provided by the variance).
Comment 2g: Enforcement Failures: Sham Coke Production. "Waste Maximization" Through
Blending-Up. Illegal Land Disposal
• Despite a decade-long fight to formally adjudicate its policies to prevent "sham recycling" in
the context of the MSP case, when it comes to the refining industry, the EPA has chosen to
look the other way. Hazardous wastes are being disposed of as "quench" at the end of the
coking process." This so-called recycling process serves no "recycling" purpose, rather it is
mere disposal of untreated hazardous waste onto the coke pile and appears to violate the
Agency's hard-fought principle to stop "sham recycling." In fact, the proponents of this
practice cite only one benefit of such a "waste as quench" practice — cost savings on the
treatment of refinery waste at permitted facilities. There is no mention whatsoever of the Btu
or yield benefits to coke production. (See Chapter 2, p. 37; Chapter 4, p. 67);
• This shifting of pollutants from the land back into the air in the form of toxic laden petroleum
coke is exacerbated by the Agency's failure to enforce against illegal "blended up" of low-Btu
June 29, 1998 11-60
-------
waste in "fuel" for industrial furnaces. This "blending up" to produce industrial furnace fuels is
a form of "waste maximization," resulting in 2-3X the volume of waste that was originally
generated. (See Chapter 4, p 64 );
Not only has the Agency failed to "list" as hazardous over 200,000 tons/year of refinery waste,
but due to a lack of enforcement the Agency continually allows refineries to illegally dispose of
"characteristically" hazardous wastes into non-hazardous waste landfills by allowing them to
merely vent the benzene contained therein prior to disposal. Such disposal invariably occurs
without treating the remaining 26+ toxic and carcinogenic constituents typically contained in
such waste (i.e., naphthalene, benzo(a) pyrene). These constituents are the very ones which the
Agency itself has deemed necessary to prohibit from disposal into lined hazardous waste
landfills (i.e., the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for pre-treatment of wastes prior to
land disposal.) Current regulations require proper treatment of all underlying hazardous
constituents before land disposal. If RCRA's requirement to treat underlying hazardous
constituents in wastes that previously tested positive for a hazardous characteristic (i.e.,
typically benzene) were being enforced, such large-scale land disposal would not be occurring.
However, neither the states nor EPA are enforcing this requirement and EPA is effectively
letting the states rewrite RCRA's hazardous waste regulations. (See Chapter 4, p. 68; Chapter
6);
A prime example of this trend is depicted in Table ES-4 (See p. 11). Table ES-4 reveals that
the primary method for disposal of petroleum tank bottoms is landfilling. In fact, according to
API's own Survey 51% of all petroleum tank bottoms (i.e., currently a "non-hazardous waste")
are landfilled as a "non-hazardous" waste. At this point, most petroleum tank bottoms would
qualify as a "hazardous waste" only if they contain teachable levels of one or more of 40
"characteristic" toxic constituents. Of these 40 constituents, benzene is the principle one that
would be expected in crude tank bottoms. However, due to benzene's volatility, it often
evaporates, or is deliberately vented, ostensibly in the cleaning and separation process. Is the
Agency to believe that 51% of all petroleum tank bottoms do not flunk the "characteristic"
leach test for benzene and are not artistically vented to remove benzene? Moreover, does the
Agency believe that the remaining 49% of petroleum tank bottoms that do qualify as hazardous
(i.e., for teachable levels of benzene) do not contain any of the other Land Disposal Ban
constituents (i.e., Universal Treatment Standard UTS constituents; naphthalene, benzo(a)
pyrene) for which a "characteristically" hazardous waste also must be treated?60 Is the Agency
even checking to determine the level of compliance with the requirements to treat all
underlying hazardous constituents, or is this simply another example of how the Agency and its
authorized state enforcement offices have yet again looked the other way just because the
petroleum industry is involved? Simply attaching the "recycling" label to the evaporation of
benzene does not alter the fundamental fact that this is nothing more than disposal of toxic
constituents at levels that would be prohibited into a hazardous waste landfill. (See Chapter 4.)
60See40CFR268.40(e)
June 29, 1998 11-61
-------
• Many of the landfills receiving those so-called "non-hazardous" wastes are little more than
unlined, unmonitored holes in the ground. (See Chapter 6, p. 95);
TABLE ES-4: TRENDS IN LANDFILLING AS "NON HAZARDOUS" WASTE
Waste Description
Tank Bottoms
Contaminated Sediments
FCCU Catalyst
I Ivdroprocessing Catalyst
Volume Landfilled
1992
70.200
38.700
82.200
6.200
1993
60.600
111.300
81.100
23,800
1994
54.800
96.000
78,100
12.398
Landfilling Popularity*
1992
1
1
1
2
1993
1
1
1
2
1994
1
1
1
2
* "Popularity" indicates rank of coking for the given waste stream among all recycling, treatment disposal activities
including: cokcr. crude unit, catalytic cracker, other in-process recycle, cement kiln or industrial furnace fuel or
feedstock, reclamation, regeneration, "other recycle", incineration, physical/chemical treatment, impoundments, land
treatment, landfilling and "'other" disposal.
Response: In evaluating whether the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the quenching
process provides a beneficial contribution to the coke product or process, the Agency notes that the
main purpose of the petroleum coking unit is to recover hydrocarbons from the oil contained in the
feedstocks for further refining. Similarly, the main purpose of using the secondary materials in the
quenching process is the energy-efficient recovery of hydrocarbon from the residual oil in the oil-
bearing secondary materials. Concerning the issue of net contribution to the coke product (i.e.,
added energy value v. added ash content), the petroleum industry maintains that the additional ash
content is insignificant and points to the amount of coke product produced per cycle (ranging from
about 400 to 800 tons) that would be endangered if the ash content (as well as the VCM level)
contributed during the quenching process was sufficient to lower the value or marketability of the
coke product. The Agency notes that coke product produced using hazardous secondary materials
in the quenching process is basically similar to coke produced without using secondary materials in
the quenching process. Further, EPA notes that anode-grade coke, the most high-valued coke with
the most stringent product specifications, can be made to specification when secondary materials
are utilized the quenching process.
During the coking operation, including the quench cycle, there is recovery of hydrocarbon values
from the oil-bearing secondary materials, short- and middle-chain fractions that are condensed and
sent to refining processes to produce high-value fuel products (consistent with the overall coking
operation). In addition, there is some beneficial contribution to the coke product in the form of
carbon and higher energy values (even though this may not be reflected by an actual increase in
market value), and the Agency also notes that the coke product continues to meet the market-
driven specifications for the product, even for high-value anode grade coke. And, as with other
side streams generated by one process and used as feedstocks to other production processes, this
June 29, 1998
11-62
-------
activity constitutes a link in the multi-step chain of processing steps designed to recover as much
of the hydrocarbon value from the original crude oil feedstock as possible. Thus, the Agency
concludes that the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials used in the quenching process are
considered, for regulatory purposes, as part of an on-going production process and hence classified
as an activity not subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
EPA proposed not to list crude oil tank sediment. The Agency noted in the proposal that the risks
from landfilling this waste may be effectively controlled by the existing TC regulations, and
sought comment on this decision. Upon reevaluation, EPA has determined that the available
information provides sufficient basis to list crude oil storage tank sediment as hazardous. EPA is
taking this action because additional analyses of groundwater risks indicate that potential risks are
somewhat higher than the results of the risk analysis conducted for the proposal. Further analyses
indicate that the existing TC regulations may not adequately control these risks as effectively as
EPA originally thought at the time of the proposed rule. In addition, the waste has moderately
high PAH and oil content, which may present additional risks under some circumstances.
The commenter's concerns regarding an alleged lack of enforcement actions on the part of the
Agency is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment 2h: Vague Regulations: Failing to Verify Recycling Exemption Claims.
• States are making numerous incorrect recycling interpretations without the benefit of
Federal oversight. The exclusion for the recycling unit, various wastewater treatment
exemptions, creative sampling, and other stained interpretations of the 90-day storage
exclusion are all combining to give exemption-seekers free reign with the current system.
(See Chapter 4, p. 68).
CHAPTERS 5-6: FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY POLICIES CAUSING THESE
PROBLEMS
Overview
• There are several reasons behind the emergence of recycling as "the Wild West" of
hazardous waste management. To be sure, many of these insults are the result of historical
EPA policies and/or aggressive interpretations by State Officials that have gone unchecked
by EPA. However, 4 pending initiatives coupled with numerous Federal and state-level
enforcement failures and unchecked regulatory interpretations threaten to take the current
situation to a new level of chaos and "regulatory entrepreneurship."
The Proposed Petroleum Waste Rule-Recycling: Exempting All Refinery Coking And Recycling
• The very pollutants that RCRA's land disposal ban seeks to keep out of the groundwater
and that the various CAA fuels programs seek to keep out of the air are merely being
June 29, 1998 11-63
-------
concentrated and repackaged in the form of petroleum coke and re-emitted to the air in the
U.S., and increasingly in developing countries. The Proposed Petroleum Waste Listing
would_greatly expand this exclusion. Recycling at petroleum refineries would be
completely deregulated and even allowed to shield covert commercial facilities. Refinery-
based recycling of hazardous wastes and coking would be expanded and allowed to emerge
as major commercial competitors, despite the absence of permits, and/or substantive
operating standards to prevent environmental contamination. (See Chapter 5, pp. 72-80 )
The Proposal Petroleum Rule: Failure to List Additional Wastes
• The recently Proposed Rule on Petroleum Waste would also fail to list as "hazardous" the
petroleum storage tank bottoms and numerous other streams that consistently and routinely
contain levels of toxic constituents that exceed those present in many of the wastes that are
currently regulated as hazardous. If such wastes were "listed", rather than simply muddle
through as "characteristic" wastes, refiners could not simply vent the benzene with
impunity and ignore the other 26 + UTS toxic constituents contained therein, and then
landfill such oily mixtures into "non-hazardous" landfills. Ironically, the consequence of
this regulatory and enforcement failure is to continue to allow a higher concentration of
petroleum-based UTS toxic constituents to be disposed of as "non-hazardous" wastes into
unlined sanitary landfills than would even be allowed into lined, secure hazardous waste
facilities. (See Chapter 5, p. 81)
The Solid Waste Redefinition: Exempting All On-Site Recycling
• The pending plan to revise RCRA's Solid Waste Definition would among other things
completely deregulate all forms of hazardous waste recycling that occurred on the site of
waste generation be they refineries, chemical plants, or whatever. Such an action is without
environmental justification and is completely without an objective basis. Once again, EPA
is being led by state programs that place expediency above protection. (See Chapter 5, p.
89);
State Program Serendipity
• State recycling programs are literally and figuratively "all over the map" with
contradictory, inconsistent and in some cases illegal decisions being made with virtually no
federal input, oversight or control. The normal feedback mechanism for many of these
problems, state hazardous waste program directors, is operating at a significant
disadvantage since many of these programs are under the control of chief executives that
have a "deregulation for deregulation's sake" approach to the environment. (See Chapter
6);
• Louisiana is allowing refineries to operate un-permitted, commercial recycling facilities,
and the U.S. EPA is nowhere to be found. These facilities are operating under the cover of
June 29, 1998 11-64
-------
the refinery without satisfying many of environmental safeguards that apply to other
commercial facilities. (See Chapter 3);
• Four other states are similarly allowing commercial recycling operations to operate on
refinery property as exempt unpermitted facilities. (See Chapter 3);
• Texas has no limit on the amount of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon limit (TPH) that can be
placed into "non-hazardous" Class I industrial waste landfills in the state. These so-called
"non-hazardous" wastes are "non-hazardous" in name only and in most cases contain
higher levels of toxic constituents than would be allowed in a fully permitted and lined
hazardous waste landfill. This contrasts with significantly lower TPH disposal levels being
proposed even in the Developing World (See further discussion below). These "Class I"
industrial landfills have only two mandatory design and operating requirements: location
and construction inspections. Every other substantive control is discretionary including:
liners, leachate collection, air emission controls, storm water run-on/run-off controls, leak
detection, waste testing and even groundwater monitoring. Thus a refinery hazardous waste
that has been rendered "non-hazardous" by merely venting benzene contained therein,
which otherwise consists of 100,000 ppm benzo(a)pyrene and other UTS constituents and
up to %100 TPH, can be dumped into an unlined, unmonitored, hole in the ground in most
of the fifty states, including Texas. (See Chapter 6);
• This example further illustrates how waste generators and state agencies are exploiting the
vast disparity between RCRA facility requirements for hazardous waste and "non-
hazardous" waste. If there were at least a standard in place that established a percentage-
level limit for TPH or for UTS constituents and/or some minimal design, liner and
detection standards for so-called "non-hazardous" landfills, then the double standard of
protection between "hazardous" and "non-hazardous" disposal facilities would not be as
severe. How can the Agency continue to ignore such high levels of toxic metals and/or
carcinogenic constituents being disposed of into typically unlined, unmonitored "non-
hazardous" landfills, when it has established exceedingly stringent levels for these same
constituents when disposed of into state-of-the-art lined and monitored hazardous waste
landfills'?
• The State "safety net" standards for these "non-hazardous" waste facilities are largely
discretionary and/or non-existent (See Chapter 6, p. 95.)
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertion that as a result of today's
rulemaking, " recycling at petroleum refineries would be completely deregulated and even allowed
to shield covert commercial facilities." Today's final rule provides a limited exclusion from
regulation as solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining
sector (SIC 2911) and inserted into the petroleum refining process, including the coker, both
conventional coking and quench coking.
June 29, 1998 11-65
-------
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency
is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of solid waste on
the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic content
of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a finding that the use of
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum
refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the management of wastes
(e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector. Oil-bearing secondary materials
originating from non-refinery sectors have the potential to be more waste-like and thus do not
warrant an exclusion, especially if their ultimate use is in the quenching process.
EPA further clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary
materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-inserted into
the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed prior to re-
insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the refinery
process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the original hazardous waste listing. The Agency
modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from the
processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include this
clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that there is a
requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials as
hazardous wastes.
The Agency also is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's rule be
returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are recycled on
site, EPA has concerns about situations where these materials are generated at one refinery for
insertion into another, but are processed at an intermediate, non-refinery facility. Such materials
should not end up at an intermediate non-refinery facility without an accompanying hazardous
waste manifest. In cases where materials generated at one petroleum refinery are to be recycled at
another refinery, to meet the conditions of the exclusion the materials must be located either at the
generating refinery, at the receiving refinery, or must otherwise be in transit between the two
facilities. This is consistent with the argument that the exclusion is provided on the basis that the
secondary materials are being used within the realm of on-going production in the petroleum
refining sector.
As the commenter points out, EPA proposed not to list crude oil tank sediment. The Agency noted
in the proposal that the risks from landfilling this waste may be effectively controlled by the
existing TC regulations, and sought comment on this decision. Upon reevaluation, EPA has
determined that the available information provides sufficient basis to list crude oil storage tank
sediment as hazardous. EPA is taking this action because additional analyses of groundwater risks
indicate that potential risks are somewhat higher than the results of the risk analysis conducted for
the proposal. Further analyses indicate that the existing TC regulations may not adequately control
these risks as effectively as EPA originally thought at the time of the proposed rule. In addition,
June 29, 1998 11-66
-------
the waste has moderately high PAH and oil content, which may present additional risks under
some circumstances.
The commenter's concerns regarding the Agency's on-going evaluation of the hazardous waste
recycling regulations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
The Agency cannot respond to the commenter's claims of "state program serendipity" within this
forum. Authorized states may implement and enforce the RCRA program elements for which they
are authorized within their state boundaries. EPA does not approve facility permits in authorized
states. Concerns regarding individual facility operations and/or the status of particular facility's
permit should be raised to the appropriate authority in the applicable state.
Comment 2i: CHAPTER 7: OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF RECYCLING LOOPHOLES
Overview
Unless the trends discussed above are reversed, the repackaging of pollution and their subsequent
placement into increasingly vulnerable situations such as urban air or unlined landfills will
continue. In addition, they will result in the following:
• The shifting of pollutants back to the land and the air, and from our shores to those of
unsuspecting or unprepared nations;
• Undermine the development of technologies (i.e., gasification, desorption) both within the
petroleum industry and at commercial facilities to properly reclaim hydrocarbon value,
while isolating toxic constituents;
• The gasification technologies that have been developed by U.S. petroleum firms are being
used in Italy and elsewhere, but not in the U.S. Instead our industry continues to produce
ever increasing volumes of ever more heavily contaminated petroleum coke;
• It will increase the cost of treatment by virtue of regulating only a "boutique" volume of
wastes, rather than all oily wastes that are truly hazardous;
• Undermine the Administration's four year effort under the "Combustion Strategy" by
establishing a double standard between exempt onsite refinery coking and recycling and
offsite commercial recyclers.
Double Standard of Protection
• As a result of policies that are under consideration and current enforcement practices, a
double standard of protection is being established: stringent controls for commercial
June 29, 1998 11-67
-------
facilities; total exemptions for on-site facilities. (See Chapter 3, p, 51-63; Chapter 5, p. 88-89.)
Undermining The Clean Air Act
• The complimentary controls that the Agency believes are being imposed under the Clean
Air Act to fill RCRA gaps (i.e., benzene NESHAP) are not triggered in many cases due to a
variety of "small source" exclusions.61 Moreover, it is ironic that as a nation we are
spending millions of dollars to produce the cleanest motor fuels that technology can buy,
but at the same time Agency policies are encouraging the industry to channel its pollutants
into petroleum coke and produce an ever increasing volume of the world's dirtiest fuel.
Losing Our Technological. International Edge
• As a result of the "laissez faire" attitude that has been allowed to govern the
implementation and enforcement of RCRA's recycling provisions, we are not only losing
environmental control over the most significant emerging sector in the hazardous waste
industry, but we are losing our competitive edge in technologies as well. (See Chapter 7);
• At present, three separate refineries in Italy are installing clean gasification technology,
technology that was developed in the U.S. by Texaco and other petroleum firms! When
refineries in Italy begin to install advanced non-polluting petroleum recycling technology,
such as gasification, as an alternative to coking at a faster rate than we are in the United
States, something in seriously wrong. Despite domestically developing this technology,
there is not a single refinery in the U.S. that has or is contemplating use of gasification as a
standard waste management practice. (See Chapter 7, pp. 100-103);
• When countries such as Venezuela establish total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) disposal
levels that are orders of magnitude more stringent than those being employed in the U.S.
(i.e., 15 ppm, versus no limit in Texas), something is seriously wrong. It is ironic that
petroleum wastes that would be tightly regulated in Venezuela (i.e., wastes with 10,000
ppm TPH) would be exempt from all Federal and most state-level regulation in the United
States. (See Chapter 7, pp. 102-103).
Recycling of all types, whether done onsite or offsite, commercially or non-commercially must be
done properly and must live up to its implied promise: the reclamation of a resource, not the
reintroduction of toxics into the environment. Section III provides additional discussion of the key
findings identified above.
61 While the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP (40 CFR 63.640) in general governs coking
units, other recycling units such as desorbers are more frequently subject to the Benzene
NESHAP (40 CFR 61.341) and typically fail to trigger the volume limits continued therein.
June 29, 1998 11-68
-------
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertions. Today's final rule provides a
limited exclusion from regulation as solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated by
the petroleum refining sector (SIC 2911) and inserted into the petroleum refining process,
including the coker.
However, the Agency is further investigating the scope of petroleum industry gasification
operations and is considering whether to extend the exclusions promulgated in this rule to include
gasification operations involving petroleum industry secondary materials.
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency
is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of solid waste on
the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic content
of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a finding that the use of
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum
refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the management of wastes
(e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector.
EPA further clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary
materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-inserted into
the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed prior to re-
insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the refinery
process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the original hazardous waste listing. The Agency
modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from the
processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include this
clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that there is a
requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials as
hazardous wastes.
The Agency also is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's rule be
returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are recycled on
site, EPA has concerns about situations where these materials are generated at one refinery for
insertion into another, but are processed at an intermediate, non-refinery facility. In cases where
materials generated at one petroleum refinery are to be recycled at another refinery, EPA has added
to the regulatory text of the exclusion that these secondary materials must be sent "directly to"
another petroleum refinery. This is consistent with the argument that the exclusion is provided on
the basis that the secondary materials are being used within the realm of on-going production in the
petroleum refining sector.
Comment 2j: TOTAL DEREGULATION OF THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
A Sea of Exemptions
June 29, 1998 11-69
-------
Table ES-5 reveals the extent to which the petroleum industry is already exempt from most of
RCRA's hazardous waste management requirements, and is on the verge of total deregulation.
Table ES-5 shows the many exemptions that already apply for petroleum waste generally and for
other wastes when "recycled". Attempts to quantify the volumes of wastes exempted are difficult
to estimate precisely. However, of the 4,800,000+ tons of petroleum waste produced per year, less
than 2.0% is reclaimed for its petroleum feedstock value at facilities that are permitted to ensure
proper protection during the process. This and other issues related to the "exempt status" of the
petroleum industry under RCRA and all environmental laws are more fully discussed in a recent
Report by the Friends of the Earth.62
An Ocean of Problems
What makes the current and pending petroleum exemptions contemplated by the Administration all
the more puzzling is the fact that few industries are as undeserving of special regulatory treatment
as the oil industry. Aside from the myriad of historical Superfund NPL sites and RCRA corrective
actions at refinery and other petroleum facilities currently operating refinery, marketing and
transportation facilities continue to funnel pollutants back into the environment.
In 1994 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Petroleum Institute
(API) developed a survey to compile information on releases to groundwater only from petroleum
storage facilities, their causes, and efforts made in recent years by these facilities to prevent these
releases. As such this survey only examines contamination from the passive activity of storage,
not refining or waste management. Approximately 85 percent or 299 of the 350 API member
company facilities surveyed responded, an excellent response rate. The Survey provides useful
data on the pervasiveness of groundwater contamination at petroleum storage facilities and its
migration to adjacent properties, and quantifies the failure to use equipment and practices to
prevent and detect groundwater contamination.
62 "Crude Awakening," The Oil Mess in America, Jack Doyle, Friends of the Earth, 1994,
Washington, D.C.
June 29, 1998 11-70
-------
TABLE ES-5:
Compendium of Exemptions from Hazardous Waste Regulations for
Petroleum Industry Coking and Recycling Operations
Description
1) General Exemption for Coking of Petroleum Wastes: excludes various listed waste and
any characteristically hazardous coke by-product wastes when these materials "...are recycled
to coke ovens, to the tar recovery process, or as a feedstock to produce coal tar..."
2) Exemption for "Recovered Oil" Inserted to Refinery Process: exempts any petroleum
waste (i.e. defined as "Recovered Oil") from "...refining, exploration and production that is
inserted into the refining process with normal streams.... Recovered Oil does not include
listed hazardous wastes, does include oil recovered from such wastes."
3) General Exemption for Petroleum Exploration and Production (Bevill Exemption):
exempts all "...drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil. natural gas or geothermal energy."
4) Contaminated Groundwater Re-Injection Exemption: exemption for re-injection of
groundwater that exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic when it being used to recover free
phase hydrocarbon that has been previously released to soil or groundwater.
5) Exemption for Hazardous Waste Fuels Reinsertion: exempts ''hazardous waste fuels
produced from oil-bearing hazardous wastes from petroleum refining, production.
transportation practices, or produced from oil reclaimed from hazardous waste where such
hazardous wastes are reintroduced into a refinery process so long as the fuel meets the
used oil specification ..."
6) Exemption for Hazardous Waste Fuels Burning: exemption is same as above except that it
allows such wastes to be burned as a fuel, rather than reinserted to the production process
7) Exemption for Coke Product : exempts the actual coke product from all applicable
hazardous waste regulations provided it does not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic
8) Exemption for Used Oil: exempts any used oil that is recycled for any purpose, including
burning, so long as it is hazardous only by virtue that it exhibits a ha/ardous waste
characteristic
9) General Exemption for Recycling Unit: "the recycling process itself is exempt from
regulation except as provided in 26 1 .6(d).'' This provision further excludes from regulation
any recovery unit used to "recycle" refinery wastes that may still be subject to RCRA. The
provision attaches 3 record keeping requirements, but no universal standards to control
releases. This exclusion is not limited to refinery or oily wastes.
10) Exemption for Insertion of Any Hazardous Waste Into Refinery Operation: Pending
proposal to expand current exemptions to allow any hazardous waste to be inserted into a
refinery process. Sec Section V below for further discussion.
1 1) Exemption for Underground Storage Tank Wastes Cleanups: Exempts all
characteristically hazardous waste from the cleanup of an underground storage tank release from
RCRA standards.
Reference
40CFR$261.4(a)(l())
40CFR§261.4(a)(l2)
4()CFR§261.4(b)(5)
4()CFR§261.4(b)(ll)
40CFR§261.6(a)(3)(iv)(A)
40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(iv)(C)
40CFR§261.6(a)(3)(v)
40CFR§261.6(a)(4)
40CFR§261.6(c)(l)
60 FR 57750 (November 13.
1995) Proposed Rule
40CFR§26I.4(b)(10)
June 29, 1998
11-71
-------
1 Description
12) Exemption for All Petroleum Cleanup Wastes From RCRA: Recent policy determination
summary exempts ail Petroleum cleanups from RCRA Land Disposal Ban Standards
applicable to all other ha/ardous waste.
Reference
OSW Memo. (Januan 15.
1997) Attachment G.
According to the Survey report, the percentage of petroleum storage facilities with confirmed
groundwater contamination is very high. Eighty-five percent (85%) of all refineries have known
groundwater contamination (See Table ES-6).6' Forty-four percent (44%) of such facilities have
had such contamination migrate off their site.
TABLE ES-6: Percent of Petroleum Storage Facilities with Groundwater Contamination and
Off-site Contamination
Type of Facility
Refill ing
Marketing
Transportation
Groundwater
Contamination
85%
68%
10%
Off-Site Contamination
44%
35%
27%
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the petroleum industry is
already exempt from most of the RCRA hazardous waste management requirements and is on the
verge of "total deregulation." The exemptions listed in Table ES-5 are not the subject of this
rulemaking and some of the regulatory exemptions listed by the commenter are not specific to the
petroleum refining industry. For example, the first entry in Table ES-5 applies to recycling the of
hazardous wastes and coke by-products in coke ovens in the iron and steel industry, where the coke
is produced in the iron manufacturing process from coal. In addition, the last entry in the table
refers to an OSW memorandum to RCRA/CERCLA Senior Policy Managers in the EPA Regional
Offices outlining the appropriate uses of site-specific land disposal restriction treatability
variances. The memorandum explains that such variances are approved on a case-by-case basis in
consideration of site-specific and waste-specific circumstances and conditions. The memorandum
makes no mention of the petroleum refining industry or specific refinery waste streams.
In response to the commenter's issue regarding petroleum storage facilities with groundwater
contamination, the Agency does not have information regarding the specific sources of such
contamination, the characterization and extent of the releases, or information on whether the
contamination is the result of recent releases of hazardous wastes or the result of historical, pre-
63 Epstein, N. Lois, "A Survey of API Members' Aboveground Storage Tank Facilities: A
Critical Analysis." Environmental Defense Fund, July, 1994. See Attachment H.
June 29, 1998
11-72
-------
RCRA, releases. Therefore, even if the claims of extensive groundwater contamination were
determined to fall within the scope of the today's rulemaking, the Agency does not have sufficient
information to respond to the commenter's claims.
The Agency notes that under the conditions of today's limited exclusion from regulation as solid
waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining sector and inserted
into the refinery process, refineries are precluded from storing these materials on the land and from
accumulating the materials speculatively. In addition, information available to the Agency
indicates that the management of oil-bearing secondary materials at petroleum refineries prior to
insertion into the refinery process occurs in tanks designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and
inspected in accordance with the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards. The
Agency believes that these standards are sufficient to ensure that secondary materials are managed
in an environmentally protective manner.
Finally, EPA notes that many of the exemptions, and the proposed exclusions, cover a situation on
the margins of EPA's legal authority: sequential recovery of hydrocarbon values within the
generating industry conducted (given the condition on no land placement) so as not to become part
of the waste disposal problem. Thus, limits on jurisdiction influenced the Agency's choices. (As
explained in the preamble, however, EPA finds explicitly that the exclusion for quench coking is
not required as a matter of law, but rather, is a permissible and reasonable exercise of EPA's
authority to interpret the ambiguous statutory term "discarded" in the context of a recovery
operation occurring within the generating industry.)
Comment 2k: CONCLUSIONS
Reversing 15 Years Of Progress
There is a lot to like about recycling and we believe it is the right approach to the management of
petroleum wastes. When done right it yields two benefits: reclaimed resources and no release of
toxins to air, land, groundwater or surface water. But frankly, doing a little of the right thing does
not give you a license to do everything else wrong. In answer to market and environmental
demands and through the development of better technologies, the refinery industry has provided
cleaner burning, higher quality fuels from increasingly heavier, dirtier crudes. However, simply
because you are able to direct a part of the waste matrix in the right direction, should not allow you
to direct the majority of the toxics in the wrong direction. If there are no rules other than
"recycling activities are exempt," then the lowest cost rule will apply, not what is best for the
environment. The easiest, cheapest thing to do is to reclaim what's easy and bury the rest in
landfills and dirty fossil fuels. Recycling is not benign, and must be viewed as critically as any
waste treatment activity such as disposal, destruction or landfilling. Where the toxics go must take
precedence over what is reclaimed.
In 10 years time, from 1984-1994, this Nation managed one of the most swift and dramatic
transformations in environmental protection that any nation has witnessed. In 10 years, we went
June 29, 1998 11-73
-------
from being a nation of dumpers to a nation of technology; from a spectator on the world stage to a
leader in technology-based control of hazardous waste. However, at present we are neither moving
forward nor securing these gains. Rather, we are losing ground and allowing uncontrolled land
disposal and air emissions to reverse the progress of the last 10 years.
This reversal of course is due in no small part to EPA's current preoccupation with granting
recycling exemptions, rather than ensuring equal environmental protection from recycling
operations. Perhaps the most poignant indicator of where we stand is the sorry fact that U.S.
petroleum firms have developed clean recycling technology such as gasification for oily waste
recycling, and are selling them everywhere in the world, but the U.S. Italy is actually surpassing
us in terms of environmental management of refinery waste. Not a single such unit is in
commercial or routine production use in the U.S. Instead, our industry continues to produce ever
increasing volumes of coke — the world's dirtiest fuel, that contains an ever increasing volume of
toxic metals and carcinogens. While the rest of the world is using U.S. technology to make
refinery waste toxics less available to the environment, our industry is producing more and more
coke, the burning of which makes toxics more available to the environment. Moreover, they are
doing so in the name of "recycling," and with the full blessing and active encouragement of our
"environmental protection" regulations. Coking has become the unregulated pollution sink for all
the refining industry's unwanted toxics, and pending EPA policies promise more of the same.
"Reinvention" Must Mean More Protection, Not Just More Exemptions
The Administration has undertaken numerous programs to respond to purported claims of over-
regulation by manufacturing industries: the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), and Project XL to
name two. Moreover, the current Solid Waste Definition proposal represents yet another carte
blanche surrender of jurisdiction with no legal impetus or environmental justification. This effort
again emphasizes purported claims of regulatory excess with relatively little or no attention to
recycling's dark side; — the uncontrolled release of toxic constituents in the pursuit of marginal or
non-existent resource values (i.e., coke with a current market value of $0.)
To date, these type of "exemption expansion" activities have almost exclusively characterized the
Administration's "reinvention" efforts on the environmental front. The Administration has a
fundamental decision to make: will it continue the transition toward treatment and technology, or
will it reverse the unprecedented progress of the last decade and allow "recycling", of all things, to
become the new means for media shifting of pollutants? Is it going to allow "reinventing
government" to translate into a dismantling of national controls, in lieu of a patchwork quilt system
of State controls that gave rise to current problems, or will "reinventing government" mean
rectifying the loopholes that are making "recycling" the most reckless area of hazardous waste
management? If ever there were an area that cried out for federal leadership, or "reinvention" this
is it. However, "reinvention" must mean more than simply throwing exemptions at the hazardous
waste generators and allowing them to attach a "recycling" label to anything and everything that
they so desire, irrespective of the environmental consequences or toxics loading.
June 29, 1998 11-74
-------
The progress that has taken 15 years to achieve under RCRA, and the strides that the CAA Clean
Fuels programs are beginning to make will be undermined if national recycling policy continues to
drift and states continue to march to 50 different drummers. Moreover, the pending regulatory
initiatives at the Agency promise to take a bad situation and make it worse.
True Recycling Technology Will Be Destroyed By Present Policy
Choosing coking and fuel blending over separation and gasification as a recycling alternative
destroys incentives to create true low cost recycling technologies to such an extent that technology-
based businesses are economically prohibited from evolving. The refining industry may wince at
the thought of having to use such technologies due to short term additional costs, but they are the
ones that will drive those costs down through economy of scale processing and evolution of
capability. The industry will also benefit the most in the long term from improved public
perception, avoidance of future remediation costs and international technology transfer. We need a
system that encourages separation and gasification, not dilution; the use of engineers, not lawyers.
Recycling; But Not At Any Cost And Not In Name Only
In conclusion, everyone wants to be a recycler; if not in reality, at least in name for purposes of
exempting themselves from substantive environmental standards. In addition, State programs are
all over the map making incorrect, un-informed and in some cases illegal determinations regarding
recycling operations. While all of this is occurring, neither the Office of Solid Waste nor the
Enforcement Office appear to be focusing on the environmental and marketplace disparity being
created by cavalier recycling operations.
Good recycling is and should be its own best incentive. While some encouragement of recycling
practices is understandable, we cannot lose sight of the fact that hazardous wastes are like water
running downhill, always following the path of least control and least cost. If the Agency seeks to
establish an HOV lane for recycling, that may be appropriate. However it does not need to
simultaneously eliminate the "speed limit" for these practices. A two-tiered system that virtually
exempts all onsite recycling from substantive controls, but that forces commercial facilities to
comply with stringent standards is utterly unjustified and will turn back the clock on fifteen years
of unprecedented progress in protecting the public from uncontrolled hazardous waste management
practices.
This uncontrolled situation with recycling should come as no surprise to the Agency, which
historically has always aired on the side of exempting, rather than regulating recycling. Protection
has always taken a back seat to promotion. So too it is with the pending regulatory initiatives at
the Agency, which appear to be almost exclusively focused on accelerating the pace of exemption
and deregulation, with virtually no attention to the environmental or equity consequences of such
action. If the NPL and the Agency's recent experience with other notorious recycling situations
are any guide, recycling must be held to the same substantive standards, even if that may be
through an alternative authorization process.
June 29, 1998 11-75
-------
The signals that have been sent by the 4 pending policy initiatives are already taking root in the
marketplace in the form of regulatory liberties and cavalier actions that are virtually devoid of
environmental consideration. For so much hazardous wastes to be managed in such an
uncontrolled manner should be impermissible. For this to be occurring in the name of recycling is
indeed intolerable. We urge the Agency to not only re-examine the 4 pending policy initiatives,
but to refocus its enforcement and regulatory efforts to ensure that tangible environmental
protections are not sacrificed in the name of intangible and other ethereal notions of recycling's
benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We would recommend that the following actions be taken:
• Place these comments into the Docket of both the Notice of Data Availability on The Proposed
Petroleum Waste listing/recycling exclusion proposed rule and the Docket of the Solid Waste
Definition revisions, (62 FR 16747; 4-8-97);
• Initiate a "Sham recycling" enforcement investigation of the practice of disposing of listed
hazardous wastes into petroleum coke under the guise of "quench" water;
• Reexamine both the Petroleum Waste Listing Proposed Rule and the Solid Waste Definition
Initiative for their potential to cloak unpermitted commercial operations under the guise of on-
site recycling operations. This mode of operation is becoming increasingly prominent even
under the current exclusions, and would only be exacerbated by further expansions such as are
included in these two initiatives;
• Re-propose the Petroleum Waste Listing to eliminate: the recycling exclusions contained
therein, particularly the provisions that allow unqualified reinsertion of wastes into the coking
and refining process, and the failure to list various other petroleum streams, particularly crude
oil tank bottoms;
• Prohibit the use of refinery coking or other recycling exemptions for any commercial operation
that seeks to establish itself in such a manner;
• Carefully reexamine the proposed expansion of the petroleum coke exclusion and its impacts
on the environment as well as legitimate commercial recyclers. Is petroleum coke really true
legitimate energy recovery, or is it simply unregulated waste disposal and waste export to the
Developing World?;
• Investigate Region VII and other EPA Regions for the extent to which the "blending up"
prohibition on low Btu waste are being enforced or even inspected for;
June 29, 1998 11-76
-------
• Direct EPA Region VI to investigate the legality of LADEQ's recycling decisions regarding
the Shell, Norco facilities's acceptance of listed hazardous waste for commercial processing
without a permit;
• Direct EPA Regions to investigate the extent to which other current RCRA exclusions of being
used/abused by on-site operations to cloak unpermitted commercial waste management
operations.
• Investigate how "characteristically" hazardous refinery wastes are being tested, and whether
benzene is being illegally vented, or diluted, in order to avoid treatment requirements.
• Investigate the other forms of "gaming" to avoid preventive waste management controls such
as "point-of-generation" determinations and sampling techniques. (SEA, L0006, LOO 10)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its comments and recommendations. The
Agency notes that EPA initiated extensive dialogue on the issues raised by the commenter with the
commenter and with representatives of the petroleum refining industry.
As mentioned above, EPA disagrees with many of the commenter's assertions regarding the
legitimacy of today's rulemaking and the potential consequences of today's rulemaking. Although
the Agency notes that EPA has limited the exclusions, based upon comment and information
provided by commenters and on additional analyses conducted by the Agency. The final rule
provides a limited exclusion from regulation as solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials
generated by the petroleum refining sector and returned to the refinery process.
The Agency is finalizing the exclusion with several conditions. The secondary materials may not
be placed on the land prior to insertion into the refinery process and may not be accumulated
speculatively. In addition, the coke product resulting from the use of secondary materials in the
refinery process must not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
As mentioned several times above, data available to Agency indicate that hydrocarbons are
recovered from oil-bearing secondary materials when these materials are fed to the coker,
including when these materials are fed into the coker with the quench cycle. In addition, data
indicate that there are recoverable levels of oil in sludges generated by petroleum refineries and
typically fed into the coker. The metals levels in sludges typically fed into the coker (e.g., sludges
bearing hazardous waste codes K048-K052) are, for the most part, comparable to the concentration
of metals in normal refinery feedstocks. Although the levels of lead and chromium in these
sludges may be higher than normal petroleum feedstocks, the concentrations of these two metals in
petroleum sludges are expected to decrease due to changes in the petroleum production process.
The NESHAPS standards promulgated under the Clean Air Act will result in chromium no longer
being used in cooling towers. Therefore, the principal source of chromium contaminants in the
production process will be deleted. Lead levels in petroleum sludges will continue to decline due
June 29, 1998 11-77
-------
to the phasing out of leaded gasoline as a product line. Finally, analyses conducted by EPA
confirm that the final coke product is basically unchanged by the use of hazardous oil-bearing
secondary materials in the coking process.
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency
is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of solid waste on
the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic content
of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a finding that the use of
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum
refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the mange of wastes (e.g.,
hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector.
EPA further clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary
materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-inserted into
the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed prior to re-
insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the refinery
process, and therefore may be discarded, remain listed hazardous wastes. The Agency modified
the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from the processing of
listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include this clarification
within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that there is a requirement
to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials as hazardous wastes.
The Agency notes that EPA is further investigating the scope of the petroleum industry gasification
operations and is considering whether to extend the exclusions promulgated in today's rule to
include the reuse of secondary materials in gasification operations.
The commenter's concerns regarding the investigation of EPA Regional and state agency
enforcement decisions are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The Agency notes that authorized
states may implement and enforce the RCRA program elements for which they are authorized
within their state boundaries. EPA does not approve facility permits in authorized states.
Concerns regarding individual facility operations and/or the status of any particular facility's
permit should be raised to the appropriate authority in the applicable state.
The commenter's request that EPA investigate other forms of "gaming" to avoid preventive waste
management controls is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking.
IJ.b.Z.c. Quench Coking
Comment 1: The commenter disagrees with EPA's proposal to allow reinsertion of "any" oily
waste material into any part of the refining process, likening the proposal to a "Bevill II"
exemption for refineries. The commenter points out that allowing insertion of wastes into the
June 29, 1998 11-78
-------
coker, without regard to oil content, will assure that the coker becomes a limitless "black hole" for
refinery waste. The commenter contends that the exclusion will: (1) establish a regulatory override
to the Sham Recycling Criteria where coking is involved; (2) foster the production of more of the
world's dirtiest fuel by allowing yet additional toxic metals, PNAs, and other toxics to be
deposited onto the coke without treatment; and (3) deal a deadly blow to true recycling
technologies such as thermal desorption, flexi-coking, and gasification, which produce clean
products for direct reuse or reuse within the refinery, rather than create a product with no real
market value. (SEA, 00015, L0006, LOO 10)
Response: In today's final rulemaking, EPA is promulgating an exclusion from the definition of
solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated within the petroleum refining sector and
returned to the refining process. As finalized, the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for
oil-bearing residuals from specified petroleum refining sources is expanded to allow the use or
reuse of a broader array of residuals from petroleum refining operations by inserting the materials
into any part of the refinery process, including the coking process. The Agency notes that the
exclusion is conditioned on there being no storage or placement of the secondary materials on the
land and no speculative accumulation. In addition, the recycling of oil-bearing secondary materials
cannot result in coke products that exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
The Agency clarifies that the exclusion, as promulgated, is limited to oil-bearing secondary
materials generated within the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911) and inserted into the
petroleum refining process. In addition, in the final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion for oil-
bearing secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to the materials actually
re-inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed
prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from the reclamation process and that are not
returned to the refinery process retain the hazardous waste listing and must be managed as
hazardous wastes. In the final rule, the Agency is modifying the descriptions for the F037 waste
code to include any residuals from the processing of listed (refinery) hazardous wastes.
After considering all data and information made available to the Agency, EPA concluded that the
main purpose of the petroleum coking unit is to recover hydrocarbons from the oil contained in the
feedstocks for further refining. Similarly, the main purpose of using the secondary materials in the
coke quenching process is the energy-efficient recovery of hydrocarbon from the residual oil in the
oil-bearing secondary materials. Conventional and quench coking recover light fraction
hydrocarbons with equal efficiency. The Agency also concludes, based upon available data, that
coke product produced using hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is basically
similar to coke produced without using secondary materials in the quenching process. Further,
EPA notes that the making of anode-grade coke, the most high-valued coke with the most stringent
product specifications, is likewise able to meet the product specifications while using these
secondary materials in the quenching process.
In considering whether the fact that the coke product produced using secondary materials in the
quenching process continues to meet the product specifications (and, in fact, demonstrates little
June 29, 1998 11-79
-------
change in the levels of contaminants compared with coke produced without hazardous secondary
materials) is simply a result of dilution, the Agency acknowledges that such dilution does occur.
However, there are several other considerations. For example, the primary product of the
petroleum coking process is the light hydrocarbon fraction recovered for use as feedstock in the
production of high-value fuel products, with the coke product being a co-product of the coking
process. The Agency is convinced that such recovery occurs when oil-bearing secondary materials
are used in the quenching process. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the primary product of
using the secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that the coke product (i.e.,
the co-product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and shows no appreciable
increase in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. In other words, demonstrating
hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in determining whether the hazardous secondary materials
actually serve a useful role in the overall coking operation, rather than demonstrating a net
contribution to the coke (as opposed to no degradation of the coke). Acknowledging that there is a
potential for some degradation of the coke product, depending on the constituent make-up of the
particular secondary materials used in the quenching process, the Agency believes that economic
forces, driven by product specifications and competition for markets, will serve to ensure that the
quenching process is not simply a means of indiscriminately disposing of hazardous wastes.
However, in cases where there is sufficient degradation of the product (or co-product) such that it
no longer meets product specifications or otherwise becomes unmarketable, the Agency would
question the legitimacy of using the secondary materials in the quenching process. Similarly, if
there were no hydrocarbon recovery stemming from the use of the hazardous secondary materials
in the quenching process, the Agency would question the legitimacy of the activity. (The Agency
knows of no such cases.)
With regard to the commenter's concern regarding the potential for metals and other hazardous
constituents contained in hazardous secondary materials to be "toxics-along-for-the-ride," the
hazardous metals and constituents found in the hazardous secondary materials generally can be
traced back to the metals and constituents found in the original crude oil feedstock and so do not
represent contaminants introduced through means other than the continued processing of the raw
material feedstocks. EPA's traditional concern regarding unnecessary hazardous constituents being
processed and ending up in a product is mitigated in this case because the Agency views this
activity as the continual processing of a raw material that contains the hazardous constituents, with
concentrations of constituents found in the feedstock streams varying dependent on the point in the
overall production process. In the context of a multi-step production process involving sequential
processing of an initial raw material, there is much less of an element of discard of the hazardous
constituents inherent in the original raw material than there would be had these secondary
materials been generated by another industry (and so had a different mix of hazardous constituents)
or had the hazardous constituents not been already present in the original raw material.
The Agency notes for the commenter that EPA is considering the merits of a parallel exclusion
from the definition of solid waste for secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining
sector and reused in petroleum gasification operations. Such an exclusion, if the Agency considers
it to be warranted, could be finalized in a separate action.
June 29, 1998 11-80
-------
Comment 2: The commenter questions EPA's reliance on industry assurances regarding the
protectiveness of the coking process as a recycling operation. The commenter contends that the
extent of the Agency's health and environmental assessment consists of the following statement:
Coke is subject to .... certain limited industry product specifications ...Coke is also subject
to product standards established by the ASTM for volatile matters and ash content. Taken
together, these controls help to insure the coke product does not contain unsafe levels of
toxic contaminants. (60 FR 5 ""55, Emphasis added)
The commenter notes that ASTM is a test methods group, not a health standard setting agency.
Further, combustibility criteria do not substitute for a health assessment. The commenter cites
petroleum industry personnel who state that contaminants are deposited on coke sludge and sent
out with the product.
The Agency must consider the affects of the proposed recycling exemption, including movement
of pollutants from one medium to another and the making toxics in wastes more available to the
environment. The commenter contends that the only environmental justification for exempting
hazardous waste recycling from RCRA's preventative management standards occurs when the
recycling practice itself is inherently protective (i.e., conducted in an enclosed system or without
releases) and when toxics are not merely shifted from one medium to the next (i.e., from land, back
to the air.)(SEA, L0010)
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter's assertion that product standards are not
health-based standards. However, after reviewing and analyzing data available to the Agency
regarding the coking process and the subsequent effects upon the coke product from the use of oil-
bearing secondary materials in the coking process, including the quench cycle, EPA concludes that
there is no evidence of significant degradation of the coke product or enhanced risk to human
health and the environment due to the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the process.
During the coking operation, including the quench cycle, there is recovery of hydrocarbon values
from the oil-bearing secondary materials, short- and middle-chain fractions that are condensed and
sent to refining processes to produce high-value fuel products (consistent with the overall coking
operation). In addition, there is some beneficial contribution to the coke product in the form of
carbon and higher energy values (even though this may not be reflected by an actual increase in
market value), and the Agency also notes that the coke product continues to meet the market-
driven specifications for the product, even for high-value anode grade coke. And, as with other
sidestreams generated by one process and used as feedstocks to other production processes, this
activity constitutes a link in the multi-step chain of processing steps designed to recover as much
of the hydrocarbon value from the original crude oil feedstock as possible. Thus, the Agency
concludes that the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials used in the quenching process are
considered, for regulatory purposes, as part of an on-going production process and hence classified
as an activity not subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
June 29, 1998 11-81
-------
Comment 3: Quench-side coking appears to violate the HSWA prohibition on dilution as a
method of treatment and the Agency's long-standing concern with toxics along for the ride. The
LDRs clearly state that restricted wastes or residuals from the treatment of a restricted waste will
not be diluted as a substitute for adequate treatment. Slurrying the solids and toxic metals with
water and pouring them into the quench with the expected "dispersion into the mass of the coke"
appears to violate the dilution prohibition.
Response: Since EPA is excluding oil-bearing secondary materials reused in the refinery process
from the definition of solid waste, the dilution prohibition is not applicable. The excluded
secondary materials are not subject to the LDR requirements when managed in accordance with all
conditions of the exclusion. One condition of the exclusion is that the secondary materials not be
placed upon the land prior to reuse. Hazardous secondary materials placed on the land prior to
reuse do not meet the conditions of the exclusion and are subject to all applicable provisions for
prohibited wastes under the LDR program.
EPA does not agree with the commenter's premise, which is that unusable secondary materials are
being dumped into the coke, which dilutes them. The main object of quench coking is to recover
oil as a light fraction. This occurs at the same efficiency as in conventional coking (an operation
whose legitimacy is not questioned by the commenter.) Moreover, in considering whether the
coke product produced using secondary materials in the quenching process continues to meet the
product specifications (and, in fact, demonstrates little or no change in the levels of contaminants
compared with coke produced without hazardous secondary materials) is simply a result of
dilution, the Agency acknowledges that such dilution does occur. Of course any carbon derived
from the secondary materials that remains in the coke after light ends are recovered in the quench
process serves the same function as the coke product itself (that is, as fuel), although this value is
admittedly nominal. However, there are several other considerations. For example, as noted above,
the primary product of the petroleum coking process is the hydrocarbon fraction recovered for use
as feedstock in the production of high-value fuel products, with the coke product being a co-
product of the coking process. The Agency is convinced that such recovery occurs when oil-
bearing secondary materials are used in the quenching process. w
Based on a considered evaluation of conflicting data provided by commenters, and using
engineering and technical judgement in lieu of data actually demonstrating the recovery of
hydrocarbon values from the secondary materials used in the quenching process, the Agency
believes that oil (i.e., hydrocarbon value) is recovered during the quenching process and that the
efficiency of this recovery is comparable to the recovery of light-ends during the conventional'
coking process. (The Agency also notes that in the worst case scenario provided by the
commenter, which assumed 80% of the oil in the secondary material was too heavy to significantly
64 February 2, 1998 letter from John Medley to Max Diaz.
June 29, 1998 11-82
-------
volatilize at the temperatures encountered during the quenching process, there was recovery of
hydrocarbon, even from the heavy oil fraction.65)
Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the primary product of using the secondary materials in
the quenching process, the simple fact that the coke product (i.e., the co-product) continues to meet
the applicable product specifications and shows no appreciable increase in risk carries more weight
in the Agency's evaluation. In other words, demonstrating hydrocarbon recovery is the key test in
determining whether the hazardous secondary materials actually serve a useful role in the overall
coking operation, rather than demonstrating a net contribution to the coke (as opposed to no
degradation of the coke). The Agency believes that the product specifications, and the economic
consequences if those specifications are not met, will serve to limit the use of the quenching
process to secondary materials that will not cause the coke to exceed its specifications, and
effectively limits the allowable insertion of metals and excess high boiling point hydrocarbons.
However, in cases where there is sufficient degradation of the product (or co-product) such that it
no longer meets product specifications or otherwise becomes unmarketable, the Agency would
question the legitimacy of using the secondary materials in the quenching process. Similarly, if
there were sharply decreased efficiency of hydrocarbon recovery stemming from the use of the
hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process (recovery rates of, for example, less than
50% of the oil contained in the secondary materials, rather than the minimum 70% efficiency EPA
believes occurs), the Agency would question the legitimacy of the activity. (The Agency knows of
no such cases at present.)
During the coking operation, including the quench cycle, there is recovery of hydrocarbon values
from the oil-bearing secondary materials, short- and middle-chain fractions that are condensed and
sent to refining processes to produce high-value fuel products (consistent with the overall coking
operation). Any hydrocarbon not recovered as light ends as described above must, by a
straightforward mass balance assumption, remain in the coke product that is itself almost entirely
made of carbon and is marketed for its carbon content, i.e., as a fuel (even though this may not be
reflected by an actual increase in market value). The Agency also notes that the coke product
continues to meet the market-driven specifications for the product, even for high-value anode-
grade coke. And, as with other sidestreams generated by one process and used as feedstocks to
other production processes, this activity constitutes a link in the multi-step chain of processing
steps designed to recover as much of the hydrocarbon value from the original crude oil feedstock
as possible. Thus, the Agency concludes that the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials used
in the quenching process are considered, for regulatory purposes, as part of an on-going production
process and hence classified as an activity not subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
However, in cases where there is sufficient degradation of the product (or co-product) such that it
no longer meets product specifications or otherwise becomes unmarketable, the Agency would
question the legitimacy of using the secondary materials in the quenching process. Similarly, if
65 See the January 9, 1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Mike Shapiro.
June 29, 1998 11-83
-------
there were no hydrocarbon recovery stemming from the use of the hazardous secondary materials
in the quenching process, the Agency would question the legitimacy of the activity. (The Agency
knows of no such cases )
Comment 4: The commenter stated that the proposed rule's new exclusions should not allow
unpermitted "covert" commercial facilities to operate at refineries. There should be no double
standard of protection between refinery-based or off-site recyclers. The commenter cited examples
of the proposed exclusion and stated that changes to the definition of solid waste would penalize
legitimate, permitted recycling firms.
"Among the most significant issues raised by these case studies and those which are in need of
further interpretation and clarification include: the legitimacy of the so-called exemption claims;
the applicability of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule standards; why the thermal
desorption standards of the Superfund program are not being applied to such units when operating
at refineries; the type of stack testing and stack gas monitoring; whether the State's "fugitive
emission" controls provide equivalent protection to RCRA's Subpart AA & BB air emission
standards; the adequacy of the waste and residuals analysis; the quality of the wastewater
discharge; containment to prevent soil releases; closure; and enforcement verification. All of these
issues/standards would be addressed in a permit proceeding for a commercial offsite operation, but
in the case of GDC, amounts to little more than a glossed-over "pen pal" proceeding as the
attachments to our July 11, 1997 submission reveal."
"Legality notwithstanding, it is clear that through aggressive interpretations of recycling
exemptions, commercial facilities are being allowed to operate at refinery sites without the same
level of environmental safeguard that free-standing commercial facilities are subject to. The result
is that EPA is financially rewarding businesses that do the least to protect the environment and
punishing those that do the most. The Agency must launch an enforcement investigation to ensure
that RCRA's recycling provisions and safeguards, such as they are, are being correctly interpreted
and applied and to reexamine current and pending regulations and policies to prevent the
proliferation of unpermitted commercial recycle operations at petroleum refineries." (SEA, 00015,
L0006, LOO 10)
Response: The Agency cannot document the commenter's claims. For example, information
made available to the Agency by API and Shell Norco indicate that facility does have a RCRA
permit. EPA believes that the Shell Norco and Kipin Industries recycling process has been
scrutinized by state authorities and determined to meet the substantive criteria for an exemption for
hazardous waste recycling. In addition, the facility is subject to air emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants (as well as conventional pollutants) under the CAA. In addition, the
issues regarding the permitting status of one (or a few) facilities is beyond the scope of today's
rulemaking. Authorized states are provided the authority to issue and enforce permitting standards.
Nothing contained in the proposed rule or in today's final rule was or is intended to change state
authority with regard to the review of RCRA facility permit applications and/or the authority to
June 29, 1998 11-84
-------
approve operating permits. The Agency notes that several states require facilities that recycle
RCRA hazardous waste to apply for and obtain a permit for such recycling activities.
Comment 5: EPA's recent requests for more information about quench cycle coking may be
based on improper consideration of untimely, unresponsive, and unsupported comments made by
interested parties made long after the public comment period had closed, including comments
made at ex parte meetings with senior management in December 1997. EPA's consideration of
those late comments has placed API and its members in an unfair and unreasonable position by
requiring API to produce new information on very short notice and at virtually the same time that
EPA should be making its final rulemaking decisions. These recent events could prejudice the
outcome of the final rule and raise serious questions about whether EPA will satisfy the
rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and its own regulations. (API,
1/23/98, Attachment A)
Response: EPA believes it is more important to make technical determinations on the best
information possible, rather than to simply close off the rulemaking process. Consequently, the
Agency gave careful consideration to the late comments of SEA and EOF and sought further
dialogue with members of the petroleum refining industry as well. The Agency obtained
additional information from the commenter to assist the Agency in analyzing technical aspects of
the petroleum refining process (e.g., information on the coke quenching cycle) and to assist EPA in
understanding potential consequences of the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste
for oil-bearing secondary materials that were not anticipated, and therefore not considered, during
the development of the proposed rulemaking. Information furnished by the commenter assisted
EPA in determining that the coking process, including the quench cycle, are part of the on-going
petroleum refining process. The Agency appreciates the commenter's assistance. EPA also
believes that there has been ample notice and opportunity for comment on all of these issues.
Comment 6: The information recently requested by EPA is immaterial and unnecessary to a final
decision on the proposed exclusion. EPA already possesses all of the information it needs to
determine that oil-bearing secondary materials used in cokers (including the coking quench cycle)
to make petroleum products are not discarded, do not contribute to waste management problems,
and should be excluded from the definition of solid waste. (API, 1/23/98, Attachment A)
Response: The Agency's request for additional information was due to a concern that EPA did not
have sufficient information to make a determination regarding the contribution of the coking
process, including the quench cycle, to the overall petroleum refining process. The Agency
appreciates the additional information provided by the commenter. Information furnished by the
commenter assisted the Agency in making its determination that the coking process is an integral
part of the overall petroleum refining process, that hydrocarbons are indeed being recovered during
this process and therefore, the use of oil-bearing secondary materials generation by the petroleum
sector in the coker is legitimate reuse of these materials in the original production process.
June 29, 1998 11-85
-------
Comment 7: The suggestion that EPA merely characterize petroleum cokers as "exempt RCRA
recycling units" rather than exclude oil-bearing materials used in cokers from the definition of
solid waste is legally unacceptable because it: would assert jurisdiction over those materials in
violation of the court's mandate in the American Mining Congress ("AMC I") case; would not
provide any legal relief beyond what is already available under the existing rules; would not
resolve the many legal questions raised by state and Regional enforcement agencies about the
requirements for management of those materials. (API, 1/23/98, Attachment A)
Response: EPA disagrees that an exclusion is compelled as a matter of law (even though
legitimate recycling is occurring). First, there is direct case authority that secondary materials
which originate from wastewater treatment systems can be considered to be "discarded." See
AMC II, 907 F.2d at 1186 ("Nothing in AMC [I] prevents the Agency from treating as 'discarded'
the wastes at issue in this case, which are managed in land disposal units that are part of
wastewater treatment systems, which have therefore become 'part of the waste disposal problem,'
and which are not part of ongoing industrial processes" (emphasis original)). Industry indicates
that, primarily, the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials utilized in the quenching process are
wastewater treatment sludges (chiefly K048, F037 and F03866), which are thus directly analogous
to the sludges at issue in the AMC II decision, and thus could be considered to be discarded.
These sludges likewise could be considered to be solid wastes pursuant to RCRA section
3004(q)(2)(A) which indicates that certain provisions otherwise applicable to hazardous waste-
derived fuels do not apply to petroleum coke produced from "petroleum refinery wastes containing
oil which are converted into petroleum coke at the same facility at which such wastes were
generated." The plain language of the provision can be read to cover the activity at issue here, and
thus indicate that wastewater treatment sludges and other hazardous secondary materials going to
quench coking could be classified as solid wastes.67
More basically, EPA does not regard the use of oil-bearing wastewater treatment sludges in the
quenching process to be the type of operation which must necessarily be classified as part of an on-
going manufacturing process. The parts of the petroleum refining process outside the Agency's
RCRA jurisdiction involve the sequential distillation of crude oil (not wastewater treatment
sludges or other wastewater treatment residuals) into various fractions such as gasoline, fuel oil,
66 See September 3, 1997 letter from Kyle Isakower, American Petroleum Institute to
William Brandes, Office of Solid Waste.
67The AMC I court gave this provision a restrictive reading, stating (somewhat
circularly) that it applied only to material that had already become a hazardous waste. 824 F.
2dat 1188. However, given the holding o/AMC II that wastewater treatment residuals can be
classified as solid wastes and that wastewater treatment operations break any chain of what
must be regarded as a continuous industrial process, the wastewater treatment sludges destined
for the quenching process could be classified as being hazardous wastes.
June 29, 1998 11-86
-------
asphalt, and conventional coking. See 824 F.2d at 1181. However, the quenching process need
not be viewed as one more on-going step in this process. Not only is there the temporal
interdiction of the generation of wastewater and subsequent management of the wastewater and
sludges in the refinery's wastewater treatment system, but the quenching process differs in material
ways from the standard refining operations. As discussed above, the secondary materials utilized
have less oil, higher percentages of unusable materials, and the process generates less recovered
oil, than any other unit operation in the conventional refining process.
The Agency thus does not accept the argument that exclusion of hazardous secondary materials
used in the quenching process is compelled. This is not to say that the Agency lacks the discretion
to make such a determination. The term "discarded" is ambiguous, and within the Agency's
authority to interpret consistent with the general goals and policies of the statute. AMC II, 907 F.
2d at 1186; American Petroleum Inst v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 726, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Among these
goals, of course, is encouraging environmentally sound recycling. RCRA section 1003(a)(6).
Moreover, assessing what should be viewed as continuous industrial processes, and which types of
material recovery operations are "not part of the waste disposal problem" (AMC II, 907 F.2d at
1186), are the types of technical and policy questions particularly committed to EPA's expert
discretion. It is that discretion which the Agency is exercising in determining in this rule that a
conditional exclusion is appropriate for certain hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials used in
the coke quenching process.
Comment 8: The commenter noted that questions had been raised regarding whether quench cycle
injection of secondary materials is a part of the manufacturing process known as coking. The
commenter noted that, like conventional vacuum resid and other coker feeds, the injected
hydrocarbon-bearing secondary materials are recovered as liquid products for the production of
valuable transportation fuels or, in part, physically or chemically transformed into salable coke
product of significant value. Because of the water content of most of the sludges, introduction
with conventional coker feeds at greatly elevated temperatures is often not practiced due to safety,
environmental, and operational concerns about coker upsets. However, the water content of the
sludges becomes an advantage when introduced prior to or during the coke drum quench cycle
since water cooling is desired at that point. (API, 1/23/98, Attachment C)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process.
Comment 9: The commenter responded to the question of how much of the oil in the hydrocarbon
bearing secondary material is recovered for further upgrading into valuable transportation fuels.
Based on work by Mobil Oil, inspection and analysis of a number of the injected hydrocarbon-
bearing secondary materials, including distillation of the oil fractions, engineering calculations
indicate that recoveries commonly range from 85-100% at the beginning of the injection when the
coke drum overhead temperature is about 800+°F, declining to a range of 40-55% just prior to
June 29, 1998 11-87
-------
ceasing injection at the recommended guideline temperature of about 600°F.68 This data indicates
that on average, over the entire range of coking temperatures, approximately 75% of the
hydrocarbon injected with the sludges is vaporized and recovered for production of transportation
fuels. The remaining 25% or so of the hydrocarbon becomes part of the final petroleum coke
product, either as coke itself or as VCM. However, the petroleum coke produced, in part, from
injected hydrocarbon bearing secondary materials, continues to meet required product
specifications for sale. Volatile Combustible Material (VCM) of the coke is estimated to increase
by 0.3-0.4 weight % due to the incorporated hydrocarbons and any other organic solids contained
in the secondary material. A field comparison by Mobil Oil of VCM of commercial petroleum
coke with or without the subject recycled secondary material confirmed that the actual VCM
increment was 0.3 weight %. (API, 1/23/98, Attachment C)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. Based upon the commenter's
written submission and documentation and upon information provided to EPA in subsequent
meetings between EPA and representatives from the petroleum refining industry held to discuss the
coking process, including the quench cycle, and its contributions to the refining process, EPA has
determined that conventional coking and quench coking are integral to the ongoing petroleum
refining process.
Based on a considered evaluation of conflicting data provided by commenters, and using
engineering and technical judgement in lieu of data actually demonstrating the recovery of
hydrocarbon values from the secondary materials used in the quenching process, the Agency
believes that oil (i.e., hydrocarbon value) is recovered during the quenching process and that the
efficiency of this recovery is comparable to the recovery of light-ends during the conventional
coking process. This belief is based largely on the Agency's best professional judgement upon
review of the typical range of boiling points in the hydrocarbons present in the secondary
materials, in concert with the temperatures these secondary materials experience in the coke drum
for the duration of the quench cycle; because of the presence of water during the quench cycle, the
additional effect that water volatilization is predicted to have on the removal of volatile
constituents (i.e., an effect analogous to "steam stripping") also serves, in the Agency's best
professional judgement, to facilitate the removal and transport of volatilized hydrocarbons up and
out of the coke drum to be recovered. In applying its best professional judgement to the technical
information (e.g., boiling point ranges, coke drum temperatures, effect of water vapor, etc.)
provided by commenters on both sides of the issue, the Agency relied heavily on it's own
familiarity with the industry, informed by numerous site visits to refineries and experience with the
secondary materials at issue. The Agency also was persuaded by certain specific simulations of
boiling point ranges provided by oil industry representatives. (The Agency also notes that in the
worst case scenario provided by one commenter opposed to the exclusion, which assumed 80% of
the oil in the secondary material was too heavy to significantly volatilize at the temperatures
6g See Attachment E.
June 29, 1998 11-88
-------
encountered during the quenching process, there was recovery of hydrocarbon, even from the
heavy oil fraction.69)
Comment 10: The commenter explained why the use of secondary materials in the quench cycle
has increased in recent years. From a general standpoint, increased reliance on offshore heavier
crudes has led to additions of coker capacity, creating some increased opportunity for this process.
Aside from the obvious incentive to recover hydrocarbons, another potentially significant factor
could be the expiration of Mobil's patent in 1995, such that any refiner could begin using this
technology without first licensing it from Mobil and paying a royalty fee. (API, 1/23/98,
Attachment C)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the increased use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. Data available to the
Agency indicate that there may be several reasons for this occurrence. The use of coking may be
increasing due to changes in the characteristics of available crude and the fact that more refineries
have cokers. As more refineries add cokers to the refining process, the production of coke and the
levels of coking are expected to increase. In addition, in 1994, the exclusion from the definition of
solid waste for petroleum coke produced from refinery hazardous wastes containing oil (40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(v)) was expanded to include coke produced using hazardous wastes generated by the
same "person," rather than merely generated at the same "site."
According to information published by API, 406 thousand wet tons of primary sludge was
managed by refineries in 1994. This represents the largest quantity of primary sludge generation
ever reported (288 thousand wet tons were generated in 1993). API's information indicates that it
is likely that this reflects the refineries' efforts to meet statutory deadlines to retrofit or close
primary sludge or TC surface impoundments in 1994. Thus, just as increases in waste generation
noted by API between 1991 and 1993 were related to regulatory actions, the closure of certain
land-based units resulted in peaked generation of primary sludge in 1994.70 API questioned the
refineries regarding the increase in sludge generation and they stated it was an "abnormal or one-
time event." The primary management for this added quantity was "recycle to the coker."
In contrast, API reported a decrease of greater than 60 percent in primary sludge management in
1995. API members reported managing only 128 thousand tons of primary sludge in 1995. This is
the lowest quantity managed since 1991, and possibly provides an explanation regarding the
fluctuation in the amount of secondary materials managed in cokers.71 In the final analysis, as
petroleum coking is part of legitimate production, increased petroleum coking would indicate
increased materials recovery. In addition, as discussed above the Agency is investigating
gasification as another means of recovery for these types of secondary materials.
69 See the January 9, 1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Michael Shapiro.
70 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1994. September 1996.
71 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1995. June 1997.
June 29, 1998 11-89
-------
Comment 11: The commenter explained why a minimum oil content limit for secondary materials
used in the coker quench cycle is not needed. The historical purpose of this process has been the
recovery of hydrocarbons for production of transportation and other fuels (i.e., petroleum coke)
Typically, refiners have used secondary materials in the coker quench cycle to reprocess
wastewater treatment sludges and tank sediments, such as crude oil or clarified slurry oil tank
sediments from tank cleanings for inspections. These materials, by their nature, contain various
levels of hydrocarbons, and those levels vary over time due to the nature of the various oil recovery
processes involved in their generation. These sludges represent the end result of numerous efforts
to recover oil during the wastewater treatment process or tank cleaning operations. Since it is in
the interests of the environment to recover as much oil as possible as early in the wastewater
treatment process or tank cleaning process as possible, it could be counter-productive to establish a
minimum oil content requirement for such residuals being reprocessed via the coker quench cycle
to recover hydrocarbons that cannot be recovered by other, more mechanical means. Hence,
setting a minimum oil content requirement would be a classic case of the "tail wagging the dog,"
by effectively precluding the fullest use of a variety of highly efficient oil recycling techniques
solely in order to leave enough oil in the residual to meet an arbitrary standard for cokers. In
addition, EPA should not establish such a minimum oil content because it sends a message that
materials with otherwise valuable oil contents below an arbitrary level are unworthy of recovery.
(API, 1/23/98, Attachment C)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. Based upon information provided
by the commenter, the Agency rejected limiting the exclusion based on a set minimum oil content.
The exclusion for oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials being legitimately used in the
quenching process is conditioned only on these materials being managed such that there is no land
placement and no speculative accumulation, and that the coke product produced not exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste.
The Agency rejected limiting the exclusion based on a set minimum oil content or a recovery
efficiency requirement for several reasons. As discussed above, the quenching process represents
the final, and last possible process (other than possibly gasification, which the Agency is presently
evaluating) in which to recover hydrocarbon from the original crude oil feedstock. The refinery
processes and operating procedures are designed to separate and process into products as much
hydrocarbon as possible from the crude oil feedstock, in other words, to prevent as much oil from
making its way into these secondary materials as possible. The oil that does make its way into
these secondary materials is generally considered unavoidable and inevitable, or in some cases, too
much oil in these secondary materials is evidence of a problem with some aspect of the overall
refining process (which goes towards explaining the wide range of oil contents in these materials).
Thus, it would be counter to the overall efficiency of the petroleum refining process to require a
minimum oil content in the secondary materials. Conversely, the Agency believes it is
fundamental to this exclusion that there actually be oil recovered for further refining when these
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials are used in the quenching process. To the extent there is
June 29, 1998 11-90
-------
no recovery of a light fraction, or drastically inefficient recovery, the operation could be a type of
sham recycling, as discussed earlier.
Also, the Agency believes that, in this case, a minimum oil content condition would do little to
ensure that only those secondary materials from which oil can actually be recovered would be
excluded; in other words, the Agency does not believe that setting a minimum oil content would
ensure that secondary materials are legitimately being used in the quenching process Since most
of the secondary materials in question result from wastewater treatment, a minimum oil content
requirement would only serve to encourage a refinery to operate the refinery wastewater treatment
process less efficiently to ensure that these secondary materials contain the minimum oil content
and thus avail themselves of an exclusion.
Comment 12: The commenter critiqued the analysis of hydrocarbon "recovery" in quench-cycle
cokers as presented by SEA in its January 9, 1998 correspondence to the Agency. The commenter
identified numerous flaws in SEA's technical arguments which the commenter argues discredit
SEA's conclusions. These technical flaws include:
1. The SEA data used to develop its "recovery" estimates are completely undocumented, and
therefore, unverifiable and unreliable;
2. SEA's characterization of F and K wastes bear little resemblance to the characteristics of
wastewater treatment sludges actually reprocessed via quench-cycle coking;
3. The manner in which SEA uses 650°F as a cut-off for "low-end" vs. "high-end" hydrocarbons,
and as an average temperature during the quench cycle, is inaccurate and arbitrary;
4. No technical basis is apparent for SEA's assumptions of <50% volatilization of "light-ends"
and <5% volatilization of "heavy-ends;"
5. The calculations do not account for the effects of lowered partial pressure from steam during
the quench cycle;
6. SEA's "recovery" rates are based on worst-case injection rates;
7. SEA has overstated the density of the injected residuals; and
8. The boiling ranges for SEA's undocumented data should not be used in conjunction with
API's data. (API, 1/23/98, Attachment D)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. The Agency notes that data and
information related was received from several outside parties, including the petroleum industry.
The Agency reviewed and considered all information and data provided to the Agency in making
the final decisions regarding the conditional exclusion for secondary materials generated by
petroleum refineries and returned to the refinery process.
The Agency cannot say with certainty whether all of the commenter's criticisms of SEA's
comments are warranted. However, based upon a considered evaluation of conflicting data
provided by commenters, and using engineering and technical judgement in lieu of data actually
demonstrating the recovery of hydrocarbon values from the secondary materials used in the
June 29, 1998 11-91
-------
quenching process, the Agency believes that oil (i.e., hydrocarbon value) is recovered during the
quenching process and that the efficiency of this recovery is comparable to the recovery of light-
ends during the conventional coking process.
EPA believes that the recovery of hydrocarbon from the oil-bearing secondary materials in the
quenching process is consistent with the overall petroleum refining process, and the coking
operation in particular, i.e., the recovery of hydrocarbons for the production of high-value fuel
products. This goal, in turn, is consistent with the RCRA objective to encourage safe types of
recycling. (See RCRA section 1003(a)(6)).
After evaluating all information available to the Agency, including, the fact that 1) the recovery
efficiency of hydrocarbons from oil contained in the secondary materials used in the quenching
process is comparable to the recovery efficiency of the conventional coking process, 2) the use of
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials (including RCRA listed hazardous wastes) in the
quenching process is consistent with the overall goal of the petroleum refining industry, namely to
maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon values from the original crude oil feedstocks, and 3) the
coke product continues to meet product specifications and indicates no increase in risk (and so can
be viewed as not being part of the waste disposal problem, in the language of the D.C. Circuit), the
Agency concludes that the use of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials generated by the
refinery can a) legitimately be used in the coke quenching process; and b) can be viewed as a part
of the petroleum refining process and, as a matter of discretion in determining whether secondary
materials are discarded, excluded from being solid wastes.
Comment 13: The commenter presents data collected over a two week period regarding the
percentage of hydrocarbons from injected sludges that are volatilized during the coker quench
cycle, as well as some VCM content data. The commenter argues that the data clearly indicate
that:
• Over the entire range of actual operating conditions, a majority of the hydrocarbons injected
into the quench cycle are volatilized and recovered as coker products for the production of
transportation fuels in other refinery processes;
• The VCM data indicates no significant statistical difference in VCM content of coke with and
without residual injection during the quench cycle. (API, 1/23/98, Attachment E)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. The Agency reviewed all
information provided by all commenters. After reviewing all data and employing best professional
engineering judgement, the Agency is persuaded by the commenter's statements. Based upon
information regarding the characteristics of the secondary materials generated and reused by the
petroleum refining industry, data regarding the temperatures obtained during the coking process
and augmented by information regarding the lower partial pressure from steam obtained during the
coking process, the Agency has concluded that hydrocarbons are recovered during the quench
coking process and has determined that coking is an integral part of the refinery process.
June 29, 1998 11-92
-------
Comment 14: The commenter responded to SEA's allegation that the use of the coking process by
refiners has increased in the last few years as a means of disposal for residuals. The commenter
believes that independent standard reference materials clearly validate the position that increased
coke production is primarily a result of changes to available crude oil characteristics that are
outside the control of petroleum refiners (API, 1/23/98, Attachment F)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submirtal of addition information regarding
the increased use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. Data available to the
Agency indicate that there may be several reasons for this occurrence. The use of coking may be
increasing due to changes in the characteristics of available crude and the fact that more refineries
have cokers. As more refineries add cokers to the refining process, the production of coke and the
levels of coking are expected to increase. In addition, in 1994, the exclusion from the definition of
solid waste for petroleum coke produced from refinery hazardous wastes containing oil (40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(v)) was expanded to include coke produced using hazardous wastes generated by the
same "person," rather than merely generated at the same "site."
According to information published by API, 406 thousand wet tons of primary sludge was
managed by refineries in 1994. This represents the largest quantity of primary sludge generation
ever reported (288 thousand wet tons were generated in 1993). API's information indicates that it
is likely that this reflects the refineries' efforts to meet statutory deadlines to retrofit or close
primary sludge or TC surface impoundments in 1994. Thus, just as increases in waste generation
noted by API between 1991 and 1993 were related to regulatory actions, the closure of certain
land-based units resulted in peaked generation of primary sludge in 1994.72 API questioned the
refineries regarding the increase in sludge generation and they stated it was an "abnormal or one-
time event." The primary management for this added quantity was "recycle to the coker."
In contrast, API reported a decrease of greater than 60 percent in primary sludge management in
1995. API members reported managing only 128 thousand tons of primary sludge in 1995. This is
the lowest quantity managed since 1991, and possibly provides an explanation regarding the
fluctuation in the amount of secondary materials managed in cokers.73 In the final analysis, as
petroleum coking is part of legitimate production, increased petroleum coking would indicate
increased materials recovery. In addition, as discussed above the Agency is investigating
gasification as another means of recovery for these types of secondary materials.
Comment 15: SEA contends that quench recycling feedstocks are not "feedstock-like" because
they do not approach a 100% oil content. However, oil content is not the relevant measure of
whether the injected residuals are "feedstock-like." The characteristics of the oil contained in the
residuals are the important criteria, and, as EPA has correctly concluded, hydrocarbons contained
72 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1994. September 1996.
73 API. Management of Residual Materials: 1995. June 1997.
June 29, 1998 11-93
-------
in the residuals used in the coker quench cycle closely resemble numerous refinery intermediate
streams, or mixtures thereof. (API, 1/23/98)
Response: EPA has determined that the quenching process (other than possibly gasification,
which the Agency is presently evaluating) represents the last possible process in which to recover
hydrocarbon. The refinery processes and operating procedures are designed to separate and
process into products as much hydrocarbon as possible from the crude oil feedstock, in other
words, to prevent as much oil from making its way into these secondary materials as possible. The
oil that does make its way into these secondary materials is generally considered unavoidable and
inevitable, or in some cases, too much oil in these secondary materials is evidence of a problem
with some aspect of the overall refining process or of the wastewater treatment system. (These
same factors also explain to some degree the variability in the oil content of secondary materials
used for quench coking: the same materials are used but the oil content varies depending on the
daily efficiencies of the refining process and wastewater treatment system). Since a key aim of the
process is to recover these vestigial hydrocarbons, it stands to reason that the secondary materials
will have less oil in them than in-process materials and secondary materials used elsewhere in the
refining process.
Hydrocarbons in those materials can be recovered more easily, and the materials involved come
from earlier steps in the process and so will have more oil, or more oil (viz. hydrocarbons) that are
recoverable by less drastic means than quench coking (or gasification).
EPA thus does not find it determinative that the secondary materials utilized as feed for quench
coking contain less hydrocarbons than secondary materials and in-process materials used in earlier
parts of the refining process. In addition, it would be counter to the overall efficiency of the
petroleum refining to require a minimum oil content in the secondary materials, since higher oil
levels would tend to indicate that the same hydrocarbons are escaping recovery elsewhere in the
system.
Also, the Agency believes that, in this case, a minimum oil content condition would do little to
ensure that only those secondary materials from which oil can actually be recovered would be
excluded, or in other words, the Agency does not believe that setting a minimum oil content would
ensure that secondary materials are legitimately being used in the quenching process. Since most
of the secondary materials in question result from wastewater treatment, a minimum oil content
requirement would only serve to encourage a refinery to operate the refinery process less efficiency
to ensure that these secondary materials contain the minimum oil content and thus avail themselves
of an exclusion.
EPA believes that a comparison of the recovery efficiency of the quenching process to the recovery
efficiency of the conventional coking process (of the resids) provides a better indication of how
"production-related" the use of the hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is (i.e.,
the more similar the quenching process is to the conventional coking process in the recovery of
hydrocarbon values, the more it may be considered analogous to, or a component of, the coking
June 29, 1998 11-94
-------
process). The data supplied indicate that the recovery efficiency of oil contained in the secondary
materials during the quenching process is comparable to the recovery efficiency from the feedstock
side of the coking operation.74 Thus, although the oil content in the hazardous secondary materials
is markedly less, at the very least, there is demonstrated hydrocarbon recovery from the secondary
materials used in the quenching process, which is consistent with the overall production intent of
petroleum refining.
The Agency notes that one major point of contention between those commenters opposed to the
exclusion and those supporting the exclusion is whether there is actual evidence that oil (or
hydrocarbon value) is recovered during the quenching process. As stated previously, the oil
content of the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials typically used in the quenching process
varies considerably (8% - 40%), although the typical secondary materials have an oil content
around 10%.75 In determining the oil recovery efficiency of the quenching process (i.e., a
quantification of how much of the oil contained in the secondary materials is actually volatilized
and recovered for further refining versus how much oil is simply incorporated into the coke
product), EPA encountered difficulty in getting any actual data. The data the Agency primarily
relied on were derived from surrogate tests (i.e., tests designed to simulate the conditions the
secondary materials encounter during the quenching process) performed on the secondary
materials typically used in the quenching process.76 This is because coking operations (particularly
the capture and condensing of the light-end hydrocarbons) do not avail themselves to the type of
quantifiable measurements that the Agency prefers. Regarding the quenching process, this is even
more the case. However, surrogate tests may actually be more representative of the oil recovered
from secondary materials used in the quenching process than actual measurements taken during the
quenching process. This is because any measurement of the amount of oil recovered during the
quenching process would also likely include the light-ends that remain entrained within the coke
product from the conventional coking operation (i.e., light-ends derived from the resids feedstock)
which are typically recovered during the quenching process in a manner analogous to steam
stripping. In other words, surrogate tests, by using only oil-bearing secondary materials that are
heated to simulate the environment encountered in the quenching process, allow for a more
controlled system in which measurements of percent oil volatilized can be made. In contrast,
during the actual quenching process, the recovered light-end hydrocarbons will contain a mixture
of hydrocarbons derived from the secondary materials injected during the quench, and some
residual hydrocarbons that were entrained within the coke product at the end of the normal coking
cycle. In the latter example, apportioning the relative contributions of these two sources to the
recovered hydrocarbon in a manner that allows accurate percentages is difficult.
74 See January 23, 1998 letter from Paul Bailey to Michael Shapiro
75 See the September 3, 1997 letter from Kyle Isakower to Max Diaz and the January 9,
1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Mike Shapiro.
76 See January 23, 1998 letter from Paul Bailey to Michael Shapiro.
June 29, 1998 11-95
-------
One of the critical factors in estimating the oil recovery efficiency of the quenching process is the
specific gravity of the oil contained in the hazardous secondary materials. The lighter the oil
fractions, the more oil will volatilize during the quenching process. Here too, there was
disagreement among commenters over how the oil contained in the secondary materials should be
characterized. One commenter stated that since the quality of crude oils has grown steadily heavier
over time, a trend that is only expected to continue, the oil contained in the secondary materials,
especially the wastewater treatment sludges, would be disproportionately heavy and thus would be
less and less likely to volatilize during the quenching process. This was supported by data
(gathered from listed hazardous wastes sent to RCRA-permitted facilities) demonstrating the
heavy-to-light ratio for oil contained in the wastes.77 In response, the petroleum industry stated
that the oil contained in the secondary materials (particularly wastewater treatment sludges) comes
from oil that has been through some refining and thus the trend towards heavier crude oils will not
have a corresponding effect on the oil contained in the secondary materials. Also, industry claims
that the actual data used to support the assertion that the oil contained in the secondary materials is
predominantly heavy is not representative of the secondary materials used in the quenching process
because, prior to sending such materials to a permitted facility for proper treatment and disposal, a
refinery will typically use other processes (e.g., centrifuging) to aggressively extract as much oil
(and water — to reduce the volume of material sent for treatment and disposal) as possible from the
materials, more so than would be the case if these materials are to be used in the quenching
process. The oil recovered by these more aggressive recovery processes would tend to be the
lighter oils, leaving a disproportionate amount of heavy oil in the materials analyzed.78
Based on a considered evaluation of these conflicting comments, and using engineering and
technical judgement in lieu of data actually demonstrating the recovery of hydrocarbon values
from the secondary materials used in the quenching process, the Agency believes that oil (i.e.,
hydrocarbon value) is recovered during the quenching process and that the efficiency of this
recovery is comparable to the recovery of light-ends during the conventional coking process. (The
Agency also notes that in the worst case scenario provided by one commenter opposed to the
exclusion, which assumed 80% of the oil in the secondary material was too heavy to significantly
volatilize at the temperatures encountered during the quenching process, there was recovery of
hydrocarbon, even from the heavy oil fraction.79)
Comment 16: SEA contends that heavier crude oil slates have led to heavier residuals being fed
into the coker quench cycle.
In reality, changes in crude oil slates have had only minor effects on the intermediate refining
streams, which are the source of the oil-bearing residuals that are sent to the coker quench cycle.
(API, 1/23/98)
77 See the January 9, 1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Mike Shapiro.
7X See the February 2, 1998 letter from John Medley to Max Diaz.
79 See the January 9, 1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Mike Shapiro.
June 29, 1998 11-96
-------
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. The Agency agrees with the
commenter, based upon the fact that the oil that ends up in the secondary materials in question
comes from all parts of the refinery process, and represents hydrocarbons that have already
undergone some amount of refining. The Agency acknowledges that there would be predictably
lower recovery efficiencies if secondary materials containing more of the heavier (i.e., higher
boiling point) hydrocarbons were injected into the coke drum at lower temperatures. However,
based upon the Agency's best engineering judgement after reviewing the range of boiling points
that have been measured in materials that are actually quench coked, and the operating parameters
of the quench process as documented by the industry data, that the recovery efficiency predicted
under these conditions is comparable to normal coking.
Comment 17: SEA contends that petroleum coke has no market value and is dumped on 'Third
World" Countries. As API has documented repeatedly, many third-party sources, including the
Department of Energy, The Oil and Gas Journal, and The Pace Petroleum Coke Quarterly, all
provide data on average petroleum fuel-grade ($17-$41/metric ton) and anode grade ($74/dry short
ton) coke prices, which conclusively demonstrate that coke is a valuable product in demand both
domestically and in many other industrialized countries;80 thus, SEA's contention is clearly
without merit. (API, 1/23/98, supported by APCA, L0002)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for submitting additional information on the market
and market value of petroleum coke. The Agency concludes that although a major portion of the
petroleum coke produced by U.S. refineries was exported in 1996, the large majority of coke was
not exported to third world countries. In fact, 68 percent of petroleum coke exports in 1996 were
to Japan, Spain, Italy, Belgium/Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Canada, and Turkey. Data available
to the Agency indicates that petroleum coke has a positive market value of at least $20 per short
ton.
Comment 18: SEA contends that quench injection results in "undesirable" coke. Although SEA
continues to maintain that anode grade coke production and quench cycle coking are incompatible,
both Marathon and Texaco routinely practice quench cycle coking while producing anode quality
coke. (API, 1/23/98)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its submittal of addition information regarding
the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process and their effect upon the quality of
the coke product.
80 E.g., The Oil and Gas Journal, November 17, 1997, pp. 79-82. (Appended to
Attachment F). In addition, the Portland cement and electric utility industries have stated for the
record that they routinely use petroleum coke as a fuel, and anticipate a continued domestic
market for petroleum coke in the future.
June 29, 1998 11-97
-------
Il.B.2.d. Supplemental comments on clarification
Comment 1: API has reviewed the issue that has been raised regarding the proposed SWD
exclusion (40 CFR § 261.4(a)( 12)) for oil-bearing secondary materials, i.e., how the proposed
exclusion could affect the status of solid residuals generated by a unit processing secondary
materials for further use in the refining process. As API understands this concern, a commenter
believes that the proposed rule might be construed so that solid residuals generated by a unit (e.g.,
a centrifuge) which recovers oil from oil-bearing secondary materials excluded from the SWD
under proposed § 261.4(a)(12), would not be covered by a hazardous waste listing that would have
applied to the oil-bearing secondary material itself (e.g., K051, API Separator Sludge) but for the
applicability of the exclusion. Since this was not intended by the proposed exclusion, EPA is
considering clarifying that discarded solid residuals (as defined in 40 CFR § 261.2) from such a
unit or process are covered by the original listing that otherwise would have applied to the oil-
bearing secondary material.
API does not believe that the "loophole" suggested in Mr. Bussard's letter is a reasonable
construction of the proposed exclusion. Thus, API does not believe that any revision of the
exclusion is needed. However, if EPA in its judgment feels that clarification must be made, such
clarification can be provided in the preamble to the final rule (EPA's Option 1), with clear
examples of when a listing is applicable to such discarded solid residuals and when it is not. This
is EPA's simplest option, allowing the Agency to clarify the scope of the exclusion language,
while maintaining EPA's ability to meet its May 1998 deadline for promulgation of a final rule.
Further, preamble language clarifying the rule's intent would establish a reasonable,
contemporaneous interpretation that would support EPA's position in the event of a legal challenge
to the scope of the rule. In fact, preamble language typically has been deemed sufficient to uphold
the Agency's position in court.
API suggests that the following language be included in the preamble to the final rule:
"With today's rule, an exclusion from the definition of solid waste has been established for
oil-bearing secondary materials that are recycled in the refining process. EPA has
determined that reinserting these secondary materials is a beneficial recycling practice,
reducing waste volumes while recovering valuable oil to be used as a raw material in the
production of fuels or other petroleum products.
"One commenter has suggested that the existing language of this exclusion contains a
potential 'loophole' that would allow discarded materials generated by an oil recovery unit
(e.g., a centrifuge) to escape the hazardous waste listing that would otherwise apply in the
absence of the exclusion. This was never EPA's intent.
"It is true that EPA intended (and still intends) that the exclusion attach at the point of
'generation' of the oil-bearing residuals to be recycled. However, EPA did not intend for
June 29, 1998 11-98
-------
the exclusion to apply to the solid wastes that are discarded after completion of oil recovery
processes that precede insertion of the excluded materials into the refining process.
"As an example, API separator sludge that is simply disposed of is a solid waste and bears
the listed hazardous waste code K051. However, if the sludge from the separator is
destined for oil recovery in an oil recovery unit, it is neither a solid nor a hazardous waste
until after completion of oil recovery. The recovered oil and any other oil-bearing residuals
generated by the oil recovery unit that are destined for insertion into the refining process
(e.g., a coking unit) continue to be excluded under § 261.4(a)(12). However, after
completion of any oil recovery process preceding the insertion of an oil-bearing secondary
material into the refining process, any residual that is discarded (i.e., not destined itself for
reinsertion into the refining process, or, in the case of wastewaters, not discharged into the
wastewater treatment system), and is not otherwise excluded under the definition of solid
waste, is a solid and hazardous waste and bears the K051 waste code."
API urges the Agency to clarify the intent of the exclusion using preamble language. If, however,
EPA concludes that preamble language such as that furnished above is insufficient to close the
perceived "loophole," then API suggests amending the listing description for refining wastes. This
amendment would state that solid residuals remaining after completion of oil recovery that are not
reinserted into the refining process would bear the listing that would otherwise apply in the
absence of the exclusion. This language would be included as a new subsection (e) to
§ 261.30. Suggested language for this new subsection follows:
(e) Oil-bearing secondary materials that would be listed as hazardous wastes F037,
F038, K048, K049, K050, K051, or K052 [add new listings, if any], but for the exclusion in
§261.4(a)(12), are not solid or hazardous wastes if they meet the terms of §261.4(a)( 12);
provided, that any materials that remain after completion of oil recovery and that meet both
of the following conditions are solid and hazardous wastes and bear the listed waste codes
that would otherwise apply in the absence of the §261.4(a)(12) exclusion:
(1) the materials are not destined for insertion into the petroleum
refining process, or, in the case of wastewaters, are not discharged into the
wastewater treatment system; and
(2) the materials meet the definition of solid waste in §261.2, and are
not otherwise excluded from the definition of solid waste under any provision of
this Part. (API)
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its comment and input on this issue. In today's
final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing
secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-
inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed
prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the
refinery process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the hazardous waste listing. The Agency
June 29, 1998 11-99
-------
modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from the
processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include this
clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that there is a
requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials as
hazardous wastes.
Comment 2: NPRA understands the concern of the commenter identified in your letter that the
proposed exclusion could be construed to mean that the solid wastes resulting from the recovery of
oil from secondary oil-bearing residuals would not be covered by a hazardous waste listing that
would have applied to the secondary material itself, but for the proposed exclusion. NPRA agrees
with EPA that it was not the intention of the proposed exclusion to change the status of these
residues listed as hazardous waste.
Although NPRA believes that the proposed exclusion could be clarified in the preamble (Option 1)
to the rule, we agree with the Agency's suggested approach describing Option 3 that solid wastes
resulting from the recycling of EPA hazardous waste codes F037-38, K048-52 and any newly
listed wastes that are not reinserted into the petroleum refining process retain the hazardous waste
listing. Further, we agree with and support the suggested language for Option 3 that will be
included in the comments of the American Petroleum Institute (API).
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its comment and input on this issue. In today's
final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing
secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-
inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed
prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the
refinery process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the hazardous waste listing. The Agency
modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from the
processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include this
clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that there is a
requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials as
hazardous wastes.
Comment 3a: As EPA correctly observed, the proposed recycling exclusion as currently worded
could allow reclamation residues to escape RCRA regulation, since the listings may no longer
apply to the residues. Given the limited scope of the existing toxicity characteristic, and the
extensive resources devoted to listing the various wastes, this result would be both unprotective
and wasteful of Agency efforts. Moreover, EPA relies solely upon the listing process to regulate
sludges destined for reclamation, therefore if the reclamation residues themselves receive
subsequent reclamation, EPA may unknowingly lose jurisdiction over the subsequent reclamation
and reuse steps (and their residues) entirely.
The Agency identified three options for closing this apparent loophole. Under the first option,
EPA would merely include preamble language asserting RCRA jurisdiction over reclamation
June 29, 1998 11-100
-------
residuals not reinserted into the refinery process. Under option 2, a condition to the proposed reuse
exclusion would be added indicating the residuals not reinserted into the refining process must be
managed as a listed hazardous waste. Under option 3, EPA would modify the existing and new
listings to expressly include reclamation residuals not reinserted into the petroleum refining
process
EPA proposed option 3 as the clearest and most easily enforced option, and we agree. Option 1 is
a non-starter because authorized states are not necessarily bound by Agency guidance in preamble
form, and preamble statements are not reproduced in the CFR and thereby suffer from
communication lapses at the implementation level. As a general matter, the RCRA program
generally, and the recycling area particularly, suffers from excessive reliance on Agency letters,
memoranda, guidance, and preambles that are difficult to assimilate in a comprehensive manner
EPA should not unnecessarily contribute to this morass in the instant rulemaking.
Option 2 needlessly adds a layer of complexity for enforcement purposes, and is therefore less
desirable than option 3. Under option 2, the reclamation residuals may be regarded as exempt
from the point of generation unless and until the conditions are violated. Where a waste is shipped
from one refinery to another for reclamation and reinsertion into the refining process, but for some
reason the second refinery elects not to reclaim the waste and/or the reclamation residuals, it is
unclear when the violation of the conditional exclusion occurred for enforcement purposes and
who is responsible for any resulting non-compliance. In this context, the waste/residuals appear to
move in and out of the regulatory system, depending upon events yet to occur (i.e., final
disposition of the material). However, if the hazardous waste listing includes both the waste and
the reclamation residuals, it is clear the original generator bears the ultimate responsibility for the
management of the waste, given the scope of the underlying listing. This is where primary
responsibility for waste management belongs, with the party that first determines how the waste
will be managed.
Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for its comment and input on this issue. In today's
final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing
secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that are actually re-
inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed
prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the
refinery process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the hazardous waste listing. The Agency
modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from the
processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include this
clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that there is a
requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials as
hazardous wastes.
Comment 3b: Significantly, none of the proposed options are apparently intended to address
whether and under what circumstances the use of hazardous wastes in the coking quench process
constitutes legitimate recycling, and thus falls within the exempt "reinsertion into the refining
June 29, 1998 11-101
-------
process". In comments filed July 11, 1997, a host of issues were raised regarding this practice,
particularly since the exemption as proposed would apply to any "oil-bearing residual" without
regard to the actual oil content of the waste or its other physical or chemical properties.
Notwithstanding additional documents filed by the petroleum industry well after the close of the
comment period, EPA knows very little about the coking quench process, including important facts
related to the legitimacy determination. In the remainder of these comments, we will highlight
some of these important unknowns.
However, it must be noted from the outset that EPA should have fully investigated this practice
before proposing the coking exclusion almost two years ago. The lack of awareness then that
hazardous wastes were inserted for quenching purposes, coupled with the gaps in the Agency's
current knowledge two years later, is indicative of the lack of Agency effort scrutinizing, verifying,
and investigating the recycling issues in the instant rulemaking. EPA must undertake its own
inquiry into how the quench cycle process works; the types, quantities, and physical/chemical
characteristics of wastes that have been or may be employed for this purpose; and the economics
associated with this practice; rather than simply accept industry submissions at face value.
Response: EPA made its final decision regarding the exclusion from the definition of solid waste
for oil-bearing secondary materials generated and reused by petroleum refineries based upon a
measured assessment of information made available to the Agency. This included data and
information provided to the Agency by parties both supporting and opposing the proposed
exclusion, as well as information contained in available literature the Agency's own engineering
assessments and calculations.
Although it is the Agency's objective to fully investigate all the potential consequences of a
proposed Agency action, one purpose of the publishing a proposed rule and soliciting public
comment on the Agency's proposal is to obtain additional information that may bear additional
insight and/or result in a conclusion that the Agency must conduct additional analyses prior to
rendering a final decision. In the case of the Agency's proposed exclusion from the definition of
solid waste for certain oil-bearing secondary materials inserted into the petroleum refining process,
issues raised and information provided by commenters as a result of the proposed rulemaking did
supply the Agency with cause to revisit the proposed exclusion and conduct additional analyses.
Comment 3c: Existing Agency guidance exemplified by the April 26, 1989 Lowrance
Memorandum provides a list of factors that should be considered in a recycling legitimacy
determination. EPA lacks substantial information relevant to many of these factors, as illustrated
by the following questions and associated discussion in the footnote texts.
Is the Secondary Material Analogous to the Raw Material?
June 29, 1998 11-102
-------
1. What is the oil content of raw materials typically inserted into the coker as feedstocks? How
does this oil content compare to the range of 1-21% cited by Mobil as typical of hazardous wastes
used for quench cycle purposes, particularly at the lower end of that range?
2. If the hazardous wastes contain valuable hydrocarbon, why aren't they inserted into the coker
as feedstocks9 What other physical or chemical properties of the listed wastes differ from coker
feedstocks'7
3. The "recycling" that purportedly occurs in the coker quench process consists of oil recovered
and reprocessed at the refinery into transportation fuels, and the enhanced fuel value of the coke.
What percentage of the hydrocarbon used in the quench cycle is recovered and further processed at
the refinery, and how much remains in the coke? If this percentage is waste- dependent, what are
the factors that determine the relevant proportion, and what is the proportion for each waste
potentially eligible for the exclusion, particularly those wastes with higher boiling points and/or
low oil content? How do these rates compare with the reported 70% recovery rate for reprocessing
hydrocarbon at the refinery associated with coker feedstocks?
4. According to Mobil, it is recovering 125,000 barrels of crude oil equivalent through the
MOSC process at 5 refineries. How much of this crude oil equivalent includes oil recovered in the
centrifuge or other preparation steps preceding actual insertion into the coker for quench purposes,
and how much of this "equivalent" reflects purported increases in the fuel value of the coke itself?
Does the rate of crude oil equivalent recovered (for liquid fuel processing at the refinery)
attributable solely to the quench process differ depending upon whether the waste receives
pre-treatment prior to coker insertion, such as centrifugation or filtration? If yes, what factors
determine the recovery rate for wastes receiving pre-treatment?
Response: First, as stated previously, the oil content of the oil-bearing hazardous secondary
materials typically used in the quenching process ranges from 8% - 40%, although the typical
secondary materials have an oil content around 10%.81 Even at the lower end of that range, as
explained in earlier responses, it is clear, based on standard engineering principles relating to
hydrocarbon boiling points, that oil recovery of a light hydrocarbon fraction can and does occur in
quench coking, and that the recovery efficiency is comparable to that of conventional coking.
Therefore, the EPA does not believe that oil content per se is the determinative factor here. The
fact that most of the oil present is recovered as a light fraction at an efficiency equal to the
conventional coking is the more critical fact. (See 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8, 1988) noting that the so-
called sham recycling criteria are to be considered on a case-by-case basis with the weight given
any particular factor varying as appropriate under the circumstances; the same language appears in
the Lowrance Guidance Memorandum referred to by the commenter.)
81 See the September 3, 1997 letter from Kyle Isakower to Max Diaz and the January 9,
1998 letter from Richard Fortuna to Mike Shapiro.
June 29, 1998 11-103
-------
Second, the presence of water in the oil-bearing secondary materials (due to the fact that many are
recovered from wastewater treatment systems) precludes their insertion into the normal coking
process along with resid feedstock. This is because the temperatures in the coker along with the
manner in which it is operated (e.g., enclosed device) are incompatible with water, which would
produce potentially dangerous pressures as a result of the resultant water vapor.
Third, based on standard engineering principles relating to hydrocarbon boiling points,
temperatures experienced during the quench cycle, and the effect of lowered partial pressures due
to the presence of steam, oil recovery of a light hydrocarbon fraction can and does occur in quench
coking, and that the recovery efficiency (-70%) is comparable to that of conventional coking. The
recovery efficiency as a function of oil content was already addressed above. Regarding whether
recovery efficiency may be waste dependent, the Agency points out that the exclusion is limited to
oil-bearing materials generated at petroleum refineries, and it is data from these materials provided
by the industry that EPA found most persuasive (see earlier responses) while making its
assessment. The effect of higher boiling point hydrocarbons could result in a lower recovery
efficiency; however such characteristics are not consistent with the data the Agency relied upon in
making it's determination. However, should recovery efficiencies actually be significantly lower
than suggested by the data, due to differing feedstock characteristics or operating conditions, the
Agency would question the legitimacy of the activity.
Fourth, according to the information provided by the industry, it is desirable from an operations
standpoint to recover as much free oil as is practicable prior to the MOSC (quench coking) process.
However, the 125,000 barrels of crude oil equivalent referred to by the commenter appears to
include oil recovered in the preparation steps as well as oil recovered in the MOSC process. The
Agency does not believe the hydrocarbon recovery efficiency in the quench process (-70%)
(calculated based on documented boiling point ranges and simulations using actual refinery-
generated secondary materials at temperatures experienced in the coker, 600 - 800 degrees F),
would depend upon the amount of de-oiling prior to coker insertion. The manner in which
recovery efficiency is calculated in simulations submitted by industry is a function of the boiling
point range of the hydrocarbons present, and the documented temperatures that exist during the
quench process.
As noted earlier, the Agency does not believe that a direct comparison of quench coking with
conventional coking is the most germane comparison for determining sufficient oil content to
judge the legitimacy of reusing secondary materials. The quench coking process exists to recover
hydrocarbons which are not amenable to conventional coking. Hence the fact that the feed to
quench coking is lower in oil content is not determinative of whether quenching is a legitimate
recovery process. As explained in earlier responses, however, it is clear, based on standard
engineering principles relating to hydrocarbon boiling points, that oil recovery of a light
hydrocarbon fraction can and does occur in quench coking, and that the recovery efficiency is
comparable to that of conventional coking.
June 29, 1998 11-104
-------
The petroleum refining process is a continual hydrocarbon recovery process. Different steps in the
process recover hydrocarbons differently. The refinery processes and operating procedures are
designed to separate and process into products as much hydrocarbon as possible from the crude oil
feedstock,; in other words, to prevent as much oil from making its way into these secondary
materials as possible. The oil that does make its way into these secondary materials is generally
considered unavoidable and inevitable, or in some cases, too much oil in these secondary materials
is evidence of a problem with some aspect of the overall refining process or of the wastewater
treatment system. These same factors also explain to some degree the variability in the oil content
of secondary materials used for quench coking: the same materials are used but the oil content
varies depending on the daily efficiencies of the refining process and wastewater treatment system.
The coking process is designed to remove additional hydrocarbons from materials that have a
higher solids content. Placing oil-bearing secondary materials that contain high solids content in
the initial primary petroleum refining processing steps with crude oil feedstocks could harm that
part of the production process that is not designed to recover hydrocarbons from oil-bearing
secondary materials. However, the Agency does not believe that the premise that oil-bearing
secondary materials cannot be inserted into the initial stages of production process is sufficient for
determining whether or not the secondary materials maybe legitimately reused when returned to
other parts of the production process.
As with other side streams generated by one process and used as feedstocks to other production
processes, conventional and quench coking operations constitute a link in the multi-step chain of
processing steps designed to recover as much of the hydrocarbon value from the original crude oil
feedstock as possible. Thus, there are arguably aspects of this activity that lead one to conclude
that the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials used in the quenching process can be
considered, for regulatory purposes, as part of an on-going production process and hence classified
as an activity not subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
The Agency is assured that use of hazardous secondary materials in the quenching process is a
legitimate activity warranting an exclusion from the definition of solid waste. The primary
purpose of the activity is the recovery of the remaining hydrocarbon values in the oil-bearing
secondary materials (with the addition of carbon and energy value to the co-product coke), using
the existing heat energy contained in the coke product after the conventional coking process.
Comment 3d:
How Much Value Does the Quenching Process Add?
1. Where the hydrocarbon is not recovered and processed at the refinery, what is the value
added to the petroleum coke of the hydrocarbon remaining in the coke? Is the price of petroleum
coke higher as a result of using hazardous wastes in the quench cycle? Is there any documentation
to this effect9
June 29, 1998 11-105
-------
2. Is the potential value added to the coke waste-dependent as well, and upon what factors does
it depend9 Can some oil-bearing residuals actually detract from the value of the coke by
contributing to a higher ash content?
3. Are the hazardous wastes inserted into the coker for cooling purposes as safe and effective a
coolant as water9
Response: In evaluating whether the use of oil-bearing secondary materials in the quenching
process provides a beneficial contribution to the coke product or process, the Agency notes that the
main purpose of the petroleum coking unit is to recover hydrocarbons from the oil contained in the
feedstocks for further refining. Similarly, the main purpose of using the secondary materials in the
quenching process is the energy-efficient recovery of hydrocarbon from the residual oil in the oil-
bearing secondary materials. Concerning the issue of net contribution to the coke product (i.e.,
added energy value v. added ash content), the petroleum industry maintains that the additional ash
content is insignificant and points to the amount of coke product produced per cycle (ranging from
about 400 to 800 tons) that would be endangered if the ash content (as well as the VCM level)
contributed during the quenching process was sufficient to lower the value or marketability of the
coke product. Based upon data provided to the Agency by the petroleum refining industry, the
Agency notes that coke product produced using hazardous secondary materials in the quenching
process is not significantly different from coke produced without using secondary materials in the
quenching process. Further, EPA notes that anode-grade coke, the most high-valued coke with the
most stringent product specifications, can be produced using these secondary materials in the
quenching process. Given that the recovered hydrocarbon is the primary product of using the
secondary materials in the quenching process, the simple fact that the coke product (i.e., the co-
product) continues to meet the applicable product specifications and shows no appreciable increase
in risk carries more weight in the Agency's evaluation. Thus, evaluation of contribution or non-
contribution to the coke product is not the sole relevant inquiry, or even the principal one.
Regarding the comparisons of secondary materials with cooling water, the cooling water serves to
quench the coke bed. The Agency does not view the secondary materials as a substitute for quench
water. However, the quench water also provides the means by which these materials are conveyed
into the coker to take advantage of the latent heat present. EPA also found persuasive industry's
arguments that the steam produced from the cooling water during the quench process also provides
additional recovery of light ends in a manner similar to "steam stripping" of organics.
(See 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8, 1988) noting that the so-called sham recycling criteria are to be
considered on a case-by-case basis with the weight given any particular factor varying as
appropriate under the circumstances; the same language appears in the Lowrance Guidance
Memorandum referred to by the commenter.)
Comment 3e: Is There a Guaranteed Market for the End Product?
June 29, 1998 11-106
-------
1. Is the market for quench-derived petroleum coke any different from the broader petroleum
coke market?
2. If not, why is the majority of petroleum coke shipped overseas if its such a valuable fuel9
How will the foreign market demand change if and when the countries receiving the coke tighten
their air emission standards9
3. What effect, if any, will the new paniculate standards and upcoming global warming
initiatives have on the domestic and foreign use of petroleum coke9
4. Perhaps most importantly, are there relevant industry specifications that would prevent sham
recycling?
5. Are adequate records kept regarding the quench cycle process and petroleum coke
purchases9
Response: EPA could not find any information supporting the notion that there are distinct
markets for coke produced when secondary materials are introduced into the quench, versus when
they are not. Information submitted by industry supported their assertion that coke made with
secondary materials used in the quench cycle is not significantly different from coke made without
using secondary materials in the quench cycle.
Regarding exports of petroleum coke, the Agency did not perform detailed market analyses of the
petroleum coke market. Information submitted in comments suggests that U.S. petroleum coke
production is increasing faster (due to heavier crude slates) than the number of domestic users.82
The Agency did not assess the effect of the new particulate standards or global warming initiatives
as part of this rulemaking. While obviously important, EPA does not regard these questions as
negating any of the analysis as to whether the quench cycle — which produces petroleum coke
identical to the coke from conventional petroleum coking — should be viewed as part of petroleum
refining.
Regarding sham recycling, see responses to previous comments regarding industry specifications
relevant to petroleum coke, and the Agency's assertion that the principle consideration overall is
the legitimate light-end hydrocarbon recovery.
Regarding adequate records, the Agency did not require any recordkeeping in today's rulemaking
for the exclusion for oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials, beyond the existing requirement
that respondents in enforcement actions must be able to document claims regarding recycling. (40
CFR 261.2(f)).
*2Oil and Gas Journal, November 10, 1997, pp. 79-82.
June 29, 1998 11-107
-------
In general, clearly there is a well-established end market for the petroleum coke. However, more
importantly, as previously mentioned, the quenching process recovers petroleum as a light fraction;
it does not just generate coke. Thus, evaluation of contribution or non-contribution to the coke
product is not the sole relevant inquiry, or even the principal one.
Comment 3f:
What are the Economics of the Recycling Process?
1. Which oil-bearing residuals at the refinery are chosen for insertion in the quench cycle, and
on what basis are they selected?
2. If the amount of hydrocarbon recovered for processing at the refinery is waste-dependent,
isn't the economic value of the quench cycle process also waste-dependent since the value of the
coke itself is very small or non-existent?
3. Did the use of hazardous waste in the quench cycle increase significantly in response to the
F037 and F038 listings in 1990 and/or the onset of the RCRA LDR program?
4. When one refiner ships waste to another refiner for use in the coking quench process, what
are the economics of the transaction? Who is paying who, and how much? If the refineries are
part of the same company, how is the internal cost accounting handled between plants? (EOF,
L0009)
Response:
Information from the industry indicates that both hazardous and non-hazardous oil-bearing
secondary materials have been used in the quench process. The Agency cannot comment directly
on the basis for selecting which oil-bearing residuals are "chosen" for insertion in the quench
cycle, as these determinations are made by the refineries themselves based on site specific factors.
Regarding the possible trends in use of quench coking, see earlier response to comment 2c in
Section II.b.2.c. of this document.
(See 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8, 1988) noting that the so-called sham recycling criteria are to be
considered on a case-by-case basis with the weight given any particular factor varying as
appropriate under the circumstances; the same language appears in the Lowrance Guidance
Memorandum referred to by the commenter.)
Comment 4: The October 1, 1997 letter makes a necessary and important clarification to the
scope of the proposed rulemaking. However, in light of the refining industry's garbage-can-
approach to waste recycling through the practice of dispersion of waste by quench, the industry's
June 29, 1998 11-108
-------
record for reporting violations, and the vast variations in "oil-bearing" wastes generated by the 13
enumerated SIC codes, the Proposed Rule is still overly broad and fraught with pitfalls and
loopholes. Unless clarified to apply to recycling residuals disposed of into the quench, the October
1 modifications, even if executed through Option 3, are insufficient to rectify the other structural
deficiencies and the environmental and technology disincentives created by the proposal. The
following summarizes general comments and concerns with the new proposed petroleum refining
waste listing.
• Allowing reinsertion of any waste that contains any oil-bearing secondary material is an
invitation to disaster and by virtue of failing to specify whether any minimum oil content is
required in the hazardous oil-bearing secondary material.
• There are no specifications for wastes qualifying for this recycling exemption.
• The proposal allows the establishment of virtually unregulated commercial recycling facilities
on and off the petroleum refinery sites, while requiring that other RCRA commercial facilities
must meet the most stringent waste management standards in existence.
• How will the Agency even monitor for "speculative accumulation?" What records are required
to demonstrate the date a waste was initially stored9 What is "feed stock-like" in terms of
original oil content?
Response: Under section 261.2 (f), persons storing excluded materials have the burden of
demonstrating (in an enforcement action) that they are meeting the terms of the exclusion.
Refineries consequently must be able to demonstrate the duration of storage of all secondary
materials which are excluded (including, but not limited to, those processed by quench coking).
The rule does not specify a particular record-keeping regime in order to provide flexibility for each
facility to be able to demonstrate that there is no speculative accumulation in a manner best fitting
the facility's operating practices. (EPA notes that there is no explicit recordkeeping requirement
for any other industry managing excluded secondary materials either.)
The Agency is unclear what the commenter refers to regarding the term "feed stock-like" and
"original oil content". The final rule recognizes the continued extraction of hydrocarbon values
from in-process refinery materials, some of which may be considered "feedstocks," but this rule
does not specify a specific oil content for those materials. The definition of "recovered oil" in 40
CFR261.4(a)(12)(ii) does imply that this material is mostly "oil"; however the Agency believes
recovered oil will be inserted into refinery units other than quench-coking because it is directly
amenable to refining.
Comment 4 (cont'd):
• As written, this proposal effectively allows petroleum coke permeated with hazardous metals
and other substances to escape classification as "solid waste," petroleum coke may be shipped
to other countries in violation of RCRA and other applicable hazardous waste treaties and
conventions.
June 29, 1998 11-109
-------
• Jurisdictional exclusion of oil-bearing materials creates the opportunity for loophole non-
RCRA regulated facilities outside refineries that receive and process hazardous waste prior to
shipment for insertion into refineries.
• Jurisdictional exclusion of oil-bearing materials undermines tracking and storage requirements
for enforcement of RCRA regulations governing the mis-handling of hazardous wastes.
Response: The Agency is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's
rule be returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are
recycled on site, EPA shares the commenter's concerns about situations where these materials are
generated at one refinery for insertion into another, but are instead processed at an intermediate,
non-refinery facility. In cases where materials generated at one petroleum refinery are to be
recycled at another refinery, EPA has added to the regulatory text of the exclusion that these
secondary materials must be sent "directly to" another petroleum refinery.
Comment 4 (cont'd):
Specific Comments on the Policies Proposed in the October 1, 1997 Letter
The October 1, 1997 letter seeks additional comment on the proper way to clarify the regulatory
status of residuals that result from the insertion of oil-bearing hazardous materials into the refining
process. EPA proposes three different options of which we believe only the third would provide
for an acceptable enforceable situation. That is, to change the listing description for refining waste
to include any residuals from the processing of listed waste.
Based on staff discussions on October 31, 1997, it appears that the language of the October 1, 1997
letter to add to the listing description for F & K wastes "any residuals from the processing of listed
wastes" is not necessarily limited to those residuals that are merely land applied or stored on the
ground. We support the October 1 language change as reflected in Option 3. However, the
language of the regulation must also be clarified and interpreted to include the vast majority of
such "petroleum refining residuals" that are slurried with water and merely re-injected, ostensibly
as quench/cooling water. Finally, the language must be clarified to prohibit unpermitted
commercial recycling operations at refinery sites and prohibit waste acceptance from outside of the
refinery.
Quench-side coking, just as any other recycling practice, must meet the legitimacy/Sham
Recycling Criteria in order to be considered a valid recycling practice. We believe the evidence
shows (see Section III of response to October 1st letter) that the vast majority of these practices are
nothing more than Sham Recycling. In other words, quench-side coking practices today do not
legitimately meet the Sham Recycling Criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
June 29, 1998 11-110
-------
In conclusion, unless the Agency includes recycling residuals disposed of into the quench within
the meaning of "any residuals from the processing of listed wastes" as per Option 3, it will not
only ensure that the coker will become the omnibus and unregulated "trash can" for petroleum
industry wastes, it will also be an open invitation to waste generators to claim that their hazardous
wastes contains enough oil to be deemed "oil-bearing secondary material" qualifying for this
unprecedented and unqualified exclusion.
Secondly, if the Agency truly seeks to establish incentives for technological alternatives to
landfilling and incineration wants to encourage proper recycling, and recover the maximum
petroleum values for use here at home, then it should require full and proper treatment of the LDR
constituents contained in these petroleum wastes, which in turn would encourage the use of proper
recycling technologies such as gasification and desorption, both of which are being used at only a
handful of refining sites today. By doing so it will maximize the fuel and energy value return to
this country by producing high grade fuels that can be used to produce additional gasoline, heating
fuel, etc. Rather than encourage the use of quench-side coking, which at best is 20% efficient at
recovering petroleum values, it should encourage the use of high recovery technology, such as
desorption and gasification, which converts nearly 100% of the remaining petroleum values to
recoverable petroleum units for use in the U.S., not as petroleum coke for export. Irrespective of
whether the Agency's aim is to recover petroleum values, or to protect public health, neither are
served in the least by encouraging the addition of hazardous waste to the world's dirtiest fuel,
petroleum coke. In conclusion, the Proposed Listing Rule will:
• Exacerbate the current practice of dispersion of hazardous waste into fuel coke. This practice
provides for the release of TCLP-UTS listed metals and PAH's into the environment under the
guise of recycling;
• Create a new class of hazardous waste disposal facilities that is unchecked by RCRA controls
and, therefore, competes unfairly with RCRA compliant commercial facilities;
Response: The Agency disagrees that this activity is "disposal;" rather, it is the recovery of
vestigial hydrocarbons in a process that is not part of the waste disposal problem.
Comment 4 (cont'd):
• Cloud enforcement issues and creates double standards regarding the transportation and storage
of hazardous wastes for any hazardous waste that contains de minimis quantities of oil and was
generated by the petroleum industry;
• Punish facilities that have been RCRA compliant and rewards refiners that operate non-RCRA
compliant facilities;
• Undermine the growth and development of responsible recycling technologies and practices.
June 29, 1998 11-111
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
In short, the Agency has two courses it can follow: finalize the rule as proposed and stimulate
unregulated production of the world's dirtiest fuel so it can be shipped to Ghana; or it can modify
the proposal in accordance with our recommendations which will stimulate the growth of currently
available technology to safely remove metals and other toxics while maximizing the recovery of
quality hydrocarbon values for use at home.
We recommend the following modifications to the policy and language of the recycling provisions
of the proposed Petroleum Listing Rule:
• Include petroleum recycling residuals introduced into the quench under the definition of
"residuals from the processing of listed waste" for purposes of Option 3, and thereby prohibited
from being introduced to the quench unless they meet one of the two following criteria: 1) the
petroleum values of the materials being introduced are comparable to that of crude oil
feedstocks (i.e., 90% oil or greater) and; 2) that the rates of recovery of petroleum values in the
quench is comparable to that of the recovery rate from crude oil distillation itself (i.e., 90% or
greater) exclusive of whatever residuals are deposited into the coke product itself;
• Apply these same principles to other insertion points and "feedstocks;"
• Withhold issuance of the Proposed Rule until "feedstock-like" and "normal process streams"
can be defined and minimal storage, tracking, acceptance and reporting requirements can be
developed;
• Prohibit the acceptance and introduction of petroleum wastes into the coker from facilities
other than the ones at which the waste was generated, unless a RCRA permit has been
obtained. This is to ensure that any facility that engages in commercial acceptance of a
potentially broad array of wastes complies with the basic public health and environmental
protections that the Agency has established for any such commercial facility. The Agency has
established many preventive measures that are necessary for commercial hazardous waste
facilities, this includes: waste analysis, air emission controls, containment, storage,
runon/runoff controls, waste compatibility analysis, record keeping and residue analysis, as
well as proper residue management. Given the breadth and of the proposed exclusion (i.e.,
"any hazardous oil bearing secondary material... introduced into any aspect of the refining
process...") such a limitation is absolutely necessary unless the Agency seeks to establish
petroleum refineries as the new locality of unregulated commercial operations;
• Promulgate regulations that encourage rather than discourage the development of responsible
recycling technologies and practices that recycle hydrocarbon to hydrocarbon, water to water
and solids to solids rather than metals and dirt to fuel. Accomplish this goal by imposing
standards for ash and Btu content for wastes recycled into fuel;
June 29, 1998 11-112
-------
• Consult with the enforcement arms of Region VI and NEIC before proceeding with this
rulemaking to determine how those enforcement initiatives may be compromised by an
exclusion that effectively deregulates the petroleum industry;
• Modify the proposed revision to 40 CFR §261.4(a)(12) to ensure that the exclusion will apply
only when legitimate, as opposed to sham, recycling is occurring. The Agency must expressly
state that this revised rule is in no way intended to create an exception from the established
Sham Recycling Criteria and that, indeed, any person attempting to qualify under the new rule
will be subject to a full showing under the Sham Recycling Criteria. (SEA, LOO 10, 0015)
Response: In today's final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste
for oil-bearing secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to secondary
materials generated by the petroleum refining sector and only to materials that are actually re-
inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials are reclaimed
prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not returned to the
refinery process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the original hazardous waste listing. The
Agency modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result from
the processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to include
this clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure that
there is a requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials
as hazardous wastes.
Data available to Agency indicate that hydrocarbons are recovered from oil-bearing secondary
materials when these materials are fed to the coker, including when these materials are fed into the
coker with the quench cycle. In addition, data indicate that there are recoverable levels of oil in
sludges generated by petroleum refineries and typically fed into the coker. The metals levels in
sludges typically fed into the coker (e.g., sludges bearing hazardous waste codes K048-K052) are,
for the most part, comparable to the concentration of metals in normal refinery feedstocks.
Although the levels of lead and chromium in these sludges may be higher than normal petroleum
feedstocks, the concentrations of these two metals in petroleum sludges are expected to decrease
due to changes in the petroleum production process. The NESHAPS standards promulgated under
the Clean Air Act will result in chromium no longer being used in cooling towers. Therefore, the
principal source of chromium contaminants in the production process will no longer exist. Lead
levels in petroleum sludges will continue to decline due to the phasing out of leaded gasoline as a
product line.
Finally, analyses conducted by EPA confirm that the final coke product is basically unchanged by
the use of hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials in the coking process. In addition, the final
exclusion from the definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials generated at
petroleum refineries and returned to the refinery process is conditioned on there being no
speculative accumulation of the materials, on the materials not being placed on the land prior to
reuse and stored in a manner to minimize loss. The reuse of the secondary materials in the refinery
June 29, 1998 11-113
-------
process must not result in the coke product exhibiting any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
Under the definition of speculative accumulation in 40 CFR 261 l(a)(8), a material is speculatively
accumulated if: (1) it is accumulated for recycling but no recycling market exists, or (2) 75 percent
of the material is not recycled within a calendar year. The 75 percent criteria is assessed on a
calendar year, so an initial inventory must be made on January 1 of each year, and subsequently
calculated on December 31 of each year. Persons accumulating secondary materials that are
exempt from the definition of solid waste have the burden of proving that there is a feasible means
of recycling the material. In addition, the persons accumulating secondary materials have the
burden of proving that sufficient amounts of the secondary materials are recycled within a calendar
year.
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of the exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911). The Agency
is basing its decision not to exclude these secondary materials from the definition of solid waste on
the fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic content
of the materials. In fact, the Agency has no information on which to base a finding that the use of
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials originating in a non-refinery sector of the petroleum
refining industry in the coking process would be anything other than the management of wastes
(e.g., hazardous waste recycling) from that non-refinery sector. Oil-bearing secondary materials
originating from non-refinery sectors have the potential to be more waste-like and thus do not
warrant an exclusion, especially if their ultimate use is in the quenching process.
The Agency also is requiring that the materials excluded under this provision of today's rule be
returned directly to a refinery for insertion. While this is not an issue if materials are recycled on
site, EPA has concerns about situations where these materials are generated at one refinery for
insertion into another, but instead end up at an intermediate non-refinery facility. In cases where
materials generated at one petroleum refinery are to be recycled at another refinery, to meet the
conditions of the exclusion the materials must be located either at the generating refinery, at the
receiving refinery, or must otherwise be in transit between the two facilities. This is consistent
with the argument that the exclusion is provided on the basis that the secondary materials are being
used within the realm of on-going production in the petroleum refining sector.
Also see response to comment 2 above.
Comment 5: Amoco does not believe that revision of the proposed exclusion is necessary. Amoco
does not believe that the "loophole" suggested in Mr. Bussard's letter is a reasonable construction
of the proposed exclusion. Thus, no revision of the exclusion is needed to close it.
Amoco prefers modification of the preamble to clarify the intent of the proposed exclusion. If
EPA in its judgement feels that clarification must be made, such clarification can be provided in
June 29, 1998 11-114
-------
the preamble to the final rule (EPA's Option 1), with clear examples of when listing is applicable
to such discarded solid wastes and when it is not.
Modification of the listing description for refining wastes should not jeopardize the ability of the
refineries to continue to send refining residuals for use/recycle by second party operations. The
Amoco Mandant Refinery currently send filter cake, generated by filter pressing API separator
sludge, to the Dakota Gasification Company's (DGC) Great Plains Synfuels Plant for recycling
under a RCRA treatability. Amoco requests that this operation not be jeopardized by the Agency's
efforts to close a "loophole." Further, Amoco requests that modifications to the listing description
not preclude state approval of this practice once the treatability study is complete.
Amoco Mandant Refinery urges the Agency to consider including additional "refining processes"
as receptors of oil-bearing secondary materials excluded from the SWD. Specifically, the Agency
is urged to exempt oil-bearing refining residuals from the SWD if they are recycled to a refining
process, where such process may be a secondary party coker or coal gasifier. Amoco would like to
see such recycling recognized as equivalent to reinsertion in the refining process from the
standpoint of exempting this material from hazardous waste listing.
EPA should consider coal gasification to be an equivalent refinery process. There is no practical
difference, other than the location of the operation, between sending filter cake to a coker on the
refinery or to a second party gasifier. In both cases, the filter cake is being used as a substitute for
the normal carbon source feed stock (heavy oil for the coker, lignite for the gasifier). In both cases
the organics in the filter cake are undergoing chemical transformation to yield useful products
(gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel from the coker, methane, phenol, cresylic acid and ammonia
from the gasifier), similar to organic compounds from the normal feed stocks. In fact, in some
U.S. refineries a gasifier is considered to be a refinery operation. Neither ownership nor location
of a gasifier impacts the environmental benefit of recycling filter cake to the gasification process
Gasification should be considered to be (or to be equivalent to) a refining process.
EPA should consider proximity benefits in including coal gasification as an equivalent refinery
process. The Mandant Refinery does not have a coker. While the Mandant Refinery could ship
filter cake to a coker at another Amoco refinery, the nearest is one thousand miles away from
Mandant. In contrast, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant is 80 miles from the refinery. By recycling
filter cake in the coal gasifier, rather than in an Amoco-owned coker, fuel consumption (and
resultant vehicle emissions) to transport the material is significantly decreased, as is the potential
exposure of the public.
Amoco wishes to emphasize that insertion of petroleum refining residuals in the coal gasification
process is an environmentally sound method of turning potential waste materials into useful
products. The Agency is urged to take advantage of a legitimate recycling opportunity by
recognizing gasification as an equivalent refinery process for the purposes of the proposed
exclusion. (Amoco, L0011)
June 29, 1998 11-115
-------
Response: In today's final rule, EPA clarifies that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste
for oil-bearing secondary materials returned to the refining process only extends to materials that
are actually re.-inserted into the refinery process. In cases where oil-bearing secondary materials
are reclaimed prior to re-insertion, any residuals that may result from reclamation which are not
returned to the refinery process, and therefore may be discarded, retain the hazardous waste listing.
The Agency modified the proposed listing description for F037 to include any residuals that result
from the processing of listed hazardous wastes that will be disposed. The Agency decided to
include this clarification within the regulatory language so that the rules are explicit and to ensure
that there is a requirement to manage residuals from the reclamation of hazardous secondary
materials as hazardous wastes.
The commenter's request that the Agency consider including additional "refining processes" (e.g.,
coal gasification) as receptors of oil-bearing secondary materials within the exclusion from the
definition of solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials is beyond the scope of the current
rulemaking. However, the Agency is considering the merits of an exclusion from the definition of
solid waste for oil-bearing secondary materials returned to gasification processes, in a recently
published Notice of Data Availability.
EPA clarifies that the Agency is not including within the scope of today's exclusion oil-bearing
secondary materials generated outside the petroleum refining sector (i.e., SIC 2911) or re-inserted
into any other processes other than the petroleum refining processes. The Agency is basing its
decision not to expand the exclusion further or to additional secondary materials at this time on the
fact that EPA has very limited data from industry demonstrating the chemical and toxic content of
the materials. In addition, the Agency does not have sufficient information at this time to evaluate
the use of refinery residuals in other off-site or non-refinery processes.
June 29, 1998 III-l
-------
III. Land Disposal Restrictions - Revised Treatment Standards for Spent Catalysts
from Hydrotreating (K171) and Hydrorefining (K172)
Comment 1: Proposed Revisions to the UTS Standards
As explained in the Federal Register notice, EPA proposes to revise the present UTS
nonwastewater TCLP leachate values for antimony, nickel, and vanadium as follows:
The UTS for antimony would be decreased from 2.1 mg/1 to 0.07 mg/1;
• The UTS for nickel would be increased from 5.0 mg/1 to 13.6 mg/1; and
• The UTS for vanadium would be increased from 0.23 mg/1 to 1.6 mg/1.
In each case, the proposed standard reflects the higher of the stabilization-based or HTMR-based
calculations. The proposed standards for antimony and vanadium are based on data from
stabilization processes (which produced a higher UTS level than the HTMR data), while the
proposed standard for nickel is based on grab sample data from INMETCO.83 Having reviewed the
data, we believe EPA has properly applied its BOAT methodology to calculate the proposed
revisions to the three standards.
While the proposed changes to the antimony and vanadium standards reflect stabilization data, we
believe they can be met by INMETCO's HTMR process as well. Accordingly, based on the data
made available thus far, we support the new values for antimony and vanadium. We caution,
however, that the proposed revisions do not reflect grab sample data from another HTMR
operation which may submit such data within the next few months. See 62 FR 26041, 26047-
26048 (May 12, 1997). It is possible that data from that HTMR process may support a higher
standard for one or both of these metals. . . .
. . .In sum, we believe the revised UTS standards that EPA has proposed for antimony, nickel, and
vanadium are supported by the underlying data and are achievable by both major treatment
technologies. Unless data from another HTMR process support a higher standard for one or more
of these metals, the standards should be adopted as proposed. (INMETCO, 00003, pg 2)
Response: The Agency concurs with the commenters and also believes the BOAT methodology
has been properly applied to the available data to calculate the revised treatment standards, and that
the levels are achievable by both major treatment technologies. Based on data submitted in the
Phase IV rulemaking for nonwastewaters the treatment level for antimony is finalized at 1.15 mg/L
TCLP, the treatment level for nickel is finalized at 11.0 mg/L TCLP, and the treatment standard for
"See March 19, 1997 Memorandum to Anita Cummings from Howard Finkel,
Attachment 5 (Docket item PRA-S0022 in this proceeding).
June 29, 1998 111-2
-------
the vanadium, which is applicable only to K061, K171 and K172 as a constituent of concern in
these wastes, is finalized at 1.6 mg/L TCLP. The Agency is therefore promulgating these
standards consistent with the levels finalized in the Phase Four Rulemaking. All other standards
are promulgated as proposed.
Comment 2: Both the existing and the proposed UTS values for nickel are based on sampling
data for the slag produced by INMETCO's HTMR process. The present UTS level of 5.0 mg/1
reflects INMETCO's monthly composite slag sampling data, while the proposed value of 13.6 mg/1
reflects grab sampling data for INMETCO's slag. Because "grab samples normally reflect
maximum process variability,"84 a grab sample-based standard calculated in accordance with EPA's
BOAT methodology ordinarily will be higher than a standard based on composite sampling data.
Thus, the fact that the proposed grab sample-based UTS value for nickel exceeds the old
composite-based value is as expected. Since EPA wishes to determine compliance with UTS
standards on the basis of grab sampling,85 the proposed revision in the UTS level for nickel is
appropriate.
If it were based on the stabilization data considered by EPA, the proposed standard for nickel
would be lower. However, EPA's BOAT methodology quite properly sets the UTS/BDAT
standard at the higher of the HTMR-based or stabilization-based level.86 This is particularly
appropriate with respect to nickel because HTMR is the "best" treatment technology for metals: It
is the most matrix-independent; it recovers valuable resources; it decreases the amount of waste
sent for land disposal; it incorporates metals that are not recovered in a stable slag matrix; and it
saves energy and pollution by reducing the need to process virgin ore.87 INMETCO, for example,
recovers and returns to commerce approximately 96% of the nickel present in the secondary
materials entering its pyrometallurgical furnaces. If, instead, these materials were stabilized and
landfilled, all of this nickel would be buried in the ground rather than being reused productively.
Furthermore, the stabilization data considered by EPA in this proceeding reflect the treatment of
wastes having a very low nickel content and very low nickel TCLP influent values.88 By contrast,
84See 62 FR 26041, 26047/1 (May 12, 1997).
85See id.
86See 62 FR at 26045/2.
87See Memorandum to the Record from Elaine Eby and Anita Cummings (Item S0010 in
Docket F-97-2P4P-FFFFF); Proposed BOAT Background Document for Toxicity Characteristic
Metal Wastes D004-D011, July 26, 1995 (Item S0003 in Docket F-97-2P4P-FFFFF) at 3-5 & 3-
6.
88Nickel was not among the primary constituents of any of the stabilization waste streams
considered by EPA, and the mean nickel TCLP value in the "raw" stabilization waste streams
was only 0.7925 mg/1. See March 19, 1997 Memorandum to Anita Cummings from Howard
Finkel (Item S0022 in Docket F-97-PRA-FFFFF), Waste Stream Identifier Table and Attachment
1.
June 29, 1998 III-3
-------
nickel is a primary constituent in the secondary materials processed by INMETCO. The nickel
TCLP levels for many of these materials are orders of magnitude higher than the TCLP levels for
the wastestreams represented in EPA's stabilization database.89 It is not surprising, therefore, that
INMETCO's HTMR data (reflecting the processing of high-nickel materials) produces a higher
UTS/BDAT standard than the stabilization data (reflecting the treatment of wastestreams having a
very low nickel content). ([NMETCO, 00003, pg 2)
Response: The Agency is finalizing the treatment level for nickel at 11.0 mg/L, which is slightly
lower than the level proposed and referenced by the commenter. See response to comment 1 for
the Agency's decision to finalize the treatment level for nickel at 11.0 mg/L.
"'Secondary materials processed by INMETCO may have TCLP levels in excess of 1,000
mg/1, compared to the average of less than 1.0 mg/1 in the stabilization waste streams considered
by EPA.
June 29, 1998 III-4
-------
IV. Other Comments
IV.A. Conditional Listings
Comment la: EPA Should Utilize Conditional Listings If Any of the Proposed Residuals Are
Listed
If EPA disregards the foregoing and decides that there is adequate support in the record for listing
CSO sediment or spent hydroprocessing catalysts under some circumstances, EPA should only list
the affected residual in those specific circumstances, using conditional listings or the concept of
"contingent management." To conform to the principles established in Dithiocarhamate Task
Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the Agency should list residuals as hazardous only
where they are managed in a manner shown to pose substantial risks. (Mobil, 00002)
Response: The Agency has decided not to proceed with a conditional listing for CSO sediment.
This is discussed in response to comment 1 in Section V.A. of the proposed rule response to
comment document. EPA also does not think the spent catalysts are good candidates for
conditional listing either; this issue is discussed in response to comment 1 in Section V.H. of the
proposed rule response to comment.
Comment Ib. If EPA Lists CSO Sediment. It Should Only List CSO Sediment That Is Subject To
Land Treatment.
On the basis of population risk, CSO sediment does not pose substantial risk under any
management scenario. Even if negligible population risks are ignored and only individual risks
considered, EPA's risk assessments suggest that CSO tank sediment only rises to a potential level
of concern when managed in land treatment units. Therefore, if listed, EPA should list CSO
sediment only where it is land treated. EPA should not list CSO sediment disposed of in landfills.
EPA's own contingent risk assessment for landfilling CSO sediment indicates that potential
individual risks are well below concern thresholds, even with the generally conservative
assumptions used. (Mobil, 00002)
Response: See response to comment 1 in Section V.A. of the proposed rule response to comment
document.
Comment Ic. If EPA Lists Spent Hydroprocessing Catalysts. It Should Only List
Hydroprocessing Catalysts That Are Land Disposed
Negligible population risks suggest there is no sound basis on which to find that spent
hydroprocessing catalysts pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment. EPA's
individual risk assessment projected substantial risks only from disposal of hydrotreating and
hydrorefming catalysts in landfills. While EPA did not perform a formal risk assessment of
hydroprocessing catalyst recycling/metals reclamation, EPA did conclude that "based on EPA's
June 29, 1998 IV-1
-------
preliminary review of [the metals reclamation] industry, the spent catalysts appear to be managed
and processed in a way that controls risks." USEPA, Listing Background Document for the 1992-
1996 Petroleum Refining Listing Determination at 79 (Oct. 31, 1995).
Even if the record supported listing the catalysts when they are land disposed (Mobil suggests that
it does not), it does not support listing them when they are recycled. EPA's own statements and
conclusions strongly suggest that recycling of these catalysts does not pose substantial risks. Since
eighty percent of the volume of such catalysts are typically recycled, it would seem arbitrary to
dismiss EPA's conclusion that when recycled, "the spent catalysts appear to be managed and
processed in a way that controls risks." Id. A listing of such catalysts would essentially ignore this
EPA conclusion and subject the eighty percent of these residuals that are recycled to needless
regulation. In the absence of a showing of substantial risk to counter its tentative conclusion that
there is no such substantial risk, EPA should not list these catalysts when they are subject to
recycling/metals reclamation. (Mobil, 00002, pg 3)
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment, and continues to believe that the risk analysis fully
support listing this waste. See response to comment 8 in Section I. A. 5 of this document. EPA
believes that the catalyst wastes present several risks beyond those necessarily associated with
landfill disposal, including pyrophoric properties and significant levels of benzene and arsenic (all
of which may pose risks via pathways other than groundwater exposure, including risks from
improper storage or other handling, and risks from uncontrolled air emissions from thermal
treatment). Thus, this waste is not a good candidate for a conditional listing. Given the hazardous
nature of this waste, EPA believes it is entirely appropriate for it to be transported and stored as
hazardous waste before recycling. (See 40 CFR 261.6 for regulations applicable to hazardous
wastes that are recycled). EPA points out that examples of problems at sites recycling these wastes
have been noted in the record (see enforcement case described in the docket, document #PRA-
S0037).
Comment 2: If EPA Lists Spent Hydroprocessing Catalysts. It Should Only List Hydroprocessing
Catalysts That Are Land Disposed Off-site
EPA's risk assessments and supporting data on well distance indicate that risks from on-site
landfill disposal are negligible. For most on-site landfills, there is no exposure and, therefore, no
risk. If EPA decides to list spent hydroprocessing catalysts at all, spent catalysts that are recycled
or disposed of in on-site landfills should not be listed, and any listing should be limited to spent
hydroprocessing catalyst disposed of in off-site landfills. (Mobil, 00002, pg 3)
Response: EPA's disagrees that the risks from disposal of the spent catalysts in on-site landfills
are negligible. The high-end groundwater risks given in the NODA for hydrotreating catalyst
ranged up to 8E-5, and the risks for hydrorefming catalysts ranged up to 4E-4 (see 62 FR at
16752). The risks for on-site landfill disposal were only somewhat less than the risks for off-site
landfills, so any attempt to argue on-site disposal is safe is not valid. Furthermore, EPA's decision
to list these wastes was also based on the self-heating physical properties of these spent catalysts.
June 29, 1998 IV-2
-------
EPA observed and was told by catalyst reclamation and refinery facility operators that these wastes
exhibit pyrophoric properties and do result in fires.
Comment 3: The Approach of Using Conditional Listings Allows EPA to Target Wastes not
Managed Correctly
EPA has the authority to interpret the statutory definition of hazardous waste so that a waste which
is otherwise hazardous would not require regulation if properly managed by a refinery. After 16
years of experience with the management of hazardous wastes, it is not necessary or correct to
assume that all residuals will be mismanaged and therefore requiring them to be listed as hazardous
wastes under Subtitle C. To the extent that EPA's analysis identified risks, those risks were found
primarily in the landfill setting, and not at the refineries. A more targeted listing instead of "across
the board" listing would be more effective in achieving protection of human health and the
environment. (NPRA, 00004, pg 5)
Response: The Agency has decided not to proceed with a conditional listing for CSO sediment.
This is discussed in response to comment 1 in Section V.A. of the proposed rule response to
comment document.
Comment 4: Assuming EPA Decides To List Any of the Residuals Under Any Circumstance.
EPA Should Employ Conditional Listings
As discussed above, EPA lacks record support for the conclusion that any of the three residuals
proposed for listing should be listed. However, assuming for the sake of discussion that there were
record support for listing CSO sediment or spent hydroprocessing catalysts under some
circumstances, EPA should list such residuals only in those specific circumstances, i.e., EPA
should employ conditional listings or the "contingent management" concept.
As API pointed out in previous comments, a listing that encompasses wastes found to pose
substantial hazards, as well as substantial quantities of wastes that do not pose substantial hazards,
is not likely to survive scrutiny under the court's analysis in Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA,
98 F.3d 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1996). See Supplemental Comments of the American Petroleum Institute
on the Proposed Listing Determinations for Certain Petroleum Refinery Residuals 12-14 (April 23,
1997). Moreover, the method of management is a key variable that may distinguish a hazardous
waste from a waste that is not hazardous. See Dithiocarbamate Task Force, 98 F.3d at 1405.
Thus, to avoid regulating wastes that are not hazardous (and thus, to conform to the principles of
the Dithiocarbamate decision), the Agency should list residuals as hazardous only where they are
managed in a manner shown to pose substantial risks.
The Agency itself appears to have reached the conclusion that it has the authority to promulgate
conditional listings or conditional exemptions from regulation under RCRA, and that it is
appropriate to do so where "across-the-board" listings or regulation would not be necessary to
protect human health and the environment. In the recently-issued military munitions waste rule,
June 29, 1998 IV-3
-------
EPA established a conditional exemption from RCRA regulation for the storage of military
munitions that would otherwise be listed or exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic and therefore
be subject to full RCRA regulation, no matter how treated, stored or disposed. (62 Fed. Reg. 6622,
6655-56, Feb. 12, 1997).
The Agency expressed its belief that "RCRA section 3001 (a) provides the Agency with the
flexibility to consider good management practice in determining the need to regulate waste as
hazardous ..." Id at 6636. It noted that "EPA has interpreted the statutory definition [of hazardous
waste] as incorporating the idea that a waste that is otherwise hazardous does not require regulation
(if properly managed)." id. It acknowledged that its earlier approach to listing hazardous wastes
has "focused on the inherent chemical composition of the waste," id- at 6637, but concluded that:
"After more than 15 years of experience with the management of hazardous wastes, EPA believes
that it is no longer required ~ nor is it accurate and fair -- to assume that all inherently hazardous
wastes will be mismanaged, thus creating the necessity to regulate them under subtitle C." Thus,
there should be no disagreement regarding whether EPA has the authority and duty to promulgate
conditional listings or conditional exemptions in appropriate circumstances. As shown below, if
despite all the information provided by API on these and earlier comments EPA decides to list any
of the residuals at issue in this rulemaking, EPA should employ conditional listings. (API, 00009,
Pg20)
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that EPA has the legal authority to promulgate
conditional listings under RCRA. However, the Agency has decided not to proceed with a
conditional listing for CSO sediment. This is discussed in response to comment 1 in Section V.A.
of the proposed rule response to comment document.
Comments: If EPA Lists CSO Sediment. It Should Only List CSO Sediment that Is Subject To
Land Treatment
As discussed above, to the extent population risk is considered (as API maintains it should be),
CSO sediment does not pose substantial risk under any management scenario. However, even if
individual risk is considered alone, and the negligible population risk is ignored, EPA's risk
assessments still reveal that CSO sediment arguably poses substantial potential risks only when
managed in land treatment units. Therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that there is any
basis for listing CSO sediment, EPA should list this residual only where it is land treated. EPA
should not list CSO sediment disposed of in landfills.
In response to comments, EPA considered whether such a conditional listing might lead to much
higher volumes of CSO sediment going to landfills, and if so, whether risk projections would be
affected. EPA's contingent management risk assessment of CSO sediment results in total on-site
risks of 1.7 x 10"6 and total off-site risks of 2.5 x 10"6. In the case of the Monte Carlo analysis, total
risks are well below 1 x 10~6 for all scenarios at or below the 95th percentile. Consistent with EPA
policy for listing determinations, the risk values calculated for CSO sediment clearly support a
contingent management determination.
June 29, 1998 IV-4
-------
In order to calculate contingent management risks, EPA made several conservative assumptions.
First, EPA assumed that the total amount of CSO sludge produced at a refinery was sent to that
facility's on-site landfill. In the case of off-site landfills, EPA assumed that for each refinery, the
total amount of CSO sludge produced was sent to the off-site landfill. If several refineries sent
waste to the same landfill, then the total waste received was set equal to the combined totals.
Second, the assessment of high-end risk is based on three high-end parameters. In order to
calculate risks, EPA set the waste volume and the Y-well distance as the high-end parameters;
however, by assuming the waste concentration to be equal to the TC cap, EPA essentially added
another high-end parameter. The resulting risk calculations, therefore, are likely an overestimate
of potential risks. Even under these conservative assumptions, however, disposal of CSO sediment
will not pose an unacceptable risk to nearby residences. Based on this analysis, API urges EPA to
consider a contingent management listing for CSO sediments, if it determines that any listing is
needed at all. (API, 00009, pg 21)
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their support and recognizes they favor Options 1
and/or 2. However, as a direct result in responding to comments, EPA determined that the disposal
of CSO sediment in landfills, without any consideration of codisposal, results in some groundwater
risks. Therefore, the Agency will not be applying a conditional exemption to the CSO sediment
listing. This issue is discussed further in response to comment 1 in Section V.A. of the proposed
rule response to comment document.
Comment 6: If EPA Decides To List Spent Hydroprocessing Catalysts at All. It Should Only List
those Catalysts that Are Land Disposed
Again, as discussed above, given a proper consideration of the negligible population risk, there is
no basis to find that spent hydroprocessing catalysts pose substantial hazards to human health or
the environment. However, even if individual risk is considered alone, and population risk is
ignored, EPA's risk assessment arguably projects substantial potential risks only where spent
hydroprocessing and hydrorefming catalysts are disposed of in landfills.
Although EPA did not perform a formal risk assessment as to recycling (metals reclamation) -- the
management method to which some 80percent of the catalyst volume is subject -- EPA concluded
that, "based on EPA's preliminary review of [the metals reclamation] industry, the spent catalysts
appear to be managed and processed in a way that controls risks." USEPA, Listing Background
Document for the 1992-1996 Petroleum Refining Listing Determination at 79 (Oct. 31, 1995).
Thus, even if the record supported listing the catalysts when they are land disposed (which it does
not), it still would not support listing the catalysts when recycled.
Although not entirely conclusive, the evidence of record strongly suggests that recycling of these
catalysts does not pose substantial risks. At a minimum, given the fact that the lion's share of the
catalysts are subject to recycling, it would be arbitrary to ignore EPA's conclusion that when
recycled, "the spent catalysts appear to be managed and processed in a way that controls risks."
June 29, 1998 IV-5
-------
Thus, in the absence of a showing of substantial risk from the recycling of spent catalysts, EPA
should not list spent hydroprocessing catalysts which are subject to recycling.
API's research into reclamation for spent hydrotreating/hydrorefining catalysts clearly supports
EPA's initial finding that the recycling process is environmentally sound. Management of spent
catalysts both on-site at the refinery and off-site at the reclamation facility is carefully controlled
and is not expected to be associated with off-site exposures under normal management practices
As indicated by EPA, "most refineries place [spent catalysts] directly into closed containers such
as 55-gallon drums or flow-bins" (SAIC, 1995, p.77). In a container, the residual cannot impact
off-site groundwater or residential properties. In other words, there is no potential exposure and
therefore, no potential risk. (An exception to that practice is one facility at which spent catalyst is
placed on a RCRA permitted pad where it is allowed to oxidize to reduce the self-heating
characteristics. However, given that this process is already regulated under RCRA, it should not
be considered as part of the listing determination.)
Similar to on-site management, off-site management of hydrotreating/hydrorefining catalysts is
conducted so that off-site exposures are negligible. Again, EPA agrees that "the spent catalysts
appear to be managed and processed in a way that controls risks" (SAIC, 1995, p. 90). Information
provided by the two U.S. reclamation facilities, CRJ MET and Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical
Company clearly support this initial finding by EPA. API could not identify any scenario
associated with these companies' management practices which might result in off-site exposure.
The absence of any exposure scenario clearly indicates that the risks from both these facilities is
either non-existent or insignificant.
EPA has suggested that the pyrophoric nature of the spent catalysts may provide additional
rationale to justify a listing determination. (60 FR 57747) API disagrees with this rationale. Both
generators and reclaimers of spent catalyst are aware of the pyrophoric nature of these materials
and take great care to handle them accordingly. In the absence of any other potential risks, the
pyrophoric nature of the spent catalysts alone is not sufficient to justify a listing. Until EPA
actually quantifies the risk, if any, of these residuals, it cannot make a sound listing determination.
In addition to the absence of substantial potential risks to justify an across-the-board listing, a
contingent management listing for spent catalysts would clearly support the goals and objectives of
RCRA. Again, EPA acknowledges that "the practice of spent catalyst reclamation is valuable
because it is consistent with the intent of RCRA..." (SAIC, 1995, p. 90). If reclamation of spent
catalysts were to become a RCRA hazardous waste practice it is extremely likely that landfilling, a
process potentially associated with increased risks, would become a more prevalent process. Costs
associated with reclamation range from $100 to $1000/ton while landfill disposal only costs $50 to
$350/ton (Clifford, 1997). In the absence of any other incentives, cost will become a determining
factor. (API, 00009, pg 22)
Response: See response to comment Ic in this section.
June 29, 1998 IV-6
-------
Comment 7: Contingent Management of Hydrotreating and Hydrorefming Catalysts Should Be
Considered for On-site Landfill Disposal
Although API disagrees with the proposed listing decision for spent catalysts, in the event that
EPA does list either hydrotreating or hydrorefining catalysts, API urges EPA to strongly consider a
conditional listing that differentiates between on-site and off-site disposal. Both the risk
assessments performed by EPA and supporting data on well distance indicate that risks from on-
site landfill disposal are clearly negligible. As discussed Supra, data obtained by EPA in the
RCRA 3007 Survey for on-site landfills clearly suggests that the OSW survey data greatly
underestimates well distance. As calculated by API, EPA's evaluation of risks from on-site
landfill disposal are likely to overestimate actual risks by a factor of 5. Actual high-end risks are
expected to be on the order of 1 x 10"6. In addition, the results of EPA's population analysis
indicate that the sum of the population exposed across all on-site landfills is limited to one
individual (EPA, 1995b). In other words, for most on-site landfills, there is no exposure and,
therefore, no risk. In the absence of a complete exposure pathway, risks from on-site landfill
disposal are nonexistent, even in the event that all wastes were disposed of on-site. (API, 00009,
Pg23)
Response: EPA responds to this idea for a conditional listing for spent catalysts in its response to
comment 2 in this Section. Concerning comments related to distance to wells, see response to
comment 1 in Section I. A.6.a of this document. See also response to comments 7 and 8 in Section
I. A.5 of this document for further discussion of the basis for listing these wastes.
Comment 8: Sun Continues to Recommend Conditional Listings to Control Only Those
Management Methods that Pose Unacceptable Risks.
Although Sun does not believe that EPA has justified listing any wastes, those management
methods that have been established by EPA to be the bases for listing should be the only methods
that cause the wastes to be considered hazardous wastes. Therefore if these wastes are listed, they
should only be listed under a conditional listing. (Sun, 00008)
Response: The Agency has decided not to proceed with a conditional listing for CSO sediment.
This is discussed in response to comment 1 in Section V.A. of the proposed rule response to
comment document.
Comment 9: Assuming EPA Decides To List Any of the Residuals Under Any Circumstance.
EPA Should Employ Conditional Listings
After considering and correcting the technical flaws in the risk modeling, we believe that EPA will
likely lack the necessary information to support the conclusion that any of the three residuals
proposed for listing should be listed. However, assuming for the sake of discussion that there were
record support for listing CSO sediment or spent hydroprocessing catalysts under some
June 29, 1998 IV-7
-------
circumstances, EPA should list such residuals only in those specific circumstances, i.e., EPA
should employ conditional listings or the "contingent management" concept.
A listing that encompasses wastes found to pose substantial hazards, as well as substantial
quantities of wastes that do not pose substantial hazards, is not likely to survive scrutiny under the
court's analysis in Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1996). See
Supplemental Comments of the American Petroleum Institute on the Proposed Listing
Determinations for Certain Petroleum Refinery Residuals 12-14 (April 23, 1997). Moreover, the
method of management is a key variable that may distinguish a hazardous waste from a waste that
is not hazardous. See Dithiocarhamate Task Force, 98 F.3d at 1405. Thus, to avoid regulating
wastes that are not hazardous (and thus, to conform to the principles of the Dithiocarbamate
decision), the Agency should list residuals as hazardous only where they are managed in a manner
shown to pose substantial risks.
The Agency itself appears to have reached the conclusion that it has the authority to promulgate
conditional listings or conditional exemptions from regulation under RCRA, and that it is
appropriate to do so where "across-the-board" listings or regulation would not be necessary to
protect human health and the environment. In the recently-issued military munitions waste rule,
EPA established a conditional exemption from RCRA regulation for the storage of military
munitions that would otherwise be listed or exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic and therefore
be subject to full RCRA regulation, no matter how treated, stored or disposed. (62 FR 6622, 6655-
56, Feb. 12, 1997). Phillips fully supports this approach, believing that listings should address
situations where risk is demonstrable. When a residual is appropriately managed there is no need
for a listing, especially, as is the case for spent hydroprocessing catalyst, the constituents of
concern are already regulated by the Toxicity Characteristic (TC).
The Agency expressed its belief that "RCRA section 3001 (a) provides the Agency with the
flexibility to consider good management practice in determining the need to regulate waste as
hazardous ..." Id. at 6636. It noted that "EPA has interpreted the statutory definition [of hazardous
waste] as incorporating the idea that a waste that is otherwise hazardous does not require regulation
(if properly managed)." Id. It acknowledged that its earlier approach to listing hazardous wastes
has "focused on the inherent chemical composition of the waste," Id. at 6637, but concluded that:
"After more than 15 years of experience with the management of hazardous wastes, EPA believes
that it is no longer required — nor is it accurate and fair ~ to assume that all inherently hazardous
wastes will be mismanaged, thus creating the necessity to regulate them under subtitle C." Thus,
there should be no disagreement regarding whether EPA has the authority and duty to promulgate
conditional listings or conditional exemptions in appropriate circumstances. As shown below, if
despite all the information provided by API on these and earlier comments EPA decides to list any
of the residuals at issue in this rulemaking, EPA should employ conditional listings. (Phillips,
00014)
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that EPA has the legal authority to promulgate
conditional listings under RCRA. However, the Agency has decided not to proceed with a
June 29, 1998 IV-8
-------
conditional listing for CSO sediment. This is discussed in response to comment 1 in Section V.A.
of the proposed rule response to comment document.
Comment 10: The Agency has stated on numerous occasions, the intent to offer regulatory relief
for legitimate manufacturing, recycling, and reuse activities within rulemaking actions. Such
regulatory relief actions serve as incentives and provide true benefit for the regulated community to
conduct waste minimization, which is mandated by Congress and consistent with National Policy.
Therefore, AMRI is utilizing this comment submittal to restate its interest and justification for the
Agency to reconsider the establishment of specific exemptions for the recycling of spent
hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts. AMRI's requested action is both appropriate and
warranted, since under 40 CFR 261.2(f), individuals and facilities engaged in exempted
regeneration operations have the burden of proof that they are engaged in legitimate management
activities. Furthermore, such regulatory relief is specific to, and within the Agency's intended
scope and confines of the listing determination for residuals from petroleum refining operations.
(CR1-MET, 00007)
Response: Catalyst wastes are "spent materials." Under RCRA, the definition of spent material is
"any material that has been used and as a result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose
for which it was produced without processing." EPA has consistently interpreted this definition to
include materials that have been used and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated.90
"Contamination" as used in the definition of spent material means any impurity, factor, or
circumstance which causes the material to be taken out of serve for reprocessing (i.e., treatment for
reclamation).91 When a material is no longer serving its original purpose and is being reprocessed,
EPA considers the material to be meeting the "can no longer serve the purpose for which it was
produced" condition of the definition of spent material.
EPA asserts that this is the only interpretation of the definition of spent material that makes
environmental sense. Once a material such as a catalyst is taken out of service and is sent for
reclamation, the material poses the same risk to human health and the environment regardless of
the reason for taking the material out of service. Petroleum catalysts that are used and can no
longer be used for their original purpose without regeneration are spent materials. As a result of
today's rule, spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts are listed hazardous wastes.
EPA notes that given the hazardous nature of this waste, EPA believes it is entirely appropriate for
it to be transported and stored as hazardous before recycling.
Comment 11: The feedstock exemption proposed by the Agency for spent caustic solutions from
petroleum refining liquid treating processes used as a feedstock to produce cresylic or naphthenic
acid states that "...the spent caustic constitutes a valuable commercial feedstock which is used in
90 50 FR 618 (January 4, 1985); 48 FR 14476 (April 4, 1983).
91 50FR624.
June 29, 1998 IV-9
-------
the manufacture of commercial chemical products." Also stated as rational for the exclusion was
(1) the economic value of caustic and the commodity like management, (2) shipment of spent
caustics from individual refiners is like other petroleum products, (3) applicable DOT, Coast
Guard, and railroad transportation rules are in effect, (4) storage in permitted tanks is provided at
the facility, (5) spill control containment and air pollution controls are in place, (6) the spent
caustic is directly pumped after storage into the plant's chemical manufacturing process, and (7) no
reportable spills/releases of spent caustics have occurred over the past ten years.
The proposed rule further stated that "Based on the manner in which these materials are routinely
handled and processed, this recycling practice more closely resembles a manufacturing operation
than a reclamation process." Within the proposed rule, the Agency stated that"... in our effort to
redefine "solid waste," EPA has concluded that spent caustic from liquid treating is not a waste
when recycled in this manner even though it does have an element of reclamation associated with
it. Rather, the spent caustic constitutes a valuable commercial feedstock which is used in the
manufacture of commercial chemical products."
The Agency's interpretation of what constitutes manufacturing is identical in concept and practice
to AMRJ's manufacturing processes. Each condition identified within the Agency's interpretation
applies to AMRJ's facility, which was the first commercial facility to offer to the petroleum
refining industry a "total reuse" option for spent catalysts, based on manufacturing. AMRI has
routinely paid for spent catalyst feedstocks, based on the international metals market. The
shipments are covered by DOT regulations and storage is maintained in units to prevent reportable
spills and releases. Materials movement and inventory is evaluated using a bar code tracking
system and the facility's feedstocks analysis plan insures that the incoming materials match the
pre-acceptance samples before introduction to the on-going manufacturing process. Furthermore,
AMRJ's environmental record is superb and has operated for over ten years without a single
feedstock or product related CERCLA release, and has never exceeded metals related NPDES
permit limits. AMRI has also logged over nine years of continuous compliance with hazardous
waste regulations and exemplifies a facility worthy of regulatory relief, similar to the Agency's
proposed feedstock exemption for spent caustics.
Therefore, AMRI agrees with the Agency's proposal "... to amend the regulations at 40 CFR
261.4(a)(14) to provide an exclusion from the definition of solid waste, clarifying that spent liquid
treating caustics from petroleum refineries used as feedstock in the manufacture of naphthenic and
cresylic acid products are not solid wastes." AMRI is also encouraged by the Agency's position
that "EPA may identify additional "commodity-like" materials as we proceed with other Agency
efforts to redefine the definition of solid waste and revise the existing RCRA regulations."
The Agency has stated on numerous occasions that it is not the intent of RCRA to regulate
manufacturing processes. If one applies the Agency's acknowledged intent of RCRA, the direct
use made of spent catalysts by AMRI is no different from the thousands of other industrial
chemicals that are used as feedstocks with which to make other chemical products. Based on the
Agency's statements and the intent of RCRA, AMRI requests that the Agency "identify" AMRJ's
June 29, 1998 IV-10
-------
manufacturing process as "commodity-like," and amend the regulations at 40 CFR 261.4 to
provide an exclusion from the definition of solid waste, clarifying that spent catalysts from
petroleum hydrotreating and hydrorefming operations used as feedstock materials in legitimate
manufacturing operations are not solid wastes. Therefore, AMRI proposes the following
regulatory language:
40 CFR 261.4 Exclusions
(a) Materials which are not solid wastes. The following materials are not solid waste for
the purpose of this part:
*****
( ) Spent catalysts from petroleum refining hydrotreating and hydrorefming processes
used as a feedstock in legitimate manufacturing operations, unless the material is
accumulated speculatively as defined in 261.1(c)(8) of this chapter. (CRI-MET, 00007)
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter. Spent catalysts from petroleum refining
operations that are removed from the refinery process regenerated or reclaimed in another process
are spent materials being reclaimed. Under RCRA, the definition of spent material is "any material
that has been used and as a result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which it
was produced without processing." EPA has consistently interpreted this definition to include
materials that have been used and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated.92
"Contamination" as used in the definition of spent material means any impurity, factor, or
circumstance which causes the material to be taken out of serve for reprocessing (i.e., treatment for
reclamation).93 When a material is no longer serving its original purpose and is being reprocessed,
EPA considers the material to be meeting the "can no longer serve the purpose for which it was
produced" condition of the definition of spent material.
EPA asserts that this is the only interpretation of the definition of spent material that makes
environmental sense. Once a material such as a catalyst is taken out of service and is sent for
reclamation, the material poses the same risk to human health and the environment regardless of
the reason for taking the material out of service. Petroleum catalysts that are used and can no
longer be used for their original purpose without regeneration are spent materials. As a result of
today's rule, spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts are listed hazardous wastes.
EPA notes that given the hazardous nature of this waste, EPA believes it is entirely appropriate for
it to be transported and stored as hazardous before recycling.
The Agency also notes that although the regeneration process is not regulated, hazardous
secondary materials must be managed as hazardous wastes prior to being inserted into the
regeneration process. In addition, residuals generated as a result of the process retain the
92 50 FR 618 (January 4, 1985); 48 FR 14476 (April 4, 1983).
93 50 FR 624.
June 29, 1998 IV-11
-------
hazardous waste listing. Regeneration or reclamation to recover metals or other constituents in the
catalysts is not considered an "on-going manufacturing process."
Comment 12: The Agency's proposed listing of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts is
based on a risk analysis which was applied to a limited set of waste management practices (off-site
Subtitle D landfills) which represented only a small portion of the spent hydrotreating and
hydrorefming catalysts managed on an annual basis (7.2 percent of the hydrotreating catalysts and
17 percent of the hydrorefming catalysts). In addition, the calculated risk values used to support
the listing determination were within the Agency's discretionary range.
Within the proposed rule, the Agency stated that"... the regeneration and reclamation of spent
hydrotreating/hydrorefming catalysts is an environmentally sound alternative to disposal ..."; the
Agency continued by stating that"... EPA does not believe that these off-site recycling activities
present significant risk ...". The Agency's statements were confirmed and reenforced by the
Section 3007 survey which documented that approximately 80 percent of the hydrotreating and 75
percent of the hydrorefming spent catalysts are presently being reclaimed or regenerated.
However, the Agency's proposed unconditional listing of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming
catalysts will require RCRA Subtitle C management standards for all management activities after
the point of generation. As such, the proposed unconditional listing does not acknowledge or
promote the merits and benefits of waste minimization, recycling, and reuse management practices
currently demonstrated by the industry and documented by the Agency.
The Agency's unconditional listing is not warranted, given the fact that the Agency acknowledged
that only a small portion of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts, i.e., less than 15
percent, are managed under conditions used to support the listing determination.
Furthermore, within the proposed rule, the Agency stated that "Where EPA has characterized a
specific waste, modeled the associated management practices and found specific management
practices (and not others) to present significant risks to human health or the environment, EPA
could list as hazardous only those wastes managed in a manner that presents significant risk." The
Agency continued by stating that "Alternatively, EPA could list wastes unless they are managed by
the method that does not exhibit significant risk."
If conditional listings are an option to be utilized by the Agency, then the opportunity exists to
demonstrate a practical and beneficial use for that option. The Agency has documented within the
proposed rule that"... EPA believes that any potential risks associated with regeneration and
reclamation are unlikely to be significant, and would be less than the risks found to exist for the
management practices modeled." Therefore, since the majority of spent hydroprocessing catalysts
are presently being managed under environmentally sound practices, the Agency's listing
determination should be targeted to discourage the use of higher risk management practices. (CRI-
MET, 00007)
June 29, 1998 IV-12
-------
Response: EPA responds to the issue of waste volumes modeled in detail in the proposed rule
response to comment document (see Section IV.C.3, comment 1). While EPA agrees that much of
these wastes are being recycled, shifts might occur in management practices away from recycling
and toward less expensive landfilling. In any case, the data for these wastes clearly shows that the
practice of landfilling is plausible for both of these wastes, thus, EPA believes that the risks found
from landfilling justify an unconditional listing. Furthermore, as noted above in response to
comment Ic, this waste is not a good candidate for a conditional listing.
Comment 13: In determining the national capacity, the Agency assumed that facilities such as
AMRI would continue to operate successfully, including any required expansion, following the
promulgation of an "unconditional" listing for spent hydroprocessing catalysts. While, AMRI
supports the general intent of the Agency's proposed rulemaking; AMRI is concerned regarding the
potential economic impact of such an "unconditional" listing on facilities which the Agency is
relying on to provide the required treatment capacity for the spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming
catalysts.
By proposing an "unconditional" listing for spent hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalysts, the
Agency has failed to recognize the merits and benefits of demonstrated and available waste
minimization, recycling, and reuse management practices which have been acknowledged and
documented within the proposed rule. The Agency's "unconditional" listing is not warranted,
based on Agency data which documents that less than 15 percent of spent hydroprocessing
catalysts are managed under conditions that warrant listing. Furthermore, within the proposed rule,
the Agency stated that "Where EPA has characterized a specific waste, modeled the associated
management practices and found specific management practices (and not others) to present
significant risks to human health or the environment, EPA could list as hazardous only those
wastes managed in a manner that presents significant risk." The Agency continued by stating that
"Alternatively, EPA could list wastes unless they are managed by the method that does not exhibit
significant risk."
If promulgated as final, the Agency's unconditional listing will mandate the application of the
"mixture" and "derived from" rule for all management activities after the point of generation,
placing additional regulatory burden (LDR treatment standards, up-grading of storage areas,
Subpart CC compliance, and obtaining permits/variances) on environmentally sound management
practices. AMRI has estimated that the time required to comply with such additional regulatory
burdens and associated permitting requirement will greatly exceed the Agency's specified 6 month
period prior to the rules effective date, and result in the majority of the Agency's calculated
national capacity being unavailable to the regulated community for a significant period of time.
Therefore, based on the facts and opinions represented, it would be prudent for the Agency to
consider the option of issuing a two-year capacity variance, specific to recycling facilities. (CRI-
MET, 00007)
Response: LDR treatment standards become effective when promulgated unless the Agency grants
a national capacity variance from the statutory date because of a lack of available national capacity.
June 29, 1998 IV-13
-------
RCRA section 3004(h)(2) authorizes EPA to grant a national capacity variance for the waste and to
establish a different date (not to exceed two years beyond the statutory deadline) based on "...the
earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which protects
human health' and the environment will be available" if there is inadequate alternative
treatment/recovery capacity. LDR capacity determination is done on a national basis (S.Rep.
No.284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 19) — both the capacity of available treatment technologies and the
quantity of restricted wastes. For capacity analysis methodology, please see the discussion for
these wastes in the Capacity Analysis Background Document in this docket. So an LDR capacity
variance only exempts the wastes from meeting treatment standards prior to land disposal
(including derived-from residuals generated from the catalyst recycling process) if EPA finds there
is inadequate available treatment capacity.
LDR treatment standards for these newly listed wastes are based on the following treatment
technologies. For nonwastewaters, incineration and fuel substitution for K170; recovery/reuse,
incineration, stabilization, and vitrification for nonwastewater K171 and K172. For wastewaters,
UTS standards for constituents of concern are based on the following technologies for K170-K172:
biological treatment, activated sludge biological treatment, steam stripping, lime conditioning plus
sedimentation plus filtration, chemically assisted clarification, wet air oxidation, chemical
precipitation plus sedimentation, electrochemical treatment plus chemically assisted clarification.
However, EPA does not preclude use of any other technologies that can meet the treatment
standards, so long as the treatment is not considered impermissible dilution.
Note that materials that are reclaimed from solid wastes and that are used beneficially are not solid
wastes and hence are not hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)). Therefore, metal alloy
products extracted from metal-bearing hazardous wastes through high temperature metal recovery
are not solid wastes or hazardous wastes provided that they are not used on the land, burned for
energy recovery, or reclaimed further. Also, 40 CFR Section 260.31(b) provides for a mechanism
for these recycling and reclamation facilities to obtain a variance from the Regional Administrator
(or designated state official in duly authorized states) stating that these recycling residuals are
commodity-like and therefore exempt from the definition of solid waste (therefore, the residuals
would not be subject to LDR treatment standards).
As the Listing and LDR regulations are being co-finalized with the same effective date, TSD
facilities that manage these wastes must also comply with the LDR treatment requirements
contained in 40 CFR Part 268 prior to land disposal by this rule's effective date. Based on the
results of the Capacity Analysis, adequate commercially available capacity exists to treat K171 and
K172 residuals. Therefore, EPA is not granting a national capacity variance for these wastes.
Comment 14: Reclaiming
Consequence if Listed: The cost of reclaiming will increase dramatically making it less attractive
to reclaim and more likely that catalyst will be disposed.
June 29, 1998 IV-14
-------
Current System: Recycling catalyst that has already been treated to remove the characteristics of
concern means it will be safer to handle at the refinery, on the highways, and at the recycling
facility. The cost of reclaiming is likely to be lower as the reclaimer won't have RCRA
compliance requirements (catalyst storage and handling). Thus, reclaiming should remain a viable
and continuing attractive option.
Discussion: The reclaimers must prepare to manage all listed catalyst as hazardous. This will
significantly increase costs. We were informed by one of the major metal smelters that recycle our
catalyst metals, that reclaiming costs for one of our spent catalysts would increase from $50,000 to
$500,000 per catalyst dump when the catalyst becomes listed. For this ten fold increase in
reclaiming charges, there would be almost no increase in environmental protection. In fact, listing
will likely cause most all recycling of the listed catalysts to cease. This will increase the demand
for virgin metals. Thus, the overall environmental benefits from the listing determination are
likely to be negative.
Response: EPA does concludes that an increased cost burden is not an appropriate basis for not
listing residuals, when the Agency's risk assessment models and tools indicate that these materials
pose a risk to human health and the environment. While recycling costs may increase as a result of
this rule, EPA continues to believe that it is completely appropriate to bar these materials from
Subtitle D disposal because of the risk levels identified through the Agency's risk assessment
procedures. The Agency also does not believe that refineries will stop safe management practices
as a result of this listing determination.
Comment 15: We understand EPA is recalculating its risk assessments for disposal scenarios
related to CSO sludge management. Our experience of late is that those doing modeling of
landfills for regulatory purposes do not adequately account for the protective controls provided by
the municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) regulations promulgated on October 9, 1991 (56 FR
50978).
These controls address location restrictions, facility design and operation standards, groundwater
monitoring and corrective action measures, closure and post-closure care, and financial
responsibility requirements. In particular, run-off controls, daily cover, composite liners, access
control, air controls, among others make disposal is these MSWLF landfills far safer than would be
estimated from modeling an open dump. Thus, it is necessary to consider these controls when
estimating risk. When properly considered, we believe you will find that disposal of CSO sludge
in MSWLFs is a safe and effective practice with no realistic routes of exposure available. We
again request that the listing, if needed at all, be narrow and only list CSO sludge that is applied to
the ground outside of a MSWLF.
The pathway of greatest concern appears to be related to runoff from the landfill. This is not a
plausible route of exposure from a MSWLF given the controls that exist. In particular, the daily
cover requirement and the run-on run-off controls prevent this.
June 29, 1998 IV-15
-------
40 CFR Section 258.21 requires that at the end of each operating day, a cover of at least six inches
of soil be placed over exposed waste in a MSWLF (Section 258.21). Six inches of daily cover will
prevent the migration of CSO sediment or contaminants from the disposed waste.
To prevent the flow of surface water onto or from a landfill unit, Section 258.26(a)(l) requires all
MSWLF units to have run-on and run-off control systems. The intent of the design, construction,
and maintenance of a run-on control system is to prevent the flow of surface water onto the active
portion of a unit during the period of greatest precipitation in a 25-year storm. These system
controls are intended to mitigate erosion, reduce surface discharge of wastes in solution or
suspension, and minimize run-on available to percolate down through waste which creates leachate
(56 FR 51054; October 9, 1991). A run-off control system, likewise, must be designed and
operated to collect and control the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm (Section
258.26(a)(2)). These controls will prevent CSO contaminants from migrating outside of the
landfill.
Run-off collected from the active portion of a landfill unit must be managed in accordance with
Section 258.27, which requires that all MSWLFs be operated in compliance with the Clean Water
Act.
The MSWLF uniform design criteria require a composite liner and a leachate collection system.
The composite liner system consists of an upper component which is a flexible membrane liner
(FML) that satisfies specific thickness standards. The lower component must be constructed of at
least a 2-foot layer of compacted soil and must exhibit a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1
x 10-7 cm/sec. EPA believes that the combination of an FML and a compacted soil layer ensures
adequate protection by providing both a highly impermeable upper liner to maximize leachate
collection and removal, and a lower soil layer to serve as a back-up in the event of FML failure (56
FR 51060; October 9, 1991). The leachate collection system must be designed and constructed to
maintain less than a 30-cm depth of leachate over the liner (Section 258.40(a)(2)). Studies have
shown that such liner/leachate collection systems capture over 99.7% of the leachate generated
providing over 300 times the protection of an unlined "open dump". Thus, contaminants are not
likely to leave the landfill containment.
MSWLFs require groundwater monitoring and corrective action. Similar to the regulations for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) in Subpart F of Part 264,
MSWLF groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements consist of three sequential
phases. Detection monitoring, minimally required for all units, is designed to measure
concentrations of certain indicator parameters. Statistically significant increases (SSI) in these
indicators trigger groundwater assessment monitoring for hazardous constituents. Finally, a
corrective action program is required if remediation of contaminated groundwater is necessary.
Thus, in the unlikely event that contaminants did migrate away from the landfill, procedures are in
place to assure that it does not pose a risk.
June 29, 1998 IV-16
-------
Closure standards require owners/operators to install a final landfill cover system that is designed
to minimize soil erosion and infiltration of liquids through the cover. The cover's infiltration layer,
consisting of at least 18 inches of earthen material, must be at least as impermeable as any bottom
liner system or natural sub-soils, but in no case may the permeability be greater than 1 x 10-5
cm/sec. The erosion layer must be a minimum of six inches of earthen material that can sustain
native plant growth. Thus, the long term potential for materials migrating for the landfill has been
nearly eliminated.
For the above reasons, we are certain that when accurately modeled, this method of disposal will
be found safe for CSO sediments and a very sound basis for a conditional listing that excludes
waste disposed in this way. We ask that the Agency consider the state of Subtitle D technology
and standards in its modeling.
Exempting other Listed Wastes
Given that the Subtitle D safety net has been substantially improved, it would be appropriate to
consider conditionally exempting other refinery listed wastes (F037-38, K. 048-52) that are disposed
in a modern MSWLF and that are not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive (ICR). The toxicity
characteristic was derived assuming an open dump scenario among many other conservative
assumptions. Given the protections of a modern MSWLF, wastes that do not exhibit an acute
hazard can be safely handled and disposed in a MSWLF, saving industry and the nation
significantly while still adequately protecting human health and the environment. The availability
of these landfills should be a fundamental consideration in any further evaluation of Subtitle C
requirements. Clearly, the lack of an adequate subtitle D program in the past has been the driver for
a stringent hazardous waste program. That has now changed.
Considering this change is most relevant to wastes which are defined as hazardous due to an
assumed long-term exposure (chronic) such as drinking contaminated water over a lifetime.
Placement in a modern MSWLF reduces the intensity of these possible exposure by orders of
magnitude.
The Agency should recognize the opportunity that the improved subtitle D program offers. There
is the opportunity to improve the quality of industry's disposal while decreasing the economic and
administrative burden of managing hazardous and industrial wastes.
Response: As noted previously in this section, EPA will not be promulgating a conditional
exemption to the CSO sediment. Therefore, the Agency believes that the commenter's suggestions
for conditional listings based on disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill are moot. However,
the Agency notes that the regulations cited by the commenter for municipal landfills do not apply
uniformly to all such landfills. Existing units are not required to meet the full design requirements,
and other type of facilities (e.g., small landfills or units in rural areas) may not have to comply with
all standards. Furthermore, many of the off-site landfills receiving the wastes under study were
reported in the §3007 Questionnaire to be industrial Subtitle D landfills, and thus, would not be
June 29, 1998 IV-17
-------
subject to the regulations cited by the commenter (see Additional Listing Support Analysis, 1998 in
the docket, for a summary of the data from the Questionnaire for off-site landfills).
IV.B. Individual versus Population Risk
Comment 1: Population Risk Estimates for Landfilled Residuals are Overstated
In addition to the fact that EPA's existing population risks for the residuals in question are already
low, they are likely to be further overstated due to overestimates of the population size exposed to
contaminated ground water. To estimate the total population exposed to contaminated ground
water near a landfill receiving refinery residuals, EPA first calculated the total population living
within one mile of every landfill receiving refinery residuals. This value was then multiplied by
the proportion of the one mile radius occupied by the plume and then divided by the average
fraction of the population served by domestic wells (EPA, 1995c).
In making these calculations, EPA attempted to use assumptions describing transport and exposure
that reflect "typical" conditions at a Subtitle D landfill and not a "worst case" situation. (EPA,
1995c) However, the analysis performed still explicitly or implicitly makes a number of
assumptions about landfills that are not likely to be true at all or even most facilities. In many
instances, these assumptions apparently result from simplified factors used by EPA in its fate and
transport or exposure models. EPA has failed to recognize that models used to estimate
hypothetical individual exposures are not necessarily applicable to estimates of the population
exposures across multiple facilities. Models of population exposure must take into consideration
factors that could be ignored in hypothetical individual exposure assessments. Examples of such
factors include, the likelihood of a drinking water well intercepting a contaminated ground water
plume and the presence of partial leachate controls at a landfill. In other instances, the Agency
simply has not taken advantage of the available data (e.g., well location) in its risk assessments.
In any event, these assumptions bias the estimates of exposure for some or all of the modeled
facilities. Because the population exposures are a sum of the exposures at all facilities, the
presence of these biases at one or more facilities results in bias in the final estimate of population
exposures. The key, but erroneous, assumptions made by the Agency are described below. (API,
00009, pg 7)
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that such factors could affect the population risk
estimates. However, there are other factors which may lead us to underestimate risk, such as the
possibility of karst terrain or contaminated subsurface which could result in more rapid flow of
groundwater or constituents than our models predict. EPA does recognize that, on balance, the
population risks presented likely overestimate risk, since one of the objectives of the analysis was
to provide an estimate of the greatest number of people which could be affected. Since these
estimates came out so low and, as has historically been the case in hazardous waste listing
determinations, the Agency based its decision to propose to list the wastes affected by this
June 29, 1998 IV-18
-------
determination primarily on the significant individual risk estimates and other factors, the Agency
did not consider it necessary to further refine the population risk estimates .
Comment 2: 1. EPA Assumes that Residential Properties Are Directly Adjacent to the Landfill
EPA's description of the ground water model does not clearly identify the location of the plume in
relation to the landfill and other residences. Specifically, it is not clear whether the distance used
to establish the concentric rings that define the 400 m bands begins at the center of the landfill or at
the downgradient edge of the landfill. The landfills receiving the residuals are reported to range in
size from 30,000 to 162,000 m2. (SAIC, 1995) If the distance used in setting the bands is defined
as beginning at the center of a landfill, then a substantial portion of the first band (0 - 400 m) will
be filled with the landfill itself and would not be available for residential properties. If the distance
is defined as beginning at the center of the downgradient side of landfill, than a substantial portion
of the area in the first band is still directly adjacent to the landfill. Contrary to EPA's modeling
assumptions, landfills typically have some buffer area around them which limits residential
development; landfills are not desirable land uses and tend to discourage residential development.
Data on well distance collected by EPA in the RCRA 3007 survey for this rulemaking clearly
indicates that wells are not located in areas directly adjacent to on-site landfills (Vierow, 1995).
Instead, the nearest well location was more than 300 meters from the landfill and the median
distance was greater than 1,700 meters. (Vierow, 1995) (API, 00009)
Response: With respect to a couple of the specific issues raised, the nearest well location for the
deterministic analysis was 102 meters from the edge of the landfill. Also, as was discussed in the
1997 Notice of Data Availability, EPA chose not to use the information on distances to wells
provided in the RCRA 3007 questionnaires because only a limited number of facilities provided
this information, and the Agency had no way to evaluate whether those facilities could be
considered representative of all facilities (see Section I. A.6.a, comment 1, of this document for
more discussion on well distance).
In the population risk calculation presented in the 1995 Background Document for the
Groundwater Pathway Analysis, the concentric rings begin at the down-gradient edge of the
landfill. In the absence of detailed population data and to provide a conservative risk assessment,
it was assumed in the analysis that the population was uniformly distributed from the edge of the
landfill to the one-mile radius.
Comment 3: 2. EPA Assumes that the Aquifer Receiving Leachate from the Landfill Is Potable
and Provides Adequate Supply for Domestic Purposes
EPA's assessment of landfills assumes that drinking water wells will exist in an aquifer
contaminated by landfill leachate. (EPA, 1995c) However, in many instances ground water is not
suitable for drinking due to saltwater intrusion, naturally occurring minerals, or because the aquifer
is not sufficiently productive. In other cases, ground water may be drawn from an aquifer deeper
than the aquifer receiving landfill leachate. As a result, a ground water well situated within the
June 29, 1998 IV-19
-------
plume would not be affected by landfill contamination. EPA's estimates of the fraction of homes
affected by ground water contamination from a landfill are, therefore, likely to be overestimates.
(API, 00009)
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that such factors could affect the population risk
estimates. However, there are other factors which may lead us to underestimate risk, such as the
possibility of karst terrain or contaminated subsurface which could result in more rapid flow of
groundwater or constituents than our models predict. EPA does recognize that, on balance, the
population risks presented likely overestimate risk, since one of the objectives of the analysis was
to provide an estimate of the greatest number of people which could be affected. Since these
estimates came out so low and, as has historically been the case in hazardous waste listing
determinations, the Agency based its decision to propose to list the wastes affected by this
determination primarily on the significant individual risk estimates and other factors, the Agency
did not consider it necessary to further refine the population risk estimates .
The Agency agrees with the commenter that in some instances groundwater is not suitable for
drinking due to saltwater intrusion, naturally occurring minerals, or because the aquifer is not
sufficiently productive. However, as part of a conservative risk assessment, it is assumed that all
aquifers in the vicinity of the landfill could potentially be used for water supply in the present or
future, whether or not they are currently in use as a potable water supply.
Comment 4: 3. EPA Assumes that Leachate from the Landfill Reaches Ground Water
The population exposure assessments assume that all landfills do not have a liner, clay cap, or
leachate collection system. (EPA, 1995c) While these assumptions may not be unreasonable for
boundary or high-end analyses of hypothetical individual exposure, it is erroneous to apply these
assumptions to all facilities.
Response: See EPA's response to comment 1, above, for discussion concerning how EPA
evaluated factors overestimating and underestimating population risk.
The Agency performed groundwater modeling analyses considering landfills without engineered
hydraulic barriers such as liners, caps, or leachate collection facilities. Furthermore, there are no
Federal regulations mandating such containment systems in industrial landfills, and the
requirements for municipal landfills may not apply to all such units (see response to related
comment 15 in Section IV.A). Finally, the Agency believes that the engineered structures cited by
the commenter may deteriorate over time and may not provide the level of containment assumed
by the commenter.
Comment 5: 4. EPA Assumes that there Are No Surface Water Bodies Between the Landfill and
Domestic Wells
June 29, 1998 IV-20
-------
In the absence of detailed data on landfills receiving refinery residuals, EPA substituted data from
the OSW database of industrial Subtitle D landfills. However, due to the lack of site-specificity in
that database, EPA assumed that the plume travels for one mile in a relatively homogeneous
aquifer. (EPA, 1995c) In reality, plumes are often affected by changes in hydrogeology that limit
their extent. For example, if a landfill was located 500 m from a stream that received ground
water, the plume would be limited to the area between the unit and the stream. Wells beyond the
stream may have little or no contamination. As a result, the area of a plume and the associated
population may be much smaller than the assessment suggests for some of the facilities.
As a result of these assumptions, EPA's analysis of the population risks and number of individuals
exposed to levels of contamination above the HBN are likely to be grossly overestimated. EPA's
assumption that all landfills will have residential properties directly adjacent to the landfill is likely
to result in a large overestimate in the size of the exposed population. (API, 00009)
Response: See EPA's response to comment 1, above, for discussion concerning how EPA
evaluated factors overestimating and underestimating population risk.
The interaction of surface water bodies and groundwater is usually site-specific and complex. In
order to simplify the analysis and perform a conservative risk assessment the presence of surface
water bodies between landfills and drinking water wells was not considered in the groundwater
risk analysis. However, while the presence of surface water bodies may affect plume
configuration, their role is expected to be minimal because of the bottom layer of surface water
bodies often has low permeability which limits flow between surface water bodies and the aquifer.
If gaining streams are located between the landfills and domestic wells, risks are simply diverted to
the surface water pathway (and other pathways). For the case of recharging streams, similarly
located, the flux from the surface water bodies may force the plume to greater depths, but may not
necessarily dilute the plume. The consideration of surface water bodies may not reduce the impact
of contamination down-gradient from the surface water body and is unnecessarily complex.
Therefore, the presence of surface water bodies was not included in the risk analysis.
Comment 6: Population Exposed Does Not Justify a Public Policy Decision to Regulate
Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining and Clarified Slurry Oil Sediment as Hazardous Wastes.
The risk to the population living near landfills containing hydrotreating catalysts is 0.00003 cancer
cases per year. This corresponds to a cancer incidence rate of 0.3 cases of cancer in 10,000 years.
The risk to the population living near landfills containing hydrorefining catalysts is 0.00002 cancer
cases per year. This corresponds to a cancer incidence rate of 0.2 cases of cancer in 10,000
years.
The risk to the home gardeners at off-site and on-site units containing clarified slurry oil sediment
are 0.0003 and 0.00005 cancer cases per year, respectively. The risk to adult residents at off-site
and on-site units containing clarified slurry oil sediment are 0.0001 and 0.0004 cancer cases per
June 29, 1998 IV-21
-------
year, respectively. The highest value represented by these annual incidence rates corresponds to 4
cancer cases in 10,000 years. In addition, NPRA believes that the risk determination for the home
gardener which is discussed below is flawed. (NPRA, 00004, pg 1)
Response: In response, EPA notes that "population risk" is not explicitly used in either the RCRA
statute or the hazardous waste listing regulations in 40 CFR 261.11. EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to allow contamination from waste management units to cause substantial risk to
nearby residents simply because it is a sparsely populated area. The Agency's decision to list these
wastes is based primarily on the concern over risks to those individuals who are significantly
exposed, even if there are relatively few of them. Population risk is only one of many factors to be
considered in Agency decisions, and there are numerous precedents where the Agency has taken
action, for example at Superfund sites and in previous listing determinations, when there are
relatively few people potentially affected. See, for example, the report entitled Land and Soil
Health Risks from CERCLA (Federal Snperfimd), and WQARF (State Superfund) Sites, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, 1995, in the docket for today's rule, which concluded that
population risks were low because the number of people exposed to groundwater contamination is
small. For waste management situations, population groundwater risks are often expected to be
low, since often only a limited number of domestic wells will be near these facilities, and
groundwater moves very slowly. EPA 's Guidance for Risk Characterization (USEPA Science
Policy Council, February, 1995) states that, when small populations are exposed, population risk
estimates may be very small, however, "in such situations, individual risk estimates will usually be
a more meaningful parameter for decision-makers." Finally, it is important to note that the Agency
is also concerned about the loss of the groundwater resource for the future, which could be of
particular concern if land use patterns were to change and there were a future demand for the
resource. In this case, beneficial uses would be precluded or, if the potential users were unaware of
the contamination, risks could occur.
Comment 7: The Results of EPA's Own Conservative Risk Assessment Support Decisions Not to
List Clarified Slurry Oil Sediment and Spent Hydrotreating and Hydrorefming Catalysts
Under the listing criteria in 40 CFR § 261.11, which are binding upon EPA in this proceeding,
EPA may list a waste as hazardous only if EPA concludes that the waste "is capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment." 40 CFR §
26 l.ll(a)(3) (emphasis added). See Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394, 1400
(D.C. Cir. 1996).
EPA has based its proposal to list CSO sediment, spent hydrotreating catalyst, and spent
hydrorefining catalyst exclusively on risks or hazards to human health. As demonstrated below
however, the data in the record establish that the actual risks to human health posed by these
residuals are near zero; as a result, EPA cannot rationally conclude that any of these residuals
poses a "substantial" hazard to human health, and may not list any of these residuals as hazardous
wastes.
June 29, 1998 IV-22
-------
Throughout the preamble to the proposed rule, the NODA, and various background documents,
EPA's discussion of risk tends to focus on so-called "individual risk." In calculating individual
risk, EPA calculates the chance that a theoretical individual exposed under worst-case conditions
will become ill (e.g., develop cancer) as a result of the management of the waste. Because EPA
projects that a theoretical individual exposed under worst-case conditions has something greater
than a one-in-one million chance of developing cancer as a result of the three residuals under
consideration, EPA proposes to list them as hazardous wastes (although apparently EPA has not
made an express finding that such theoretical risks constitute "substantial hazards"). However, as
discussed below, EPA's estimates of potential individual risk from these residuals are overstated
and, when properly considered (especially in light of Monte Carlo analyses) do not warrant listing
under EPA's own criteria.
Moreover, although receiving much less attention than individual risk, EPA's projections of so-
called "population risk" are even more relevant in determining not to list these residuals. In
projecting population risk, EPA considers how many persons are actually subject to elevated risk
of illness or are truly expected to become ill. These estimate clearly are more useful in
determining whether there is a substantial hazard to human health than are projections about what
could happen to a theoretical individual.
As discussed in detail below, the highest expected annual cancer incidence that EPA projects using
population risk analysis for any of the three residuals proposed to be listed is 0.0004 or four cases
in 10,000 years (associated with CSO sediment). Moreover, as discussed below, even these
incredibly low projections are likely to be overstated.
EPA's failure up to this point to give any serious consideration to the low levels of population risk
is at odds with the statute, the listing criteria, and as discussed below, substantial regulatory
precedent within the federal government, including EPA. Serious consideration of the population
risks in this proceeding would lead to the conclusion that the three residuals do not pose substantial
hazards to human health, and should not be listed as hazardous wastes. (API, 00009)
Response: See Response to Comment 6 above.
Comment 8: Proper Consideration of Population Risks Also Supports Decisions Not To List
Clarified Slurry Oil Sediment and Spent Hydrorefming and Hydrotreating Catalysts as Hazardous
Wastes
EPA's proposal to list clarified slurry oil sediment and spent hydrotreating/hydrorefining catalysts
did not consider the extremely low population risks calculated for these residuals. As reported by
EPA, the maximum annual cancer incidence for any of these residuals (i.e., clarified slurry oil
sediment) is 0.0004 or 4 cases in 10,000 years. (EPA, 1995a) If EPA considers these risks
properly it should decide not to list these residuals. Indeed, there is ample precedent provided by
other regulatory evaluations for EPA to rely on population risk estimates in this rulemaking.
(Travis et al., 1987)
June 29, 1998 IV-23
-------
In an analysis of 132 federal regulatory decisions, Travis et al. reported that for small population
effects, regulatory action was never taken for individual risk levels below 1 x 10"^. The primary
reason cited for not regulating chemicals below this risk level is insignificant population risk.
Among the decisions reviewed by Travis et al. was a decision not to regulate natural radionuclide
emissions from elemental phosphorus plants as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Although individual risks ranged up to 1 x 10~3, EPA declined to regulate, stating that
"the risks must be weighed against both the low aggregate risk (0.06 cancer deaths per year) and
other factors such as cost." (Travis et al., 1987) Similarly, in the decision not to regulate
vinylidene chloride as a toxic air pollutant under the CAA, EPA states that, based on a cancer risk
of 8.3 x 10~4 and an aggregate (i.e., population) risk of 0.07 cases per year, "the magnitude of the
public health cancer risk is low" (50 FR 32633, August 13, 1995). Likewise, in the case of small
populations exposed to formaldehyde, EPA determined (under the Toxic Substances Control Act)
that individual risks ranging from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10 million did not present a significant risk of
serious harm and that over the lifetime of the population there was very little risk (49 FR 21891,
May 23, 1984). These cases illustrate that, in other regulatory contexts, at population risks greater
than those reported in the proposed petroleum refining listing, EPA decided that further regulation
was unwarranted.
EPA's Discussion of Population Risks in the Proposed Rule Is Incomplete and Does Not Reveal
that Such Risks Are Exceedingly Low
EPA guidance provides two alternatives for the presentation of population risks for carcinogens
and noncarcinogens (EPA, 1992; 1995b). The first approach, which is appropriate for carcinogenic
compounds where risk varies linearly with dose (including benzene and arsenic), results in a
projection of the number of cases (of effect) that can be expected. The second approach, used for
compounds whose risk does not vary linearly with dose (including most noncarcinogenic
compounds and a select few carcinogens), predicts the number of people (or fraction of the
population) exposed to a dose above a certain risk value of interest. In the Federal Register notice
for the proposed rule, EPA elected not to use the first approach to present population risks for the
three refinery residuals proposed for listing and used neither approach for the land treatment of
CSO sediment. In so doing, EPA's representation of population risks is incomplete and therefore,
misleading. Nonetheless, using EPA's own suggested approaches for calculating population risks,
the population risks are exceedingly low (as described in more detail below).
Spent Hydrotreating Catalyst
In the proposed rule (60 FR 57747), EPA reported that for off-site landfills receiving spent
hydrotreating catalyst, 300 people are expected to be exposed to benzene levels above the health-
based number (HBN) (at 1 x 10"^ risk) and that 12 people are expected to be exposed to arsenic at
levels above the HBN. This exposure would lead to only 0.00003 cancer cases per year for the
population near landfills receiving hydrotreating catalyst (EPA, 1995c). This cancer incidence rate
corresponds to 0.3 cases of cancer in 10.000 years. Cancer incidence rates for on-site landfills are
June 29, 1998 IV-24
-------
vastly smaller, because the total population living within one mile of all on-site refinery landfills
receiving hydrotreating catalyst is reported to be one person (EPA, 1995c).
Spent Hydrorefining Catalyst
In the proposed rule (60 FR 57747), EPA reports that for off-site landfills receiving spent
hydrorefming catalyst, three people are expected to be exposed to benzene levels above the HBN
(at 1 x 10"" risk) and that 25 people are expected to be exposed to arsenic at levels above the HBN.
Again, this corresponds to only 0.00002 cancer cases per year for the population near landfills
receiving hydrotreating catalyst or 0.2 cases of cancer in 10,000 years. Cancer incidence rates for
on-site landfills are vastly smaller, because, like hydrotreating catalyst, the total population living
within one mile of all on-site refinery landfills receiving hydrorefming catalyst is reported to be
only one person (EPA, 1995c, p. 39).
Clarified Slurry Oil Tank Sediment
In contrast to spent catalysts, EPA reports population risks for exposure to CSO sediment as
follows: "For the same scenario (off-site land treatment), the central tendency risks for CSO
sediment/solids were 3 x 10"^ for up to 90 home gardeners and 6 x 10"6 for up to 235 adult
residents. . . For on-site land treatment of CSO sediment/solids, central tendency risks from PAHs
were 7 x 10"^ for up to 76 home gardeners and 2 x 10"6 for up to 200 adult residents" (60 FR
57789). This results in annual cancer incidence rates of 0.0003 and 0.00005 for home gardeners at
off-site and on-site units, respectively, and cancer incidence rates of 0.0001 and 0.0004 for adult
residents at off-site and on-site units, respectively. Thus, the highest value represented by these
annual incidence rates corresponds to four cancer cases in 10,000 years.
As described above, EPA's existing estimates of population risks for spent hydrotreating/
hydrorefming catalysts and CSO sediment approach zero. In comparison to other regulatory
decisions (see Travis et al., 1987), the population risks from these residuals are well below the
levels that EPA has considered negligible in past regulatory actions. Moreover, even these low
risks are overestimates. According to EPA's own population risk guidance, "most cancer potency
values (used to calculate the annual rates) represent plausible upper bounds on risk. When such a
value is used to estimate numbers of cancer cases, it is important to understand that the result is
also an upper bound" (EPA, 1995b, p. 17). Furthermore, as discussed below, EPA has
overestimated both exposure and population sizes for landfilled and landtreated residuals, resulting
in further overstatements of the population risks. (API, 00009)
Response: As previously discussed (see response to comment 6 above), for listing determinations,
the Agency has used primarily the individual risk estimates as the basis for its decisions. To the
extent the Agency has evaluated population risks, they have always been low due to the limited
potential impact of contaminated groundwater. However, the Agency again emphasizes its
concern over the loss of the groundwater resource. In addition, the economic impacts of this
regulation are very minimal.
June 29, 1998 IV-25
-------
There are any number of ways to present population risk, and the Agency does not believe that its
presentation is misleading, particularly since the Agency and the commenter have both reached the
same conclusion, namely that population risks are low.
FV.C. Waste Management Practices Assessed
Comment 1: In its comments on the 1995 proposal, EOF identified a large number of waste
management practices documented by EPA that were not evaluated by the Agency in its risk
assessments. These unevaluated practices include surface impoundment management,94 use of
wastes as landfill cover, use of wastes as onsite road material, and the storage of off-spec products
and fines on piles prior to reuse onsite or shipment offsite. These deficiencies remain insofar as
the NODA materials do not include evaluations of these practices.
However, the NODA materials do contain information that are relevant to these scenarios, and
therefore warrant comment on the issue of whether risk evaluations of these scenarios are still
necessary and appropriate.
Response: Modeling of surface impoundments is discussed further below in Comment 2. Use of
wastes as onsite road material is discussed in response to Comments la through Id . Storage of
off-spec product and fines on piles is discussed in Comment 3 below, as well as in Section II.B.I.
EPA notes that the waste management method of use as landfill cover was only reported by one
refinery in 1992. EPA determined that one facility managed its crude oil tank sludge as "cover for
onsite landfill" in 199295. In this particular case, the waste was mixed with soil, weathered, and
then used as cover. EPA also found that the landfill no longer accepts wastes. The fact that only
one facility was found to conduct this activity, and has since discontinued the practice, does not
lend credence to the commenter's opinion that such practices could become more widespread in
the future. It is reasonable to expect that they would be rarely conducted by facilities based on the
1992 data.
Comment la: For example, EPA has claimed its modeling of land treatment units would account
for the risks posed by roadspreading or other uses constituting disposal.96 However, in the NODA,
94 EPA evaluated only one waste for surface impoundment management (FCC fines).
951992 RCRA 3007 Survey for Sinclair Oil, Sinclair, WY, Facility 182.
96 See e.g., 60 FR 57766 (November 20, 1995). EPA also claims roadspreading risk
evaluation is unnecessary because "of the small number of facilities using this practice". Id.
However, as discussed below, landspreading (including roadspreading) is a substantial industry
practice. Moreover, EPA has modeled practices not reported in 1992, as discussed below, let
alone practices reported by a relatively small number of refineries. In any event, the issue is
whether the management practice is "plausible", a determination not wholly dependent upon the
number of facilities employing that practice in a given year.
June 29, 1998 IV-26
-------
only six onsite land treatment units were evaluated for individual wastes, and only one unit was
evaluated for the onsite codisposal scenario, therefore site-specific modeling inputs are unlikely to
be representative of all roadspreading or landspreading locations.97
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the use as road material scenario was not
adequately considered. First, EPA reiterates that only two refineries managed CSO sediment as
road bed material in 1992: one managing 97 metric tons and the other managing 3 14 metric tons.91*
These data demonstrate that this is a rare management practice (i.e., 1 percent of the U.S. refineries
used CSO sediment for road bed in 1992). EPA also notes that CSO tank sediment will be listed
and any use as road material will be prohibited (unless the material is treated to meet land disposal
restriction standards and other requirements as specified in §266.20).
Second, EPA contacted these two facilities, plus two others who reported this management practice
in other years to better understand this management practice. Based on these contacts, two of the
four facilities no longer manage this residual as roadbase material. One facility, which reported a
total generation of 3 MT of residual, may mix a small percentage of the de-oiled residual with dirt
to be used onsite for road repair. The fourth facility plans to manage approximately 97 metric tons
per year of oily residual by transferring it to an off-site facility that will use it in the production of
roadbase material.
In presenting its results of the high end risk assessment in the preamble for the management of
CSO sediment in a land treatment unit (60 FR 57765), EPA did not assume that any runoff
controls were present" which is comparable to what would have been assumed if a road bed
scenario had been modeled. The significantly lower volumes reported for road bed management
would accordingly have lower risk when compared with land treatment models. Furthermore,
CSO sediment is mixed with other materials such as dirt, gravel, and/or asphalt, which may result
in even lower risks through adherence of CSO sediment to these materials retarding the rate of
release. Refineries did not report any other of the residuals evaluated for listing as being managed
as road material.
Thirdly, EPA disagrees that the number of land treatment units modeled is insufficient to reflect a
broad range of conditions. With respect to land spreading, EPA's review of the existing land
treatment units, as characterized in the 1992 PRDB, indicates that the majority of these units are in
fact permitted and thus not appropriately considered in EPA's modeling input. Areas for each of
the six modeled units ranged in size over three orders of magnitude, from 0.6 to 15.8 acres. The
97 See NOD A Background Document, Chapter 7; NOD A LTU Risk Assessment, p. 25.
981992 RCRA §3007 Survey.
"See also 60 FR 57763, "one of the major assumptions in the Agency's run-off model for
releases from land treatment units (LTUs) is that the unit does not have controls for run-on and
run-off waters from precipitation." This statement refers to the high end modeling assumptions
for land treatment.
June 29, 1998 IV-27
-------
six units were drawn from the larger set of approximately 28 onsite land treatment units (hazardous
and nonhazardous) managing any of these six wastes.100 EPA believes that its modeling input are
fully reflective of land treatment conditions in the industry.
In summary, EPA continues to assert that the modeled land treatment conditions are adequate
surrogates for road spreading because:
• the land treated volumes greatly exceed the reported road spread volumes
• the land treatment areas are likely to be much greater than the areas subjected to road
101
spreading and are likely to result in much higher modeled receptor point concentrations
• road spreading generally requires mixing with other materials (e.g., gravel, asphalt),
diluting the concentration of the toxicants of concern and reducing risk
• road spreading is generally conducted in a manner to create a stable road base that will not
wash away due to precipitation or erode away due to road traffic, unlike land treatment
units which are operated to allow for precipitation and oxygen infiltration to maximize
biodegradation102
• material used as base is less likely to be released in nongroundwater pathways than material
managed by land treatment because it is covered by additional fill, aggregate, or pavement.
• EPA used six of six non-hazardous waste LTUs identified by the petroleum refining
industry in the 1992 survey as model inputs. This represents 100 percent of the possible
conditions, as well as a wide range of model input values, as discussed above.
Comment Ih: In addition, only risks from PAHs were covered by the NODA LTU Risk
Assessment codisposal scenarios, while risks from other contaminants may be significant if
100While the 1992 survey was not designed to collect information on ALL land treatment
units, EPA is confident that the modeling input reflects all non-hazardous waste management
units that accepted any of the modeled residuals.
I01For example, the commenter referenced one residual of 97 MT of CSO sediment being
road spread. This residual would likely be managed over an area much less than 1 acre which is
less than the size of the area used in modeling nongroundwater pathways (i.e., see NODA
nongroundwater document). This estimate is based on a specific gravity of 1.4 (from 1995
Listing Background Document) and a thickness of 6 to 12 inches. The area required (assuming
no mixing with other materials) would be 0.06 to 0.11 acres. Even assuming that the CSO
sludge is mixed with other soil or aggregate at a ratio of 10 percent waste to 90 percent soil, the
area would still be approximately one-half acre to one acre.
102Michael H. Huesemann. Guidelines for Land-Treating Petroleum Hydrocarbon-
Contaminated Soils. Journal of Soil Contamination, 3(3): (1994).
June 29, 1998 IV-28
-------
roadspreading was evaluated, particularly if the roadspreading is conducted close to surface water
bodies and ecologic effects are considered.
Response: The initial screening risk assessment analyses considered the full range of
contaminants for which health effects data existed. If risk was not indicated using the worst case
screening parameters for a given contaminant, further consideration during the two-high end
deterministic risk assessment was not warranted. Ecological effects from waste management
practices, including land treatment, are presented in the 1995 Nongroundwater Background
Document. EPA believes that the conclusions and uncertainties regarding ecological risk from
land treatment can be applied to ecological risk from road use for the same reasons, listed in
response to Comment l.a, that EPA believes makes the land treatment scenario representative of
the road use scenario. The surface water runoff scenario was evaluated as part of the subsistence
fisher scenario. Therefore, EPA has no indication that other constituents would be of concern, nor
did the commenter identify any such contaminants.
Comment Ic: Moreover, EPA justifies not summing the risks posed by both LTU and landfilling
at the same onsite facilities because in the vast majority of instances the LTUs are hazardous waste
units with runoff controls.103 Since roadspreading may also co-occur with landfills at the same of
different locations, and would not involve hazardous waste units with runoff controls, the Agency's
rationale for not summing risks is irrelevant in the case of roadspreading or other uses constituting
disposal.
Response: EPA asserts that the many reasons listed above point toward the risk from land
spreading being significantly less than the risk from land treatment. EPA could not identify any
facilities where landfilling and roadspreading occurred for the same residuals and, therefore, has no
obligation to model such a scenario. Risk assessment results demonstrated that the risk from
landfilling was also significantly less than the risk from land treatment, and in fact the indirect
pathways associated with landfilling were not evaluated beyond the initial screening analyses
because it was assumed that landfills would be covered and sludges would not generate dust during
waste hauling activity. See, for example, Section 2.2.1 and Section 6.4 of the 1995 "Assessment
of Risks from the Management of Petroleum Refining Wastes." EPA concluded that without these
release pathways nongroundwater risks from landfills would be negligible. Therefore, any
nongroundwater risks from landfills and road beds in close proximity would result from road beds
alone.
EPA notes that it has no information regarding the location of roadspreading operations and knows
of no reason why the probability of such operations being adjacent to landfills without runoff
controls would be greater than the probability of non-hazardous waste land treatment units and
landfills without runoff controls being co-located. Given the infrequency with which
roadspreading was reported, such probabilities are expected to be very small.
1113 NOD A Background Document, Chapter 3.
June 29, 1998 IV-29
-------
Comment Id: Finally, the waste volumes evaluated both for the individual waste and codisposal
scenarios are not indicative of the volumes of wastes that may be used for roadspreading or other
landspreading activities, as discussed immediately below.'04
In API's annual reports on residuals, land treatment and landspreading activities are reported
separately, the latter activity included with other disposal practices. Accordingly, landspreading
can be considered as inclusive of roadspreading and other uses constituting disposal. For 1993,
API reports 170,439 tons of refinery wastes were landspread that year, including 4,882 tons of
"nonleaded tank bottoms".105 In all, landspreading was employed for 10 different waste categories
in 1993, indicating widespread application in the industry.106 Further, the amount of waste
landspread in 1993 increased by over five-fold when compared to 1992, the year on which EPA's
management data is based.107 Clearly, landspreading is an important waste management practice in
the refinery industry that EPA has inappropriately ignored in this rulemaking to date. The
landspreading or roadspreading of oily residuals covered in this rulemaking is both an actual and
plausible mismanagement practice, and EPA's 1992 volumes are not representative of actual and
potential industry practices. (EOF, 00006, pg 60)
Response: EDF misinterpreted API's data regarding management of residuals by means of road
spreading. The "landspreading" category used in the API report cited by EDF includes all
landspreading activities, only one of which is road spreading. The use of landspread quantities is
therefore not necessarily indicative of quantities road spread. EDF also stated that the quantities
landspread could increase dramatically from the 1992 data used by EPA. The increase between
1992 and 1993 landspread quantity data was due almost exclusively to an increase in biomass and
contaminated soils/solids,108 residuals which are not even under consideration for this listing
determination. While there was a small increase in nonleaded tank bottoms landspread from 1992
to 1993, only one facility reported managing nonleaded tank bottoms via landspreading.109
104 For example, EPA's unleaded gasoline tank sludge LTU modeling is based upon an
annual median volume of only 2 tons, and a high-end value of 57 tons; and the analogous
volumes for crude oil tank sludge are only 29 and 181 tons respectively. See NODA LTU Risk
Assessment, Table 2.1. Similarly, the only onsite codisposal scenario evaluated involved 50 tons
of sulfur complex sludge, 65 tons of crude oil tank sludge, and 34 tons of off-spec products and
fines. See NODA LTU Risk Assessment, Table 7.1.
105 API 1992-1993 Residuals Report at B-38.
106 Six different refineries reported using four different refinery wastes covered in this
rulemaking (and the associated study) as onsite road material in response to EPA's RCRA
Section 3007 survey.
107 Id- at 35. For comparison purposes, landspreading of only 20 tons of unleaded storage
tank sludge was reported for 1992. Id. at B-18.
108 API. Generation and Management ofResidual Materials: 1992-1993. February, 1995.
pp. B-18, B-38.
mld. pp. B-19, B-39
June 29, 1998 IV-30
-------
Comment 2: Finally, regarding the lack of surface impoundment modeling, it is instructive that
EPA modeled the onsite land treatment of sulfuric acid alkylation sludge in a nonhazardous waste
unit even though no refinery reported using that practice in EPA's 1992 database. EPA determined
"any facility that reported the presence of an operational sulfuric acid alkylation unit and the
presence of an onsite land treatment unit that could be used for disposal of this waste were
considered appropriate for disposal of this waste."110
Unfortunately, EPA fails to carry through on that approach with respect to surface impoundment
management, notwithstanding the availability of surface impoundments at many refineries. In
1993, API reports "disposal" surface impoundments were used for the management of 42,553 tons
of refinery wastes. Nine different categories of wastes were managed in surface impoundments
that year, including "nonleaded tank bottoms" and "residual oils/spent solvents."1 In 1994, API
reported 31 refineries had nonhazardous waste impoundments ranging in size from 1-350 acres.112
Therefore, surface impoundment disposal is both an actual and potential plausible mismanagement
scenario at petroleum refineries.113
The Agency's continuing failure to model the surface impoundment management of HF alkylation
sludge is particularly inappropriate given the waste is sometimes generated in "pits", samples were
collected from these "pits", and the practice was reported for 1992.114 While the NODA materials
provide no explanation for this failure, EPA staff indicated orally that they believe surface
impoundment modeling is not necessary because the "pits" are concrete-lined, and therefore may
meet the regulatory definition of tank.
However, this rationale is too cute by half, since the fact that the waste is managed in a pit means
surface impoundment management is certainly plausible and reasonable to project as a potential
mismanagement scenario.115 Moreover, the Agency itself has recognized for years that its
ambiguous definition of "tank" causes unintended consequences, including allowing surface
110 NODA LTU Risk Assessment at 3.
111 API 1992-1993 Residual Report, p. B-38.
112 API 1994 Residual Report, p. 8.
113 In previous listing determinations, EPA has argued surface impoundment modeling
was not necessary where relevant facilities had no surface impoundments and EPA was
unwilling to project the construction of new units. In the instant rulemaking, many refineries
currently have both active and inactive nonhazardous waste impoundments that may be
employed for this purpose, therefore whether or not it is appropriate for EPA to project the
construction of new units is not at issue for refinery wastes.
114 1995 Listing Background Document at 128-129, 135.
115 Indeed, EPA defines surface impoundment as a pit, pond or lagoon. See 40 CFR
260.10.
June 29, 1998 IV-31
-------
impoundments to masquerade as inground tanks.116 Therefore, even if the pits could legally
qualify as tanks now, EPA should not compound the shortcomings in its rules by projecting the
weakness forever into the future, or failing to consider the potential for management in pits that
could not or should not satisfy the regulatory definition of tank. The issue in this context is not
whether the particular pits used in 1992 could meet the admittedly flawed EPA definition of tank,
but rather given the practice of using pit-like units for HP alkylation sludge and the ready
availability of surface impoundments for this purpose, it is plausible that surface impoundments
could be used to manage this waste sometime in the future. (EOF, 00006, pg 65)
Response: See response to comment 1 in Section IV.H.2 of the proposed rule response to
comment document for a full discussion of why EPA does not believe modeling impoundments for
HF alkylation sludge is warranted.
EPA continues to maintain that its 1992 data is representative of disposal practices and that to
incorporate increased reliance of surface impoundments is not plausible, particularly in light of
EPA's knowledge that such practices are being discontinued and the costs associated with
construction and permitting.
With respect to the commenter's claim of the frequency of surface impoundments at refineries,
EPA's data on the presence of surface impoundments at refineries is limited to those instances
where a residual identified in the survey was managed in a surface impoundment, and refineries
were in fact discouraged by the Agency from providing detail of their wastewater treatment train
(where surface impoundments may be present). The basis for this instruction was that such wastes
would be subject to the existing F037/F038 listings and units downstream from F037/F038-
generating units were so far removed from the original 29 residuals of concern to this industry
study that no benefit would be realized from further study. Based on its limited data, EPA
identified 8 refineries with surface impoundments that are not part of the facility's wastewater
treatment train. Of these 8 refineries, 4 exclusively manage FCC fines and 4 manage other wastes
in their impoundments. EPA believes it is unreasonable that a refinery would begin to co-manage
HF alkylation wastes with FCC fines because the ponds were constructed specifically for
managing FCC fines. EPA does not believe that the remaining 4 refineries (some of which are
known to have discontinued using their impoundments) represent an "ample number" of refineries
with surface impoundments. EPA observed during its site visits that the HF pits were used to
prevent fluorides and low pH wastes from being discharged to the wastewater treatment facilities
in large quantities. Fluorides were described by several refineries during these site visits to create
effluent compliance problems. Thus, removal in the HF pits associated with the units makes sense
from a processing perspective. In addition, several refineries described changes that they had made
or were contemplating regarding their methods of HF acid neutralization. Certain methodologies
116 The Nation's Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The RCRA
Implementation Study, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, July 1990, pp. 64-
65.
June 29, 1998 IV-32
-------
result in a higher purity fluoride salt which is amenable to off-site sales as a fluoride raw material.
These process considerations also contribute to the unlikelihood that refineries would increase their
use of impoundments for HF process waste neutralization.
The commenter is correct in stating that EPA modeled the onsite land treatment of sulfuric acid
alkylation sludge in a nonhazardous waste unit even though no refinery reported using that practice
in EPA's 1992 database. In this case EPA was simply attempting to complete the revised risk
analysis for land treatment for wastes that were evaluated in the initial proposal. As noted in the
NODA analysis, EPA had realized that most of the land treatment units used to establish area for
modeling in the proposal were, in fact, permitted hazardous waste units. After correcting for this
oversight, EPA was left with few nonhazardous units to use for defining land treatment areas.
Thus, in this case, EPA used the volume of the onsite land treatment unit for the only facility that
also reported the presence of an operational sulfuric acid alkylation unit. In any case, this analysis
had no impact on EPA's final decision because under either scenario, no significant risk was found
from land treatment of this waste.
Comment 3: Similarly, in response to a FOIA request on off-spec products and fines, EPA
provided information on interim and final management methods for this waste, as reported in the
industry survey. According to this EPA data, several respondents reported storing off-spec
products and fines in surface impoundments as an "interim" management method. Moreover,
storage in a surface impoundment, followed by storage in a pile, and subsequent transfer for fuel
use, was considered a "treatment train of interest".117 Yet EPA still refuses to model the
management of off-spec products and fines in surface impoundments. (EDF, 00006, pg 67)
Response: In regards to the FOIA request, only one respondent, not several, reported managing
off-spec product and fines in a "surface impoundment" in 1992. Furthermore, in this one case this
"surface impoundment" was actually a drilling water clarifier. All delayed coking units recycle
their drilling water. To do so, any entrained fines in the drilling water must be recovered.
Typically, the concrete coke storage pad is sloped so that drilling water drains to one end and
proceeds through a series of baffles which separate out the coke fines. It is EPA's understanding
that this is the type of "surface impoundment" the refinery is referring to and not a surface
impoundment which is typically part of a wastewater treatment system but an integral part of the
decoking process. These are lined (concrete) drilling water collection and recycle systems,
confined within the coke battery, and would pose insignificant risk. Therefore, modeling of off-
spec product and fines in an impoundment would not be appropriate. Furthermore, this particular
waste is essentially solid coke material, and to project management of this waste in a true
impoundment, which is for liquids, would be unreasonable.
117 See Letter from David Bussard, EPA to Karen Florini, EDF, dated March 25, 1997,
Attachment 4.
June 29, 1998 IV-33
-------
IV.D BIF Rule Exemption
Comment 1: In the initial rulemaking notice for the proposed listing of K171 and K.172, EPA
noted that "[bjecause reclamation of metals from . . . spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining
catalysts involves thermal processing of RCRA hazardous wastes, there has been confusion
regarding whether these catalyst recovery furnaces are subject to regulation as a type of industrial
furnace (as defined in § 260.10 of the RCRA regulations)." 60 Fed. Reg. 57747, 57780
(November 20, 1995). EPA proposed "to clarify the regulatory status of these units by specifically
excluding them from regulation as industrial furnaces under RCRA" (see id) for the following
reasons.
First, EPA did not specifically consider these units in developing the BIF rule. See id
Second, these units "differ from the types of furnaces specifically considered in the BIF rule in that
the process involves burning of hazardous waste solely for materials recovery as opposed to
destruction or energy recovery." Id "In this sense," EPA observed, "spent petroleum catalyst
recovery units are analogous to smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that process hazardous
waste solely for metals recovery." Id Such units, EPA pointed out, "are conditionally exempt
from the Subpart H [BIF] regulations because the process does not involve burning either partially
or wholly for destruction or energy recovery." Id
Third, "spent catalyst. . . metals recovery operations provide an environmentally sound alternative
to disposal of spent petroleum catalysts." Id EPA did "not want to impose any unnecessary
regulatory burden that may serve to discourage [such] environmentally safe recycling." Id
For these reasons, EPA proposed to formally exempt spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining
catalyst recovery furnaces from the BIF rule by means of an amendment to 40 CFR § 266.100(b).
We agree fully with the rationale for this proposed exemption, and we believe it can be
implemented effectively by amending 40 CFR § 266.100(b). However, the specific language EPA
has proposed for this amendment is not well designed to achieve its objective. In particular,
proposed subsection 266.100(b)(5) would exempt a catalyst recovery furnace if the only hazardous
wastes burned are K171 and/or K172. See 60 Fed. Reg. at 57797. Presumably, this limitation was
intended to ensure that industrial furnaces currently subject to BIF rule requirements would not
suddenly gain an exemption from the BIF rule by adding K.171 or K172 spent catalysts to their
existing slate of hazardous waste feed materials.
We do not quarrel with that objective. Unfortunately, as drafted, the proposed limitation would
have a much broader impact. In particular, smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that currently
are conditionally exempt from the BIF rule under 40 CFR § 266.100(c) would not qualify for the
catalyst recovery furnace exemption under proposed § 266.100(b)(5) because they process other
hazardous waste for metal recovery. Surely EPA did not intend to force INMETCO and other
HTMR facilities to choose between the § 266.100 (c) exemption for smelting, melting, and
June 29, 1998 IV-34
-------
refining furnaces and the § 266.100(b)(5) exemption for petroleum catalyst recovery furnaces. To
the contrary, as noted above, the rationale that EPA advances for the proposed § 266.100(b)(5)
catalyst recovery furnace exemption is the same one that supports the conditional exemption under
§ 266.100(c) for smelting, melting, and refining furnaces. It would be illogical and
environmentally counterproductive to structure § 266.100(b)(5) in a way that precludes a currently
exempt process like INMETCO's from qualifying for the exemption. Many K171 and K172 spent
catalysts will have a high nickel content (some as high as 50% or more), and [NMETCO has the
capacity to process 2,000-4,000 tons of these catalysts annually. EPA should not force INMETCO
to forego the reclamation of such materials in order to maintain its exempt status under the BIF
rule
The problem can be remedied by revising proposed § 266.100(b)(5) to read as follows:
"Furnaces that recover spent hydrotreating catalyst from petroleum refining
operations (EPA Hazardous waste No. K171) and/or spent hydrorefining catalyst from
petroleum refining operations (EPA Hazardous waste No. K172) if those are the only
hazardous wastes burned or processed in the furnace, or if any hazardous wastes in addition
to K171 and K172 are processed in the furnace solely for metal recovery in accordance
with the conditional exemption of § 266.100(c), in which case the owner and operator of
the furnace remain subject to §§ 266.101 and 266.112." (INMETCO, 00003, pg 5)
Response: The Agency believes that the commenter's concern is moot. This is because EPA is
not finalizing its proposal to exempt from permitting requirements under Part 266.100(b) third
party units regenerating and reclaiming hydrotreating and hydrorefining spent catalysts. EPA is
deferring to a later day any final decision on whether or not to exempt these units from RCRA
Subtitle C air emission standards. In the interim, EPA reiterates that nothing in today's rule (or
indeed the proposed rule) changes the current RCRA status of facilities managing these hazardous
wastes.
IV.E. Implications of Listing Catalysts
Comment 1: We believe there are a number of unintended consequences that will result if
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts are listed. The status of water used to remove catalyst is
very important, but is one of several potentially damaging consequences of listing this catalyst as
hazardous. We believe the best solution to this problem is to not list these catalysts as hazardous.
The EPA assumes that listing these catalyst as hazardous will reduce management risks and
encourage their recycling. However, a review of the logical consequences to listing suggests
otherwise. Following is a stepwise discussion of the management consequences that can occur if
the catalyst is listed. (Chevron, 00014)
Response: EPA discusses each of the commenter's points below.
June 29, 1998 IV-35
-------
Comment la: Reactor Shutdowns
Consequences if Listed: The shutdown process would no longer have the incentive of reducing
benzene below the characteristic level. Catalysts sent to reclaimers will be generated and managed
containing more characteristics of hazardousness. Much catalyst that is currently reclaimed would
instead be disposed due to higher shipping and reclaiming costs.
Current System: A reactor shutdown for a catalyst change-out is a process that can take from one
to seven days depending in part on how long the catalyst will be stripped. (Stripping is the use of
process gas to purge the catalyst of volatile organics and to aid in the cooling of the reactor prior to
shutdown. It is a closed process with the hydrocarbons recovered for further processing.) The
stripping process will significantly influence the benzene content of the spent catalyst. At the
Chevron Pascagoula, Mississippi Refinery, the refinery further treats the catalyst after it is
removed form the reactor so that it is not ignitable or reactive. Deactivation also removes or
significantly reduces the self heating characteristic of the catalyst. This is done to lower
subsequent transportation and handling costs. However, RCRA permit and air emission limits for
the treatment process require that the spent catalyst not be characteristically hazardous for benzene,
or fail the benzene waste NESHAP. Therefore, there is currently an incentive to run the stripping
cycle with a clean gas and long enough to remove benzene (and with it other organics) to levels
that do not pose a TC or NESHAP problem.
Thus, the Pascagoula spent hydroprocessing catalyst is sampled regularly upon generation and is
typically low in benzene and other organics as shown in Table 1 [of Chevron's comment]. In
addition, we also test other spent catalysts that are not from hydroprocessing units. We have found
that generator knowledge and proper characterization of waste is derived from an adequate
sampling program. Pascagoula has over 200 lab analyses of spent catalyst from units that are not
hydroprocessing units. Klaus Catalysts from Sulfur Recovery Units, Precious Metal catalysts from
reformers, isomerization catalyst from chemical processes, spent alumina and molecular sieves
from hydrating processes, FCC catalyst, and chloride guard, shift converter, and methanator
catalyst from Hydrogen plants are also screened for hazardous characteristics.
Sampling of Pascagoula Spent Catalyst 1988-97
Analysis
TCLP Benzene
TCLP Arsenic
Self Heating
Sulfide Reactive
No. Sampled
39
69
139
184
Results Above
DL
7
17
na
na
Results Above
Regulatory
Limit
2
1
49
13
Log Average of
Results Above
DL
0.086 mg/1
0.19mg/l
na
na
June 29, 1998
IV-36
-------
Discussion: If the catalyst is listed as hazardous, many refineries would lose the incentives to
generate a catalyst that is characteristically non-hazardous. At Pascagoula, the treatment step
would be abandoned and the reactor shutdown would be optimized to reduce costs with little or no
regard for the benzene content in the generated catalyst. Thus, if the catalyst is sent to a reclaimer,
it will not contain several characteristics of hazardousness whereas before listing, it would have
been shipped with no hazardous characteristics. Therefore, one consequence of listing is that
catalyst being reclaimed will become more hazardous to manage.
However, another likely consequence is that catalyst that is currently reclaimed would instead be
disposed when listed. Prior to listing, a method exists to treat and ship the catalyst as non-
hazardous keeping shipping cost low. If hazardous, shipping costs to one of the few reclaimers
may no longer be tolerable, depending on distance. Thus, disposal in a nearby Subtitle C landfill is
likely to be attractive. If the catalyst is to be disposed in a nearby landfill, then the process might
be operated to generate catalyst that will meet LDRs for organics.
An existing example of this situation is the case of California generated catalysts. Due to the
California-only hazardous waste characteristic that includes nickel as a toxicity characteristic
constituent, most California generated spent catalyst must be shipped as hazardous. While our
Pascagoula refinery typically recycles its catalyst, our California refineries instead dispose of it as
hazardous in a nearby RCRA permitted TSDF, rather than shipping the spent material to a facility
in Texas for recycling. The higher shipping and recycling costs strongly influence this economic
decision. Listing the catalyst will create the same situation around the country. Since the
Pascagoula refinery is closer to hazardous waste TSDFs, than to Texas metal reclaimers, listing the
catalyst will encourage them to choose the closer disposal option.
Another example of the incentive to remove or change a characteristic is Chevron's choice to
change from a chromium based low temperature shift reaction catalysis (H2) + CO ->• CO2 + H2) to
one without chrome to avoid the chromium characteristic. If it had been listed as hazardous, there
would be no incentive for this change.
This discussion shows how listing removes incentives to avoid characteristics that actually cause
the material to be hazardous. (Chevron, 00014)
Response: EPA has decided to finalize its listing of K171 and K172 because they contain mobile
levels of benzene and arsenic. When listed, such wastes would require management as hazardous
wastes such as proper containment during transport, and management in Subtitle C disposal units.
These wastes will also be subject to BDAT controls for these constituents. Therefore, EPA
believes that any increase in benzene levels in these wastes (as claimed by the commenter) would
be mitigated by Subtitle C management. However, EPA does not believe that refineries would
discontinue or otherwise severely shorten the stripping process because an additional purpose of
stripping is to decrease levels of volatile materials such as hydrogen sulfide inside the reactor
vessel (as well as for allowing recovery of saleable product). Through its site visits, EPA has
observed that refineries operate stripping cycles to reduce levels of this constituent for worker
June 29, 1998 IV-37
-------
safety reasons (in fact, the uncertainty in predicting how long the stripping process takes to achieve
the desired levels often resulted in uncertainty in scheduling record sampling trips by EPA).
Following promulgation of the listing, a refinery would be required to ship the waste as hazardous
to a Subtitle C landfill, after compliance with all applicable BOAT standards, or to a catalyst
reclamation facility. While the economics surrounding future catalyst management as a hazardous
waste is complex, the Agency notes that (1) refineries include factors such as liability concerns to
avoid land disposal, and (2) 25 percent of the catalyst received by one catalyst recycler is RCRA
hazardous (1995 Listing Background Document). Therefore, at present at least some refineries
elect to send their characteristic hazardous waste to a catalyst recycler (using Subtitle C shipping
requirements) rather than to a Subtitle C landfill.
EPA does not believe the example cited by the commenter is relevant to the discussion. A catalyst
performing such a reaction is not a hydrotreating or hydrorefining catalyst in the context of the
rule. Such a discussion would be relevant if chromium (for example) was used as a raw material in
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts. Information available to EPA (in the 1995 Listing
Background Document) shows little use of metals other than nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum in
fresh hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts.
Comment Ib: Catalyst Dumping
Consequences if Listed: The complexity of managing large volumes of catalyst as hazardous
would increase the injury rate during dumping from 0.55 injuries to 7.1 injuries per million tons,
over a ten fold increase.
Current System: Catalyst being generated with intent of managing it as non-hazardous (both DOT
and RCRA) will be low in benzene, not reactive or self heating, and not require a NESHAP tight
container. This will allow dumping in large end dump trailers holding approximately 22 tons per
load. In Pascagoula, the man-hours required to dump 900 tons (one reactor) is approximately 50
hours using these trailers. The refinery reportable injury rate is around 2 injuries per 200,000
hours. Thus, we can expect 0.55 injuries per million tons managed.
Catalyst that is listed hazardous waste will most likely be managed in TBC Type 56 flow bins.
These hold approximately 3 tons per bin, are more labor intensive, and would require 4 employees
20 days to load (640 man hours) a 900 ton dump. For this mode of management, one can expect
7.1 injuries per million tons managed for this bin loading portion of the process.
Discussion: The significantly higher number of hours associated with managing these bins results
in significantly more injuries per ton of catalyst due in part to the listing. These injury rates (per
hour) are typical for refining and the higher rate of injury per ton are expected to be real. It is
questionable, therefore, whether this listing can be argued to protect human health.
June 29, 1998 IV-38
-------
On a related note, Chevron has designed and is patenting a large NESHAP tight bin that is nearly
the same capacity as end dump trailers. This may begin to mitigate these new risks. However,
only one Chevron refinery currently has them available for use and there is no current indication
that others, especially outside of Chevron, will use them. (Chevron, 00014)
Response: During its site visits and record sampling events, EPA has generally observed that
hydrotreating and hydrorefming catalyst is dumped into flow-bins in drums. Based on these
observations, EPA concludes that few refineries use the type of trailers cited by the commenter,
and therefore disagrees that a general industry-wide shift in container practices will occur because
most facilities already use the flow-bin containers (or similar) cited by the commenter.
In general, workers conducting operations involving hazardous wastes are required to undergo
additional training than workers not involved in hazardous waste operations. Additionally, worker
safety is generally under the purview of OSHA.
Comment Ic: Catalyst Deactivation:
Consequence if Listed: The catalyst would not be deactivated if listed. It would simply be shipped
as generated as a RQ, Waste, Self Heating, Solid, Inorganic, n.o.s. 4.2, UN3190, III (K171, DO 18,
D003) which is the proper shipping name for DOT self heating hazardous material that is also a
RCRA reactive hazardous waste that contain benzene.
Current System: At the Pascagoula Refinery, the spent catalyst is dumped and then taken to a
RCRA permitted pad (permitted to handle reactive materials). The catalyst is spread out in piles no
more than 3 feet high and allow to air oxidize and cool. Heavy equipment is sometimes used to
turn the catalyst, as turning the catalyst increases both the oxidation and the cooling after oxidation
is complete. Treating the catalyst on the pad usually eliminates sulfide reactivity and eliminates or
reduces self heating. The permit requires a pad liner, roof, concrete pad, ground water monitoring
wells, and weekly inspections. The pad is covered to protect it from rain. The exposure of
workers who work the catalyst are governed by OSHA requirements (29 CFR 1910.1000), which
requires appropriate personnel protective equipment. Additionally, exposures are monitored using
NIOSH published Sampling and Analytical Methods. Various types of protection are used to
insure that exposures are below PEL limits. The catalyst typically remains on the pad for about 4
weeks.
Discussion: The catalyst would not be deactivated if listed as discussed under the reactor shutdown
section above. It would simply be shipped as generated as a RQ, Waste, Self Heating, Solid,
Inorganic, n.o.s. 4.2, UN3190, III(K171, D018, D003) which is the proper shipping name for DOT
self heating hazardous material that is also a RCRA reactive hazardous waste that contains
benzene. (Chevron, 00014)
Response: EPA has decided to finalize its listing of K.171 and K.172 because they contain mobile
levels of benzene and arsenic. The treatment described by the commenter would remove the
June 29, 1998 IV-39
-------
reactivity characteristic. However, it would not necessarily address the potentially toxic levels of
constituents that have been identified in these wastes. Therefore EPA believes that finalization of
the listing is appropriate. Note that the BOAT standard for these wastes includes deactivation for
reactive sulfides.
Comment Id: Shipping
Consequence if Listed. The higher cost of shipping material as hazardous waste will provide strong
incentives to find local solutions. Typically, this will mean disposal in a local Subtitle C landfill
rather than shipping longer distances to a reclaimer.
Current System: Occasionally the deactivated catalyst will still fail the DOT self heating test. This
is a very stringent test that requires heating to 140°C and monitoring for 24 hours to see if the
temperature rises above 200°C. While this material is not ignitable, it may still require shipments
as a DOT hazardous material due to self heating. The cost for shipping a hazardous material is
about 2/3 of the cost for hazardous waste. Shipment as non-hazardous materials is about 1/3 of
that for hazardous waste. Shipping of a hazardous waste can easily exceed $100/ton ($0.40 per
ton-mile) and is often the largest cost factor in deciding whether to recycle or dispose of the
material. If managed as non-hazardous, the economical management options reach over a much
greater distance.
Discussion: The high cost of hazardous waste transportation typically means a refinery is limited
to management options which are closer to home. As discussed above, the cost of recycling
catalyst from our California refineries is high due in part to it being a California only hazardous
waste. Thus, these materials are treated and disposed in a California hazardous waste TSDF.
The logical consequence of listing is that fewer people can now afford the higher shipping costs to
one of the few reclaimers that exist, and will instead choose to dispose in a local hazardous waste
TSDF. Thus, less catalyst will be reclaimed and more will be disposed. Another consideration is
that at our Pascagoula Refinery, a listing would require us on an annual basis to generate at least
400 more hazardous waste manifests, 400 more Benzene NESHAP shipping notifications, and 400
more LDRs notifications. Since this would increase the hazardous waste shipments and paperwork
burden for preparing these shipments from this facility tenfold, they would have an incentive to use
a nearby TSDF, instead of a Texas metal reclaimer.
Most RCRA permitted TSDFs provide manifests, shipping labels, on site service support, and land
disposal restriction notifications as part of their customer service. Competition between hazardous
waste commercial facilities has caused their customer service departments to increase their level of
service to their customers. This same level of service is not currently available from the major
catalyst metal reclaimers, who are fewer in number than their rival TSDFs, and further distance
away from much of their potential customer base. (Chevron, 00014)
Response: See response to Comment la.
June 29, 1998 IV-40
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION | 1. Report No.
PAGE |
| EPA530-R-99-029b
I
12.
| 3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Petroleum Refining Process Waste Listing Determination Notice of Data Availability (NODA)Response to
Comment Document; Part II
5. Report Date
June 1998
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
US. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
10. ProjecfTask/Work Unit No.
11. Contract © or Grant (G) No.
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Response to Comments Document
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
Responds to public comments concerning clarifications and corrections related to headworks exemption and jurisdictional explanation of off-
specification product and fines from thermal processes used as product. Discusses revised treatment standards for spend catalysts from
hydrotreating (K171) and hydrorefining (K172) under the LDR program. Addresses conditional listings, individual versus population risk,
waste management practices assessed, the boilers and industrial furnaces rule exemption, and implications of listing catalysts.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Opcn-Ended Terms
C.COSATI Field Group
18. Availability Statement
RELEASE UNLIMITED
| 19. Security Class (This Report) | 21. No. of Pages
| UNCLASSIFIED |
I I
| 20. Security Class (This Page) |
| UNCLASSIFIED |
(SeeANSI-Z39.I8)
OPTIONAL, FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
------- |